IFRS17 optimal financial reporting inside 12 weeks roadmap is a roadmap that considers the complexities of people, operations, data sets, systems and business strategy.
Delivering IFRS17 could be likened to Brexit – Accountants (Tories; who have been mandated to deliver change), Actuaries (Europeans; who must agree and provide input to change), and IT (House of Commons; who must sign-off and provide a framework for delivering change). An impartial negotiator who understands deeply the goals/complexities/nuances/limitations of each of the 3 stakeholders above will help to define a unified goal and an innovative design for a complementary solution.
IFRS17 project leads have had to make, and facilitate, many choices in order to clearly articulate a common goal and a supporting roadmap. No easy feat when you consider the different agendas around the table for each stakeholder group and the number of times the project sponsor would have been invited in to realign (yet again) the focus. The clock would still ticking in the background of course.
Those IFRS17 choices would no doubt include:
- Minimal Compliance vs Business Transformation; will the business use IFRS17 to simply maintain status quo or upgrade the back-end as we march into the next decade.
- Plan A is the only way – Target Operating Models and Actual Operating Models are mirror images of the other vs Plan B a few times over will get us there too.
- Resourcing 80% in-house 20% external expertise vs redirecting internal resources – specifically having IT stakeholders, Accounting stakeholders, and Actuarial stakeholders fluent in their communication or trying to communicate as best they can while speaking 3 different languages vs. the 20% that are contracted experts having a mandate to speak fluent IT/Accounting/Actuary.
Resourcing 80% in-house 20% external expertise vs redirecting internal resources – specifically having IT stakeholders, Accounting stakeholders, and Actuarial stakeholders fluent in their communication or trying to communicate as best they can while speaking 3 different languages vs. the 20% that are contracted experts having a mandate to speak fluent IT/Accounting/Actuary.
For businesses planning to be here throughout the next decade, a Business Transformation approach with and for IFRS17 is a noble, innovative and ideal way to proceed.
But we all know what happens to ideal when it is invited into reality…
And yet, this is arguably the first IFRS17 decision to be made. Minimal Compliance and we will kick the can further down the road, thank you. Or, with the IFRS17 ask of introducing a lot of new things to feed into the archaic back-office and admin systems of an Insurance Company, it makes sense to undergo a business transformation process as part of IFRS17.
Business Transformation is inevitable for you and I.
The question is does it make good business sense for us to do it now as part of IFRS17 or will be plan to do this at a later date? A later date will no doubt have you uprooting the band aid fixes (about a thousand excel spreadsheets) done with IFRS17 so it can exist in a world post business transformation (little/no excel spreadsheets).
The question is do you have a project team capable of changing the old world into the new world?
We spoke with half a dozen firms about this question specifically, and the message was clear. Plan A is an agile approach that leverages learnings, experience and clarity of the end game. Our Operating Model will be monitored in real time, and adapt as quickly so the original course we set out on becomes the most efficient route to the end goal.
An agile Plan A assumes you have experience in agile delivery, have committed as a business to a business transformation approach and working with approximately 20% outsourced expertise who speak fluent IT/Accounting/Actuary.
If we were to do a business case for Minimal Compliance and a Plan A that requires several Plan B workarounds knowing Business Transformation is on our horizon, and contrast that with a Business Transformation approach to IFRS17 now, what would the project costs look like?
Resourcing 80% in-house 20% external IT-Accounting-Actuary expertise vs redirecting internal resources and going about it in the absence of IT/Accounting/Actuary fluency.
This almost entirely rests on having 20% of the team fluent in IT-Accounting-Actuary language. IFRS17 will thrive or be flogged into an abyss by the degree of fluency your team members have.
- Business transformation
- Agile delivery
- 20% expertise brought in who are fluent in IT/Actuary language
When committing to these three IFRS17 variables – optimal reporting inside your first 12 weeks is a reality. Not an ideal.