Performance indicators and review prioritization system for risk management

• Main Author: Angeles, Raymond R.
• Format: text
• Published: Animo Repository 2019
• Subjects: Performance standards; Workflow—Management; Business Administration, Management, and Operations
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/6430; https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/context/etd_masteral/article/13480/viewcontent/Angeles_Raymond___Performanee_Indicators_and_Review_Prioriti2_Redacted.pdf
• Institution: De La Salle University

Our team, the Auto Lending Team- Philippines (PH), is under the Risk Services of ABC Corporate Shared Services (CSS), LLC – Philippines that services our mother company, ABC Bank Canada. I am one of the Risk Consultants in Auto Lending Team PH. Our team performs risk management by reviewing the Auto Lending processes in Canada such as Bankruptcy process, Title Release process, Collections process, and other related processes. During our first team meeting for 2019, the team acknowledged the lack of standardized individual performance metrics and realized the need to develop a more objective approach through Individual Performance Monitoring Tool. This intervention provided results but generated more conflict in terms of providing reasonable measurements in a case-to-case basis scenario. Through series of meetings and collaboration regarding individual performance metrics, we eventually gain more agreements and progress by setting the approach into a different perspective. Instead of being too specific with the indicators, we used high-level perspective to identify more generic indicators. The change in perspective of identifying performance indicator eventually arrived to the birth of Cycle 2 known as the Team Performance Monitoring Tool. With the established performance indicator at team-level, we were able to use the same indicators on individual-level. Furthermore, we believe that our profound team performance indicators we will be able to identify the root cause of the problem at hand which is the challenge of shortened review duration with increased number of process reviews. With the data gathered and results provided using our Team Performance Monitoring, we were able to justify the need for extending the review duration from three weeks to five weeks. In September 2019, approximately one month of meeting the deadlines, we failed to meet our deliverables once again. Our team has utilized the results from our individual performance monitoring in order to get meaningful information from erformance Indicators and Review Prioritization System for Risk Management Angeles, R. our data out of it. After we used Ishikawa Diagram, we found out that our main problem which is delay in completing process review is our main problem and all along we are only addressing its causes in our previous cycles. For Cycle 3, we identified that the main problem’s cause is lack of prioritization component of performance indicator. As a result, our team developed a Review Prioritization System which captures the deadline of each process review, the date of file return if clarification or correction is needed, volume of review data (risks, controls, and issues), and list of deliverable assignments per member. These are all factors in determining which process review deliverable to prioritize in order to prevent missed deadlines. The prioritization system has provided the team a better way to determine which process review to prioritize, a justification for deadline extension, and strategic work allocation to each members of the team.