1.
Page 1 of 7
be as efficiently written as
Traditionally, an organisation’s external reporting is written by a communications or public
relations team. Think of publications like annual reports, media releases, advertising and
newsletters. And these documents are usually efficient to read. There are two reasons for
these documents being efficient to read.
1. They are mostly created by experienced specialists.
2. The writers work to a writing style guide.
But internal reporting like email, memos, reports and proposals, is not usually put together
by experienced writers, and many organisations do not have a writing style guide. Gone are
the days of legendary typing pools, when you’d simply send your document to be expertly
produced in line with the organisation’s format, tone and appropriate content. What a
luxury that would have been!
Now, everyone is expected to produce professional looking documents only relying on the
computer’s spell checker and grammar checker. But where do you learn the why and how to
adjust content and language? Those needs are certainly not in school programs nor in most
tertiary degrees. So, writers usually look at what was written by others in the organisation
and blindly follow precedent. The why and how to efficient workplace writing should be
taught during an employee’s induction period and regularly monitored. And, working with
your organisation’s writing style guide, there are compelling reasons to do so.
Why should
Internal
REPORTing
EXTERNAL REPORTing?

2.
Page 2 of 7
1. Writers will be able to talk the same editing language to adjust documents,
especially when working in teams.
2. Writers will spend less time changing text and that will make them more
confident and competent.
3. Managers will spend less time checking team members’ writing and allow
them to get on with managing.
4. The organisation will also save time and money, since an efficient writer
spends less time creating documents and the person who checks the document
spends less time because there are fewer changes needed.
5. An efficiently written document circulated within an organisation will be
understood quickly. And this means actions and decisions will occur faster.
Now, here’s a typical internal report. Why do you
think it is an inefficient read?

3.
Page 3 of 7
Overview
Currently the Complaints Handling Procedures across Short Tail Claims has received some
focus of late given the amount of recent change to both system and process. This review is
aimed at providing a level of assurance to the business that we are meeting our obligations
and to highlight where there may be opportunities for improvement where the level of
assurance is not adequate. Outlined below are the key findings and recommendations.
Claims & Assessing Process (CAP) documentation – Complaint handling procedures are well
documented in CAP with the majority of content being accurate and up to date. It was
identified that information on complaints handling procedures was stored under different
work procedure modules in CAP making it difficult and cumbersome to locate process
documentation. Some content was out of date, inaccurate and in some cases unclear.
Certain topics made reference to our obligations under due process and articulated which
sections these work procedures related to but this was inconsistent.
Some minor improvements are recommended, these are:
o Consolidate all information relating to complaints handling procedures into
one module and stored under the `Work Support’ procedures module in CAP.
o Define which sections of due process that each of the documented
complaints handling process applies to.
o Update out of date and inaccurate content.
Standardised letters with detailed complaints handling procedures – Complaints handling
procedures documented on the claim denial and financial hardship standard letters does
not meet the requirements of the code. It is recommended that the standard letters for
denials and financial hardship be adjusted accordingly and appropriate communication be
made to the network on these changes.
It was also identified that the Level 1 decision letter recently introduced as part of the
OP185 ASDX requirements is not adequate for when a decision is made in favour of our
insured. It is proposed that a new standard letter be drafted that would be more
appropriate to use in these situations.
Customer Exercise Database (CED) – Automated email notifications used to assist with
managing our complaints within the required time frames had failed. It was only identified
as part of this review that this functionality was not working as intended and had failed for
approximately 3 – 4 weeks. Immediate action was taken to ensure this was resolved and
communication of this finding was made to the Risk and Compliance Manager as well as the
Managers in STA.
Automated system flags for complaints that require a mandatory letter to be sent for
certain complaints do not appear to be working as per system requirements. Complaints
that are in relation to the value of a claim are not automatically flagged. After consultation
with the CED System Administrator in Customer Relations it was
identified that this is a relatively simple fix to the database. It is recommended a review be
completed on the complaint types to be automatically flagged in CED.

4.
Page 4 of 7
Compliance certification records – There are currently no checks in place to review the
certification records. It is up to individual managers to check the Complete records for their
employees to make sure all compliance training has been completed at ‘On Boarding’. A
review of the certification records indicated 65 employees in SAA do not have up to date
training records in Complete.
Overall there appears to be a lack of understanding on the complaints handling process with
confusion surrounding when a written reply is required to disputes, timeframe
requirements and the process to follow at certain stages of a complaint. Recent online
training may not have been adequate for such a large change and it’s evident that staff are
finding it difficult to retain information or to locate the appropriate information for support.
Given this is consistent across the network it is recommended that a facilitated information
session be rolled out across all of SAA’s on the end to end process for managing complaints
together with a comprehensive user guide that has all of the guidelines on complaint
handling procedures.
Here’s the same report content, yet
40% more efficient to read because it
has 40% fewer words!

5.
Page 5 of 7
Overview
The Complaints Handling Procedures for Short Tail Claims has been in focus due to the
recent change to system and process. This review assures the business that we are meeting
our obligations. It also points to possibly improving assurance with these findings and
recommendations.
Claims and Assessing Process (CAP)
CAP is mostly accurate and up to date on complaint handling procedures, yet information
was stored under different work procedure modules, making it difficult to find details. Some
content was out of date, inaccurate and in some cases unclear. Certain topics referred to
our obligations under due process, showing which sections matched procedures, but this
was inconsistent. We recommend:
o all complaints handling procedures be in one module under `Work Support’
procedures in CAP
o defining which sections of due process, documented complaints handling
applies to
o updating out of date and inaccurate content.
Standardised letters with detailed complaints handling procedures
Complaints handling procedures on the claim denial and financial hardship standard letters
do not meet the code’s needs. We recommend adjusting the standard letters for denials
and financial hardship and informing the network. Also, the Level 1 decision letter (part of
OP185 ASDX requirements) is not adequate for deciding in favour of our insured. We
recommend a new standard letter.
Customer Exercise Database (CED)
Automated email notifications for managing complaints on time failed for 3-4 weeks. We
resolved this and told the Risk and Compliance Manager and STA Managers.
Automated system flags for complaints needing a mandatory letter are not working well.
Complaints on the value of a claim are not automatically flagged. After consulting the
Customer Relations CED System Administrator, it was a simple database fix, but we
recommend reviewing the complaint types for CED automatic flagging.
Compliance certification records
There are no checks to review certification and managers have to check Complete for their
employees, ensuring all compliance training is done at ‘On Boarding’. Reviewing certification
records found 65 SAA people without current Complete training records. Staff are confused
about when a written reply is needed for disputes, timeframes and the stages of a
complaint. Recent online training may not have been adequate and it’s clear that staff are
finding it difficult to save information or find support details. This is consistent across the
network and we recommend information sessions for all SAAs on managing complaints, and
a user guide on complaint handling.

6.
Page 6 of 7
We applied the skills an AROSA one day workshop teaches–how to recognise and apply
what we call Chop and Change checking. It’s a superior and easy way to take charge of your
own workplace writing. And here’s what we did.
Overview
Currently the Complaints Handling Procedures across Short Tail Claims has received some
focus of late given the amount of recent change to both system and process. This review is
aimed at providing a level of assurance to the business that we are meeting our obligations
and to highlight where there may be opportunities for improvement where the level of
assurance is not adequate. Outlined below are the key findings and recommendations.
Claims & Assessing Process (CAP) documentation – Complaint handling procedures are well
documented in CAP with the majority of content being accurate and up to date. It was
identified that information on complaints handling procedures was stored under different
work procedure modules in CAP making it difficult and cumbersome to locate process
documentation. Some content was out of date, inaccurate and in some cases unclear.
Certain topics made reference to our obligations under due process and articulated which
sections these work procedures related to but this was inconsistent.
Some minor improvements are recommended, these are:
o Consolidate all information relating to complaints handling procedures into
one module and stored under the `Work Support’ procedures module in CAP.
o Define which sections of due process that each of the documented
complaints handling process applies to.
o Update out of date and inaccurate content.
Standardised letters with detailed complaints handling procedures – Complaints handling
procedures documented on the claim denial and financial hardship standard letters does
not meet the requirements of the code. It is recommended that the standard letters for
denials and financial hardship be adjusted accordingly and appropriate communication be
made to the network on these changes.
It was also identified that the Level 1 decision letter recently introduced as part of the
OP185 ASDX requirements is not adequate for when a decision is made in favour of our
insured. It is proposed that a new standard letter be drafted that would be more
appropriate to use in these situations.
CHOP CHANGE
How did you do that?

7.
Page 7 of 7
Customer Exercise Database (CED) – Automated email notifications used to assist with
managing our complaints within the required time frames had failed. It was only identified
as part of this review that this functionality was not working as intended and had failed for
approximately 3 – 4 weeks. Immediate action was taken to ensure this was resolved and
communication of this finding was made to the Risk and Compliance Manager as well as the
Managers in STA.
Automated system flags for complaints that require a mandatory letter to be sent for
certain complaints do not appear to be working as per system requirements. Complaints
that are in relation to the value of a claim are not automatically flagged. After consultation
with the CED System Administrator in Customer Relations it was
identified that this is a relatively simple fix to the database. It is recommended a review be
completed on the complaint types to be automatically flagged in CED.
Compliance certification records – There are currently no checks in place to review the
certification records. It is up to individual managers to check the Complete records for their
employees to make sure all compliance training has been completed at ‘On Boarding’. A
review of the certification records indicated 65 employees in SAA do not have up to date
training records in Complete.
Overall there appears to be a lack of understanding on the complaints handling process with
confusion surrounding when a written reply is required to disputes, timeframe
requirements and the process to follow at certain stages of a complaint. Recent online
training may not have been adequate for such a large change and it’s evident that staff are
finding it difficult to retain information or to locate the appropriate information for support.
Given this is consistent across the network it is recommended that a facilitated information
session be rolled out across all of SAA’s on the end to end process for managing complaints
together with a comprehensive user guide that has all of the guidelines on complaint
handling procedures.
Contact AROSA today to discuss how
we can make your workplace writing
more efficient: www.arosact.biz