The original plan in the UK for getting the data in and correct was that data would be converted from the Q&A system and then corrected by the underwriter when the policy came up for renewal. Theoretically, a year after the system went live the data would all be correct. The deadline for having the data correct was put back two months because of the problems with phase II (00654). Then the deadline was put back a further four months to the end of the year. When I last visited the users, the deadline had been put back a further three months but there was no real belief that this deadline was going to be any more effective than earlier deadlines (00826, 00942, 00843). Up until this point, all those involved seemed to have a positive attitude that each deadline would be met for the UK and Holland (00329, 00341, 00535). Throughout there had been a feeling that the data quality in Holland was better than in the UK but the audit revealed that there also problems in Holland (00080).Apart from problems with the original conversions of data, there were problems with underwriters not being clear on the use of fields and the need for system usage to adapt as the business changed (00840). There were also some cases where underwriters just entered any data (00826, 00080). The users saw the problems with the system as the main reason why the data was not updated (00687), while the developers blamed the attitude of the underwriters to their data (00341, 00072).
In considering the problems of data entry it is important to consider the relatively small amount of data: a year into the system there were only 822 programmes on the system (514 in UK, 159 in Holland and 149 in the USA) although these programmes did account for nearly 9000 policies (00793).
Social influence: |
|
Technical influence: |
System characteristics: Data |
![]() |
Commentary |
![]() |
Social influence |
||
![]() |
Technical influence |
![]() |
© Clare Tagg 2000