In August 1994, a data audit was initiated to look at the accuracy and appropriateness of the data, identify training needs and consider the usefulness of the system (00780, 00673, 00674). The audit team was led by Paul and involved Jenny, Noah, Keith and Jim (00664). Originally this was going to cover the UK, Holland and America but America was excused because they didn't have the data loaded (00658) and there were other problems with the business (00719).They audited a 10% sample of every underwriter comparing the manual records with the information in the system (01067). The audit began at the end of August 1994 (01068) and was completed with the draft report sent to the directors by mid October 1994 (00753).
In October 1994, the audit found that 'the input showed a lack of accuracy and attention to detail by both Underwriters and Underwriting Services' (01016). Although no official comparison between Holland and the UK was published they seem to have fared similarly (00081). In particular, although Holland were close to getting all the data in, the accuracy was poorer than people had thought (00080). In Jenny's view there was a 40% error ratio revealed by the audit (00826). Issues leading to inaccuracies were discussed with underwriters in Holland immediately following the audit (00837).
In January 1995, Keith finally got Multinational Underwriting senior management to give a short talk to the underwriters stressing the importance of data quality following the results of the data audit (00838).
© Clare Tagg 2000