Paraplanners may have become a vital part of the financial planning team, but how do firms assess the quality of their work to ensure that they’re meeting their responsibilities and contributing to the goals of the business, particularly given that every client case is different and requires a different amount of time? This was the question posed by Professional Paraplanner’s latest Parameters Survey.
The findings showed that most firms prefer to operate a checking system, where reports are looked at by a third party to ensure they’re meeting the level of quality expected. Among those firms who take this approach, several rely on an operations director or compliance to check for quality and consistency, with one paraplanner stating that their firm had “internal and external compliance checks, internal audits and monthly MI.”
This was reflected in other responces “We have regular third party compliance post sale checks, third party compliance pre-sale checks for certain business, internal monthly compliance checks and peer reviews where necessary.”
Similarly, a large number of paraplanners said advisers are normally on hand to check the quality of their work and there is an understanding among advisers and paraplanners that different cases will require different levels of output.
“All of the reports and research gets passed to the adviser to check and understand before being sent to the client. It’s well known that a pension switch will take longer to write in comparison to a new ISA,” one paraplanner explained.
Another added: “Adviser feedback is the most useful metric.”
The findings of the survey also revealed that some firms believe working collaboratively as a team can help ensure quality and output is in line with expectations.
One paraplanner explained that their firm has adopted a system of “regular buddy checking to raise standards and introduce new ideas.”
Another respondent explained: “We have a peer review system where necessary, with continuous review and checking to ensure the quality and time spent is monitored.”
It was a sentiment echoed by a fellow respondent, who said the team has “peer reviews and regular compliance checks. Lots of help from more experienced paraplanners and team leaders.”
Meanwhile, one paraplanner told Professional Paraplanner that they prioritise cases depending on urgency.
“I always ask how urgent each case is, so anything with a deadline is prioritised and if ‘less important’ cases are then likely to be delayed, this is made clear and a slightly longer timescale agreed,” they explained. “I generally work to a 5-day turnaround as a standard, irrespective of case type.”
While the nature of financial advice means that each client case may be different, paraplanners pointed out that there are similarities that they can draw upon when working on client reports to help ensure that output remains high. And for many firms, the use of templates for different scenarios can help ensure that quality and output are consistent.
However, the survey also found that several advice firms feel that adopting a more rigid system that uses metrics is the best way to measure quality and output.
One paraplanner told Professional Paraplanner they are amazed by “how few in-house paraplanners record their time”, noting it is the only effective way to measure productivity and efficiency in a business.
They added: “I think too often it’s seen as a negative ‘Big Brother’ tool but it’s the best way to manage productivity, work loads and get really good quality MI about how long things should take and therefore how profitable they are.”
Other firms have chosen to use a point system depending on the complexity of cases.
“All reports are logged on a central system and monitored by a central team. Paraplanner points are awarded to cases, ranging from 1 for basic to 5 for extremely complex,” one respondent said.
A similar approach was adopted by another paraplanner, who said the firm works on a point system “with work being ranked depending on complexity and general time expected to be spent on it.”
Another respondent added: “Case types are given a point value and paraplanners are expected to achieve a targeted umber of points per week, with points corresponding to expected hours worked on each case. Case loads are managed as a team through a weekly team meeting.”
