Using Digital To Address The Mental Health ‘Silent Epidemic’

Digital tools and platforms are a natural fit for overcoming the top barriers to getting mental healthcare: accessibility, cost and social stigma, says Emily Thayer, a Senior Consultant within Cognizant Consulting’s Healthcare Practice.

Untreated mental health conditions have long been a top healthcare concern. In 2019, fewer than half of Americans with a diagnosed mental illness received treatment for that condition, according to the US National Institute of Mental Health.

Not only is untreated mental illness detrimental to patients’ health — it’s also a strain on national healthcare costs. In fact, mental health disorders cost the US economy an estimated $4.6 billion per year in unnecessary ER visits and $300 billion in lost workplace productivity, making mental health disorders among the most costly untreated conditions in the US.

The pandemic has only accelerated the need for care — according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study, over 40% of US adults reported symptoms of anxiety or depression in January 2021, compared with 11% in the first six months of 2019. Given the well-documented therapist shortages that have resulted, the concern of connecting patients with care has only grown more acute.

It’s no wonder, then, that interest and investment are growing in digitally oriented mental healthcare, from platforms that match therapists with patients, to chatbots, to online cognitive behavioral therapy tools. Although emerging digital solutions are nascent and will inevitably encounter friction, virtual remedies show great promise in lowering the barriers that both practitioners and patients face.

Consider how digital tools can address the top three factors that have historically kept patients from seeking mental health care: accessibility, cost and social stigma.

Improving accessibility to mental health treatment

As of May 2021, over 125 million Americans live in a behavioral or mental health professional shortage area. This gap will continue to widen as the pandemic exacerbates the therapist shortage.

To expand accessibility to behavioral health services, companies like Quartet and Talkspace are using telehealth platforms to connect patients and therapists. By leveraging clinical algorithms, these platforms identify available therapists based on the patient’s symptoms, state of residence (due to cross-state licensing restrictions), insurance carrier, preferred mode of communication (synchronous video or audio and asynchronous text messaging) and desired appointment cadence.

In other words, if you have a connected device, you can receive on-demand care for your behavioral health condition. Digital accessibility also addresses physician shortages and burnout on a national scale.

As these entities are still relatively new to the market, challenges and questions remain, such as the fundamental disconnect between virtual treatment and physician intervention in a clinical setting. As patient adoption grows, enough accurate data will be generated to prompt when physician intervention is necessary.

Additionally, these telehealth platforms are more geared toward mild cases, as these services do not replace the necessary stages of the care continuum that may be needed for more serious mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Lowering behavioral healthcare costs

An estimated 47% of US adults with an untreated behavioral or mental health illness do not seek treatment due to high costs.

Many entities in the private and public sectors are turning to virtual services to help patients better afford behavioral and mental health services. For instance, traditional in-person therapy ranges from $64 to $250 per hour, depending on patient insurance, whereas digital solutions can cost under $32 per hour.

Accordingly, many workplaces are incorporating digital solutions into their employee-sponsored health plans through health platforms like Ginger, which offers 24×7 access to behavioral health coaches via asynchronous texting for low-acuity conditions like anxiety and depression.

Recent moves by the federal government further bolster the effort to make behavioral healthcare affordable. In addition to the US Department of Health and Human Services announcing an additional $3 billion in funding to address pandemic-related behavioral and mental health issues, the Biden administration has signaled commitment to expanding access to telehealth services for underserved communities. Such efforts will need to be combined with further work in the private sector to ensure mental healthcare affordability through virtual means.

Overcoming negative social stigma

Perceived social stigma is an additional barrier for many people seeking mental health treatment. In a study of patients with schizophrenia, 86% of respondents reported concealing their illness due to fears of prejudice or discrimination.

To circumvent these challenges, some mental health providers have embraced artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots and online cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) tools. Although chatting with a bot may seem counterintuitive to the “high-touch” nature of the healthcare industry, the anonymity of this approach can ease patient anxiety about opening up to another potentially judgmental human.

In a randomized control trial with a conversational agent that delivers CBT treatment, patients reported a 22% reduction in depression and anxiety within the first two weeks. This study shows promise for the effectiveness of chatbot-based therapy, particularly for younger generations, many of whom already share many intimate details of their lives on digital forums and hence have a higher level of acceptance of these tools. Older generations may view the adoption of this new behavioral care model with more incredulity and hesitancy.

A virtual future for behavioral healthcare

It is clear that the virtual care industry is poised for future growth, as there is a clear correlation between our understanding of behavioral healthcare challenges and the evolution of treatment modalities to bridge those gaps.

While digital services may not be a cure-all remedy for behavioral health, they certainly offer a promising long-term solution to one of the country’s most prominent and costly diseases.

To learn more, visit our Healthcare solutions section or contact us.

Emily Thayer is a Senior Consultant within Cognizant Consulting’s Healthcare Practice, who specializes in driving digital transformation. Emily has a proven track record in both the private and public sectors, most notably in health plan strategy and operations, business development and project management. Emily earned her bachelor’s degree in business management and psychology from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and University of Oxford, and an MBA from Washington University in St. Louis. She can be reached at Emily.Thayer@cognizant.com

Source: Using Digital To Address The Mental Health ‘Silent Epidemic’

.

Related Contents:

How To Build Digital Tools That Health Plan Members Will Use

According to recent Cognizant-sponsored research, to boost digital usage and member loyalty, healthcare payers need to prioritize investments in analytics, awareness, strategy and design, say Bill Shea and Jagan Ramachandran, leaders in Cognizant’s Healthcare practice.  

From our perspective, these lagging adoption rates are a result of payers underinvesting in awareness campaigns, analytics, strategy and design. Here are the steps payers can take to address these critical components of successful digital adoption.

1. Aggressively promote awareness of digital capabilities.

Our research over the last six years has shown increasing enthusiasm among members for conducting health plan transactions digitally. Yet even when health plans build desired digital features, members don’t use them. Our current survey shows that in 2020, when telehealth use was growing by 24%, 39% of plan members used telehealth capabilities — but from third-party service providers, not their health plans. At least one reason why is that 40% of members said they didn’t know their plans offered a telehealth option.

Payers must close these awareness gaps. Many do a poor job of promoting the tools they have and/or bury them several layers deep on their websites and don’t push them out to members when/where they need them most.

While payers often tell us, members don’t interact with them frequently enough to learn about their digital capabilities, the experience in the property and casualty insurance industry negates that excuse. The average consumer has far fewer property and auto claims in a year than they do healthcare claims. Yet P&C insurers enjoy much higher digital adoption rates than healthcare payers do, according to our research.

Why? P&C companies continually promote their apps and digital capabilities in their advertisements, websites, social feeds, etc. While they may use the apps infrequently, P&C customers do download them. Health insurers should similarly tout their digital capabilities in their marketing campaigns.

2. Make foundational investments in analytics.

Payers won’t get the value they expect from digital initiatives without strong analytics. Analytics and intelligence are prerequisites to anticipating member needs and prompting them to use a digital feature or other next best action in an app or on a website.

Analytics are also invaluable for learning about member needs. For example, most payers view call center deflection as a win. Analytics can help achieve that goal by learning from data about why and when members call for help so that payers can anticipate and proactively address those issues. If the data shows nine out of 10 members contacting the call center for updated deductible data after an emergency department visit, that function can be built into an app or website and advertised.

3. Adopt business-led strategy and design for each digital initiative.

Consumers today expect great digital experiences that payer tools don’t seem to deliver. However, health plan members reported unsatisfying experiences with payer tools, even when these tools offer self-service and other functions, they want most, such as provider search and cost estimation.

To avoid delivering disappointing member experiences, payers need to ensure the business, not IT, is leading these initiatives. In turn, the business must lead with in-depth strategy and design activities to ensure the digital capability meets actual member needs while creating business value.

Whereas business-led digital development follows a rigorous methodology that includes creating personas and journey maps and using outside-in analysis for examples of how other industries deliver similar solutions, IT-led development often starts with technology selection, and then fits processes to the technology’s capabilities. The business-led approach fully scopes out member needs first. These needs then drive the technology architecture design and technology selections so that the technology serves the business vision vs. defining it.

A large health plan we worked with took this approach to create new experiences for how brokers interact with members. We developed and designed personas, user journeys and eight future-state business processes before developing technology requirements.

4. Change funding mechanisms.

It’s accepted practice today to spend heavily on implementation while strategy and design efforts receive limited funds despite being prerequisites to successful outcomes. One organization we worked with was trying to build an industry-leading artificial intelligence model but lacked adequate budget to estimate ROI. Organizations must reallocate more budget to strategy and design efforts.

Advances in platform solutions that minimize customization needs support this funding shift. Organizations also must redefine how they identify OpEx and CapEx spend because many strategy and design efforts (e.g., journey maps, process models, business architecture, etc.) are critical to building required future capabilities and may be capitalized.

Our study revealed a number of immediate investment priorities for payers, including tools for estimating procedure costs, looking up benefits, searching for providers, finding plan options, reviews and features, checking on claims status, and calculating out-of-pocket expenses. But to realize high adoption and commensurate returns, payers must build these capabilities on a foundation of analytics and business-led strategy and design, followed by strong awareness campaigns.

By taking this approach, payers will set the stage for future member interactions that are more relational vs. transactional, such as health coaching, which will build loyalty and market share.

For more, read our report “Health Consumers Want Digital; It’s Time for Health Plans to Deliver,” produced in partnership with HFS Research.

Jagan Ramachandran is an Assistant Vice President and Partner in Cognizant’s Healthcare advisory practice. He leads Cognizant’s stakeholder experience management service line with over 20 years of experience at the intersection of healthcare business and technology. Jagan has executed a wide range of management consulting projects in the health plans space in the areas of digital strategy, member experience, broker experience, provider experience, establishing new lines of business, platform selection, M&A, and automation advisory. Jagan is a speaker on emerging trends in healthcare in several industry forums. He can be reached at Jagan.Ramachandran@cognizant.com

William “Bill” Shea is a Vice-President within Cognizant Consulting’s Healthcare Practice. He has over 20 years of experience in management consulting, practice development and project management in the health industry across the payer, purchaser and provider markets. Bill has significant experience in health plan strategy and operations in the areas of digital transformation, integrated health management and product development. Bill can be reached at William.Shea@cognizant.com

Source: How To Build Digital Tools That Health Plan Members Will Use

.

Related Contents:

The World’s Newest Call Center Billionaire

Meet the world’s newest call center billionaire. Laurent Junique is quite the globe-trotter: He’s a French citizen, his company is based in Singapore and he just listed that company, TDCX Inc., on the New York Stock Exchange last week.

Junique, TDCX’s 55-year-old founder and CEO, also just joined the billionaire ranks: Junique’s 87% stake in the firm is now worth $3 billion, thanks to a 34% rise in TDCX shares since the IPO on October 1—an offering that raised nearly $350 million for the company.

Started in 1995 in Singapore as Teledirect, an outsourced call center that handled calls, emails and faxes for a variety of clients, the company rebranded as TDCX in 2019 to reflect its expansion into a range of services including content moderation, marketing and e-commerce support. (CX is short for “customer experience” in the customer service industry.)

TDCX reported a $64 million net profit on $323 million sales in 2020, an improvement from the $54 million profit and $242 million in revenues it recorded in 2019. That growth came in part due to greater use of the services that TDCX offers, including tools that help companies improve the performance of employees working from home. Still, TDCX is highly dependent on two clients—Facebook and Airbnb—which collectively accounted for 62% of sales in 2020.

“Our successful listing reflects the world-class company that we have built and our position as the go-to partner for transformative digital customer experience services,” Junique said in a statement on the day of the IPO. “We are grateful for the support of our clients, many of whom are global technology companies that are fuelling the growth of the digital economy.”

Junique is the second call center billionaire that Forbes has tracked. The first, Kenneth Tuchman, founded Englewood, Colorado-based TTEC Holdings (formerly called TeleTech), in 1982; at nearly $2 billion, the firm had about six times the revenues of TDCX last year. Tuchman first became a billionaire in 2007. Several Indian billionaires, including HCL Technologies cofounder Shiv Nadar and Wipro’s former chairman Azim Premji, offer call centers as some of the services their firms provide.

Junique will maintain an iron grip on TDCX as a public company, controlling all of the firm’s Class B shares, which make up more than 86% of the firm’s equity and represent 98.5% of voting power. He owns those shares through Transformative Investments Pte Ltd, a company based in the Cayman Islands that is entirely owned—according to public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission—by a trust established for the benefit of Junique and his family. While its headquarters are in Singapore, TDCX has also been incorporated in the Cayman Islands since April 2020; prior to the IPO, the firm was controlled by Junique through a Caymans-based holding company. A spokesperson for TDCX declined to comment.

Before launching TDCX as a 29-year-old in 1995, the French native cut his teeth studying advertising at the École Supérieure de Publicité in Paris and business administration at the nearby École Supérieure Internationale d’Administration des Entreprises, graduating in 1989. After a two-year stint at consumer goods giant Unilever, Junique—who had reportedly been cooking up business ideas since he was a child, including a glass recycling proposal he came up with at age 13—decided he wanted a more international career, but struggled to find a gig as a young graduate with little experience.

Armed with a suitcase and just enough cash to get by, he decamped to Singapore in 1995 to try his luck on the other side of the planet. Singapore offered a strategic location as a modern, English-speaking city at the heart of fast-growing Southeast Asia, and Junique started a call center called Teledirect aimed at businesses looking to cut costs and outsource customer service. Soon enough, Junique scored the firm’s first big client, an American credit card firm based in Singapore.

Two years later, in 1997, Junique sold a 40% stake in Teledirect to London-based advertising giant WPP for an undisclosed amount. Since then, TDCX expanded beyond call centers and now has offices in 11 countries across three continents, including locations in China, Japan and India. In 2018, Junique bought back WPP’s 40% stake in the call center business for about $28 million. Three years of growth later, the company now has a market capitalization of $3.5 billion.

With 2020 marking a record year for TDCX, Junique is hoping that the Covid-induced transition away from offices has made the firm’s products more necessary for its clients. “As consumers live more and more of their lives online, the expectation for things to be done simply, conveniently and on-demand will only increase,” Junique said in a statement.

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Send me a secure tip.

I’m a Staff Writer on the Wealth team at Forbes, covering billionaires and their wealth. My reporting has led me to an S&P 500 tech firm in the plains of Oklahoma; a

Source: The World’s Newest Call Center Billionaire

.
Related Contents:

“BBC Three – The Call Centre, Series 1”. Bbc.co.uk. 2013-12-10. Retrieved 2017-12-10.

Corporate Taxes Poised to Rise After 136-Country Deal

 
1

Nearly 140 countries agreed Friday to the most sweeping overhaul of global tax rules in a century, a move that aims to curtail tax avoidance by multinational corporations and raise additional tax revenue of as much as $150 billion annually.

But the accord, which is a decade in the making, now must be implemented by the signatories, a path that is likely to be far from smooth, including in a closely divided U.S. Congress.

The reform sets out a global minimum corporate tax of 15%, targeted at preventing companies from exploiting low-tax jurisdictions.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the floor set by the global minimum tax was a victory for the U.S. and its ability to raise money from companies. She urged Congress to move swiftly to enact the international tax proposals it has been debating, which would help pay for extending the expanded child tax credit and climate-change initiatives, among other policies.

“International tax policy making is a complex issue, but the arcane language of today’s agreement belies how simple and sweeping the stakes are: when this deal is enacted, Americans will find the global economy a much easier place to land a job, earn a living, or scale a business,” Ms. Yellen said.

The agreement among 136 countries also seeks to address the challenges posed by companies, particularly technology giants, that register the intellectual property that drives their profits anywhere in the world. As a result, many of those countries established operations in low-tax countries such as Ireland to reduce their tax bills.

The final deal gained the backing of Ireland, Estonia and Hungary, three members of the European Union that withheld their support for a preliminary agreement in July. But Nigeria, Kenya, Sri Lanka and Pakistan continued to reject the deal.

The new agreement, if implemented, would divide existing tax revenues in a way that favors countries where customers are based. The biggest countries, as well as the low-tax jurisdictions, must implement the agreement in order for it to meaningfully reduce tax avoidance.

Overall, the OECD estimates the new rules could give governments around the world additional revenue of $150 billion annually.

The final deal is expected to receive the backing of leaders from the Group of 20 leading economies when they meet in Rome at the end of this month. Thereafter, the signatories will have to change their national laws and amend international treaties to put the overhaul into practice.

The signatories set 2023 as a target for implementation, which tax experts said was an ambitious goal. And while the agreement would likely survive the failure of a small economy to pass new laws, it would be greatly weakened if a large economy—such as the U.S.—were to fail.

“We are all relying on all the bigger countries being able to move at roughly the same pace together,” said Irish Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe. “Were any big economy not to find itself in a position to implement the agreement,  that would matter for the other countries. But that might not become apparent for a while.”

 

Congress’ work on the deal will be divided into two phases. The first, this year, will be to change the minimum tax on U.S. companies’ foreign income that the U.S. approved in 2017. To comply with the agreement, Democrats intend to raise the rate—the House plan calls for 16.6%—and implement it on a country-by-country basis. Democrats can advance this on their own and they are trying to do so as part of President Biden’s broader policy agenda.

The second phase will be trickier, and the timing is less certain. That is where the U.S. would have to agree to the international deal changing the rules for where income is taxed. Many analysts say that would require a treaty, which would need a two-thirds vote in the Senate and thus some support from Republicans. Ms. Yellen has been more circumspect about the schedule and procedural details of the second phase.

Friction between European countries and the U.S. over the taxation of U.S. tech giants has threatened to trigger a trade war.

In long-running talks about new international tax rules, European officials have argued U.S. tech giants should pay more tax in Europe, and they fought for a system that would reallocate taxing rights on some digital products from countries where the product is produced to where it is consumed.

The U.S., however, resisted. A number of European governments introduced their own taxes on digital services. The U.S. then threatened to respond with new tariffs on imports from Europe.

The compromise was to reallocate taxing rights on all big companies that are above a certain profit threshold.

Under the agreement reached Friday, governments pledged not to introduce any new levies and said they would ultimately withdraw any that are in place. But the timetable for doing that has yet to be settled through bilateral discussions between the U.S. and those countries that have introduced the new levies.

Even though they will likely have to pay more tax after the overhaul, technology companies have long backed efforts to secure an international agreement, which they see as a way to avoid a chaotic network of national levies that threatened to tax the same profit multiple times.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Do you agree with the global minimum tax on corporations? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which has been guiding the tax talks, estimates that some $125 billion in existing tax revenues would be divided among countries in a new way.

Those new rules would be applied to companies with global turnover of €20 billion (about $23 billion) or more, and with a profit margin of 10% or more. That group is likely to include around 100 companies. Governments have agreed to reallocate the taxing rights to a quarter of the profits of each of those companies above 10%.

The agreement announced Friday specifies that its revenue and profitability thresholds for reallocating taxing rights could also apply to a part of a larger company if that segment is reported in its financial accounts. Such a provision would apply to Amazon.com Inc.’s cloud division, Amazon Web Services, even though Amazon as a whole isn’t profitable enough to qualify because of its low-margin e-commerce business.

The other part of the agreement sets a minimum tax rate of 15% on the profits made by large companies. Smaller companies, with revenues of less than $750 million, are exempted because they don’t typically have international operations and can’t therefore take advantage of the loopholes that big multinational companies have benefited from.

Low-tax countries such as Ireland will see an overall decline in revenues. Developing countries are least happy with the final deal, having pushed for both a higher minimum tax rate and the reallocation of a greater share of the profits of the largest companies.

 
.
 
 
 
 

quintex-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1Related Contents:

 

 

 
 
 
 

Bank Mergers Are On Track to Hit Their Highest Level Since the Financial Crisis

It took less than three months for a deal to be reached between Columbia Banking System and the smaller Bank of Commerce Holdings. Banks are on pace this year to merge at a level not seen since the 2008 financial crisis. It is a sharp turnaround from last year, when the economy spiraled and many regional and community banks put merger plans on the shelf. Now, bank executives are feeling more certain about what the future holds, but some are finding it hard to make it on their own. Though the economy has in many ways recovered from 2020, loan demand is still low and profits from lending are slim.

Banks have announced more than $54 billion in deals through late September, according to Dealogic. That puts industry mergers and acquisitions on pace for their biggest year since 2008, when some big banks had to sell themselves to stave off collapse. At this time last year, banks had announced just $17 billion in mergers.

Banks typically spend weeks or months turning a potential target’s loan book upside down, searching for risky loans or other red flags, before agreeing to acquire it. But the Covid-19 pandemic muddied that process. For months, lenders struggled to assess the creditworthiness of their own customers, much less those of their competitors.

“Neither potential sellers nor buyers really wanted to do a transaction last year because of the uncertainty that could be on folks’ balance sheets,” said Kevin Riley, chief executive of First Interstate BancSystem Inc. FIBK -0.17% in Billings, Mont.

But the expected wave of loan defaults never materialized, and by the end of last year, serious merger conversations resumed, according to executives and regulatory filings. This month, First Interstate FIBK -0.17% agreed to buy regional lender Great Western Bancorp Inc. in a deal that will boost its assets to more than $32 billion.

“[Banks] are no longer fearful of the bottom falling out,” said Nathan Stovall, an analyst at S&P Global Market Intelligence. “They are no longer looking at a deal like trying to catch a falling knife.”2019 was also a big year for bank mergers, but more of the major regionals are in play this year. So while there are fewer deals this year than at this point in 2019, the overall value is higher than it was two years ago.

Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp last week said it plans to buy MUFG Union Bank’s core retail-banking operations, boosting its presence on the West Coast. Another major regional, Citizens Financial Group Inc., said in July that it plans to buy Investors Bancorp Inc. Investors Bank had shelved merger talks with another bank when the pandemic hit in 2020, according to regulatory filings.

The Federal Reserve cut interest rates to near zero when the pandemic hit, and low rates have made it more difficult for banks to profit from their bread-and-butter business of lending. The average net interest margin, a measure of lending profitability, reached a record low of 2.5% in the second quarter, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Smaller banks have also struggled to compete with the high-end digital offerings and technology of the megabanks.

Sacramento, Calif.-based Bank of Commerce Holdings began courting potential merger partners in the spring of 2021. The board and management of the $1.9-billion-assets bank had for years considered different options to overcome ever-narrowing industry margins, including being acquired by a larger bank, CEO Randy Eslick said. It took less than three months to iron out a deal with $18 billion Columbia Banking System Inc. of Tacoma, Wash.

The deal was announced in June, and the combined bank will have the resources to invest in technology and other areas—trust departments, wealth management, specialty lending—that the smaller Bank of Commerce wouldn’t have been able to fund on its own.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What impact will the boom in bank mergers have on customers? Join the conversation below.

“Those types of things bring technology to the table that we could not afford to,” Mr. Eslick said. “At the end of the day, we have more arrows in our quiver.”

The pressure to scale up has only grown more intense in recent years, said Scott Wylie, CEO of the $2 billion First Western Financial Inc. in Denver. In July, First Western said it would buy the parent company of a smaller bank, the nearby Rocky Mountain Bank.

“For a $300- or $500- or $700-million bank, it used to be you could have a nice little business that could go for a long time,” Mr. Wylie said. “These days, that’s really hard.” Conway, Ark.-based Home BancShares Inc. said this month it would buy Happy Bancshares for more than $900 million. Within weeks, CEO John Allison got pitched another deal.

“Someone said to me, ‘Johnny, the body hasn’t even gotten cold yet…and they’re bringing all these other deals,’” Mr. Allison said.

By: Orla McCaffrey at orla.mccaffrey@wsj.com

Source: Bank Mergers Are On Track to Hit Their Highest Level Since the Financial Crisis – WSJ

.

Related Contents:

4 Missteps For Banks To Avoid When Migrating Payment Services To The Cloud

Banks and financial services providers can realize the efficiency and cost savings of cloud-based payments by taking proactive steps to guard against these common mistakes, notes Rustin Carpenter, a Global Payments Solution Leader for Cognizant’s Banking & Financial Services Industry Services Group.

The cloud’s lure of simplification is a powerful incentive for payment providers, as its role enabling modernization and permanently switching off legacy applications. Where banks struggle, however, is in shaping a strategy to get their payment services to the cloud. By understanding the common missteps, banks can create a plan for payment migration that maximizes benefits while minimizing risks.

The pandemic was a digital tipping point for banks, forcing them to implement in just a few months capabilities that otherwise would have taken several years. Research published in 2019 found that financial services firms lagged in adoption of public cloud infrastructure as a service (IaaS), with just 18% broadly implementing IaaS for production applications, compared to 25% of businesses overall.

Now many banking leaders we talk with are taking a serious look at cloud-based payment services, motivated by the age and complexity of their core payment applications as well as their business’s growing confidence in the security of cloud platforms such as Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services (AWS). As banks contemplate migrating payment services to the cloud, here are some common mistakes to avoid that will ensure a smoother journey:

1. Assuming the cloud is cheaper.

Cloud-based services are indeed less expensive to run — once applications and services have been migrated. To manage a successful payments migration, be aware of the costs along the journey. The cloud can be a heavy lift. While banks and financial services providers often consider themselves proficient at consolidation and rationalization, the extensiveness required for cloud migration frequently far exceeds the effort of previous initiatives. For example, we helped a bank reduce its infrastructure footprint by 25% and lower its total cost of ownership by migrating its applications to the cloud.

That outcome, however, required careful analysis of the bank’s application source code and development of a migration strategy and cloud deployment architecture, as well as assessing and migrating more than 800 applications over three years. Cloud-based services are more streamlined and less expensive to operate, but accurately budgeting for the upfront time and resources of a cloud payment migration is challenging due to the many unknowns. Careful attention to planning is critical for a realistic cost assessment.

2. Underestimating the amount of prework.

The cloud promises to reduce complexity but getting to that point takes a thoughtful migration plan that’s complete and doesn’t skimp on details. What steps will be taken to ensure there’s no disruption to clients? Which applications make sense to retain and manage in-house, and which can be leveraged as payments as a service? For instance, fund disbursements for a retail consumer bank that administers 529 plans are typically a low-volume service for which cloud automation is a great fit, replacing paper checks with significantly less costly cloud-based payments.

But when it comes to payments as a service, managing risk and ensuring value also come into play. Wire transfers might appear to be good candidates for migration to cloud payments, but if most of the bank’s transfers are for high net worth individuals with equally high customer lifetime value, then the transfers may require levels of personalized service best handled with an on-premise platform rather than in the cloud. A well thought out strategy that addresses all impacts and value opportunities helps bank leaders avoid the unintended consequences that keep them awake at night.

3. Failure to prioritize.

A payments migration needs to be phased in a way that provides strategic competitive advantage. Setting priorities is key. For example, a bank may choose to align its payments migration with a specific strategy, such as a planned de-emphasis on branch offices. Another approach is to migrate the costliest payment applications first. Some banks may reserve cloud adoption for when they’re ready to add new payments capabilities.

Each bank’s path to cloud payments is nuanced, yet there’s often a feeling among banking leaders that moving to the cloud is an all-or-nothing proposition. That is, payments are either entirely cloud-based or all on premise. A more realistic goal is to craft a migration roadmap for a hybrid environment that accommodates both types of infrastructure for the near future, and to then prioritize and phase the payments migration in a way that makes strategic sense.

4. Testing in a dissimilar environment.

Replicating legacy operating environments for testing is expensive, so it’s not uncommon for banks to settle on environments that are similar but not identical — though the variation often leads to production environment errors that can derail cloud migration efforts. Performance falls short of expectations, typically due to the tangle of payment applications resulting from years of mergers and acquisitions.

For example, post-merger banking platforms often utilize more than one legacy payment hub, and there’s little chance that a bank’s current IT staff fully understands or can predict the unintended consequences for the hubs when making changes to the platform. Don’t fret over creating the perfect testing environment. Rather, build an environment that’s as close as possible.

By avoiding these common missteps, payment providers can reap the benefits of a simplified, modern infrastructure and application environment and minimize the risks.

To learn more, please visit the digital payments section of our website or contact us.

Rustin “Rusty” Carpenter leads payments solutions within Cognizant’s Banking & Financial Services’ Commercial Industry Solutions Group (ISG). In this role, he works with group leaders and client-facing teams to elevate Cognizant’s client relevance, industry expertise and challenge-solving capabilities. Over his career, he has developed deep and broad expertise in payments and the emerging alternative and digital/mobile payments arenas. He is a frequent speaker on these topics at conferences worldwide and serves as a board advisor to fin-techs in all areas of payments and fraud prevention/mitigation.

Carpenter most recently was Head of Sales & Service, NA for ABCorp. Previously, he ran the Instant Issuance business for North America at Entrust Datacard; served as COO for Certegy Check Services, N.A.; was General Manager, NA for American Express Corporate Services; and completed multiple assignments at Andersen Worldwide and Dun & Bradstreet. Rustin has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Denison University and an MBA in finance from Rutgers Graduate School of Management. He can be reached at Rustin.Carpenter@cognizant.com

Source: 4 Missteps For Banks To Avoid When Migrating Payment Services To The Cloud

.

Related Contents:

“Launch of IBM Smarter Computing”. Archived from the original on 20 April 2013. Retrieved 1 March 2011.

 

Google Pushes to Overturn EU’s $5 Billion Antitrust Decision on Android

BRUSSELS— Alphabet Inc.’s GOOG -0.88% Google started its appeal Monday to overturn a $5 billion antitrust fine imposed by the European Union, contending that its Android operating system for mobile devices has boosted competition rather than foreclosing it.

The tech giant presented oral arguments in Luxembourg before the EU’s second-highest court, in its appeal to overturn the 2018 decision from the bloc’s antitrust enforcer. In that case, EU authorities found Google had illegally abused the market power of Android to push companies that manufacture and distribute Android phones into agreements aimed at entrenching and expanding the dominance of the Google search engine on mobile devices.

That decision was the largest of three antitrust fines totaling more than $9 billion that the EU has levied against Google in the past half decade. It also ordered changes to the distribution agreements buttressing one of the company’s biggest growth engines: search ads on mobile phones.

“Android has created more choice for everyone, not less,” a Google spokeswoman said. “This case isn’t supported by the facts or the law.”

A verdict isn’t expected for months, and it can be appealed to the EU’s top court, the Court of Justice. Still, the litigation is a new test for the EU’s competition and digital-policy chief, Margrethe Vestager, who already faces a pending appeal of an earlier decision against Google’s alleged abuse of the dominance of its search engine to favor its online-shopping ads.

Ms. Vestager has since opened a new antitrust probe into Google’s ad-tech business, along with a wave of cases exploring whether companies including Facebook Inc., Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. abuse their dominance to drive out smaller rivals. The companies deny wrongdoing.

A spokeswoman for the European Commission, the bloc’s top antitrust regulator, declined to comment.

While the appeal is under way, Google has had to comply with the decision, offering all users of new Android phones in the EU a choice screen of alternative search engines. But so far Google’s market share for search on mobile phones has remained relatively stable, according to Statcounter.

At issue in the hearing this week is whether Google’s Android is indeed dominant, as European regulators argue, and whether Google’s distribution deals for the operating system and its Google Play app store for Android were anticompetitive.

The Commission has argued that Google used those agreements to block the rise of potential competitors and secure the dominance of its cash cow search engine on mobile phones—an outcome far from assured at the time.

The Commission found Google had abused its control of the Android operating system by forcing phone makers to pre-install Google Search and Google’s Chrome browser if they also wanted to include Google’s Play store for apps, by far the most common way to get Android apps.

The Commission also found Google’s so-called antifragmentation agreements—deals that discourage official Android manufacturers from selling devices that run unofficial, modified versions of Android—illegally blocked the development and emergence of competing operating systems.

“Instead of an antifragmentation agreement, it should be called an anticompetition agreement,” said Thomas Vinje, a lawyer representing FairSearch, a group representing Oracle Inc. and other companies whose 2013 complaint led the Commission to open a formal case investigating Android in 2015.

Apple and Google have one of Silicon Valley’s most famous rivalries, but behind the scenes they maintain a deal worth $8 billion to $12 billion a year according to a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit. Here’s how they came to depend on each other. Photo illustration: Jaden Urbi

Google argues that those analyses are flawed. It says Android devices must compete with Apple’s iPhone and iPad, and the Commission was wrong to largely exclude them from its analysis. The company argues that its antifragmentation agreements are necessary to keep Android phones compatible with apps, and aren’t a barrier to creating competing operating systems.

Google also says the allegation that it blocked competing apps is false because manufacturers typically install many rival apps on Android devices, and consumers can easily download others. The company says it has a right to recoup the money it spends developing Android, which it makes available free to manufacturers, by encouraging them to install Google Search, from which the company makes the bulk of its revenue.

Google and the Commission will be joined in this week’s arguments by nearly a dozen outside companies and trade groups that have filed their own supporting briefs in the case. Google’s supporters include the Computer & Communications Industry Association and two handset manufacturers.

Arguments on the Commission’s side will include some from German publisher groups and complainants in the case, including FairSearch.

By: Sam Schechner at sam.schechner@wsj.com and Daniel Michaels at daniel.michaels@wsj.com

Source: Google Pushes to Overturn EU’s $5 Billion Antitrust Decision on Android – WSJ

.

Related Contents:

Has Digital Killed Traditional Advertising and Media

Digital technology has changed our world. It has altered how we access news, entertainment and information, our work patterns, and our communication channels. How we buy and sell.

So, as digital advertising and media continue to grow, have their traditional forms become redundant?…Let’s talk…

Simon Cheng, Marketing Director, Menulog

“No, I don’t think digital has killed traditional advertising. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. Digital complements traditional, as each plays their own role. Traditional will always be important for mass reach objectives and brand building. While, digital is great for performance and driving incremental brand growth through more targeted reach.

“At Menulog, we are a technology business however we invest a lot in traditional channels – TV, outdoor and radio – because they are still some of the most effective avenues for capturing the attention of mass audiences. Equally, we also invest heavily in performance media, using search and social to convert demand. After all, there’s no point investing in creating demand if you are not then capturing it or driving engagement.

“As the world of media continues to become more fragmented, advertising and communication channels need to reflect how consumers want to consume content. Marketers shouldn’t over complicate things. It’s the right message, right place, right time. The channels that fit naturally against your objectives, are those to go with.

Andrew Cornale, Co-Founder and Technical Director, UnDigital

“Digital marketing is certainly more readily accessible than traditional advertising and I would argue that it has overtaken traditional marketing in many senses, but has digital killed traditional advertising? No.

“Traditional advertising still has its place. We see successful campaigns using traditional advertising all the time. However, I’d argue that its high price point and specialised skill set makes it less accessible to the everyday business. For many businesses, digital advertising is more affordable, scalable and targeted. Plus, it’s easier to map ROI against a digital campaign where sales can be mapped directly to it.

“To me, digital marketing is a smarter strategy because decisions are backed by data with less guesswork and, generally speaking, there are just more opportunities to find customers online. If one day, we do see the death of traditional advertising, I’d say digital marketing certainly had a hand in it, but it’s not necessarily holding the murder weapon.”

Yasinta Widjojo, Senior Marketing Manager, Pin Payments

“There’s no doubt that marketing and advertising have changed dramatically in the last 10 years, alongside the advancements of technology and the internet.

“While traditional advertising relied on methods such as TV ads, billboards and print journalism, digital advertising has superseded these methods with algorithms that enable marketers to find and sell to their key audiences. Technology has opened the door to endless possibilities, when it comes to advertising, but with changes come challenges.

“Consumers are battling against a barrage of online noise, through their email inboxes, social media accounts and websites. No platform is left unturned, making creating genuine authenticity with your customers much harder.

“Interestingly enough, the feeling of digital numbness that has come alongside the pandemic, has led some customers back to traditional advertising. The pandemic has seen a rise in guerrilla advertising that harnesses both the digital and physical world, using billboards, posters or graffiti that can be scanned by a smartphone.

“As society adjusts to using their smartphones for COVID-19 check-ins or QR codes, modern marketing which amalgamates both old and new advertising methods, is being embraced. Traditional advertising isn’t dead, it’s had a system upgrade with the help of digital.”

Adam Boote, Director of Digital and Growth, Localsearch

“Changing consumer behaviours in a tech-savvy society have significantly impacted the way advertising is created and consumed. Millennials and Gen Zs are far more influenced by digital media – 49% of TikTok users purchase a product or service after seeing it on the app, and 60% of Millennials admit their purchasing decisions are influenced by what they see on Facebook.

“We’re now seeing a big wave of consumers, including small businesses, turn to digital after weighing up not only print, but broadcast advertising. Although free-to-air TV viewership is increasing with more people at home, its key objective is generating brand awareness – so you may or may not receive immediate action from viewers. Online, you can target audiences with far greater demographic accuracy, targeting the people most relevant to you and guiding them through to where you want them to go.

“For SMBs who don’t have thousands to spend on TV ads, nailing your SEO and digital presence is far more cost-effective.

“However you decide to integrate digital with traditional, when consumers do remember your business and need your product or service, you want them to be able to go online and find you. Fast and easy.”

Cary Lockwood, chief executive officer, Loyalty Now

“Traditional media and advertising still have parts to play in the cultural zeitgeist, but the real question is: are they as effective in engaging audiences as their digital counterparts?

“Traditional advertising operates by conveying a broad message to a broad audience. However, in today’s hyperlocalised economy, consumers want their individual voices heard by merchants who offer solutions tailored to their unique interests and behaviours.

“This growing customer expectation, coupled with a need for business transparency, is one of the reasons experts anticipate some digital advertising methods to become obsolete soon. This is particularly evident in the current phase-out of third-party cookies ahead of 2022.

“Instead of investing in broader advertising avenues, businesses must embrace targeted partnerships with platforms that boast highly engaged audiences, and that also let merchants leverage hyperpersonalisation to better engage their consumers. This will lead to more committed return customers whose buying power outweighs surface-level interactions with disengaged buyers.”

Simon McDonald, Regional Vice President Optimizely

“Digital platforms have revolutionised advertising. Traditional mediums lock advertising into one-way communication, whereas digital platforms provide two-way interactive capabilities. Businesses can now customise advertising to personalise any brand experience and utilise real-time metrics to monitor their campaign’s success.

“Digital advertising is constantly evolving, and so is consumer behaviour. Organisations need to embed a culture of test and learn across all of their digital strategies, allowing businesses to quickly respond and evolve with the industry and consumer trends. While traditional advertising is still around, it is always best as part of a larger digital multichannel marketing campaign that can evolve and respond to consumer behaviour.”

Nicole Schulz, Brand Reputation Practice Lead, Sefiani Communications Group

“In a time of increasing misinformation and disinformation online, traditional media has played a vital role in delivering timely, factual and credible information to Australians. The Digital News Report 2021 found that in Australia, trust in news has risen to 43%. As Australians turned to public broadcasters for critical news over the past 18 months, trust in traditional news brands has remained high. In contrast, 64% of Australians are concerned about false and misleading information online. Roy Morgan research found that TV is regarded as the most trusted source of news, nominated by nearly 7 million Australians.

“However, the same research also found that the internet is now Australia’s main source of news. There is no doubt that Australian audiences at large are continuing to shift away from traditional towards digital platforms for news but the credibility and trust attached to traditional new publishers remains paramount. To thrive in the future, traditional media will need to continue to evolve its multi-channel offering to suit and serve diverse and segmented audiences.”

Clare Loewenthal

 

By: Clare Loewenthal

Source: Let’s Talk: Has digital killed traditional advertising and media? – Dynamic Business

.

Related Contents:

 

To Reimagine The Student Experience, Think Like A Tech Company

With these five mindset shifts, higher-ed institutions can immerse digital learning into their strategies and operations, reveals Tij Nerurkar, Business Leader for Cognizant’s Education practice.

The news that online learning platform 2U is acquiring edX, a nonprofit platform run by Harvard and MIT, is yet another sign of the momentum of digital learning.

Among the deal’s synergies is 2U’s access to edX’s global learner base of 39 million registered users and 120 million annual website visitors. This increases 2U’s reach and stands to lower student acquisition costs, which typically account for as much as 20% of online program managers’ revenues.

Often overlooked amid the headlines, however, is the reality that technology is only part of the change that digital learning is inflicting on higher education. Equally important is the change in mindset among colleges and universities as they shape the direct-to-consumer (DTC) learning experiences that will engage today’s students.

How to make the higher-ed shift

To reimagine the college experience and make the transition to digital learning, higher-education leaders need to think like a tech company would. The following mindset shifts will propel them forward to immersing digital learning into their strategies and operations:

  • Out with the old culture, in with the new.

This change is among the toughest for colleges and universities to execute. Many university leaders we talk with focus exclusively on the technology that the DTC model requires. But the reality is that DTC is an outside-in approach that puts the student experience first, ahead of any administrative and departmental priorities. It brings changes that ripple across campuses, especially the institutional mindset.

Thriving in today’s higher-education environment requires all campus functions — from recruitment and admissions to financial aid and academics — to move quickly and in seamless, connected ways. Reimagining the student experience will require organizational changes that break down siloes and emphasize collaboration.

  • Be willing to take risks.

While bold moves don’t come naturally to higher-ed institutions, they can be an important differentiator. For example, when the pandemic halted college entrance exams, a nonprofit testing organization used the hiatus to overhaul the paper-based exams that millions of students took annually at its 7,000 centers. Our team built a new-generation platform that digitized the entire testing workflow, including online and mobile apps designed to appeal to Gen Z learners accustomed to multitasking and virtually interacting with their peers. As higher ed begins to emerge from the pandemic, the company is ready with a business model fit for today’s students.

  • View the CIO’s role as strategic.

In our recent research, higher-ed leaders said they believe industry disruption will only accelerate; however, we see too many higher-ed institutions that still limit their CIOs to overseeing back-office operations. A talented CIO can help institutions think out of the box by spotting new business models and investment opportunities to drive enrollments and revenue.

For example, Arizona State University’s widely admired CIO helped ASU break ahead early in online learning with innovative programs like its Global Freshman Academy. By providing CIOs with a seat at the table, higher-ed institutions and their governing boards open themselves to emerging ideas such as adopting blockchain for digital credentials or applying mixed-reality simulations to learning.

  • Reassess your marketing strategies.

Glossy direct-mail brochures are a common and costly rite of passage. The median public university spends 14% of its marketing and recruiting budget on student lists purchased to identify prospects, with one public university’s student data costs topping $2 million from 2010 to 2018. Building predictive analytics capabilities can help organizations reach targeted student populations more intelligently and fill seats more effectively than the basic demographics of lists.

For example, St. Mary’s College credits predictive analytics with increasing its applicant pool. When data showed that prospective students who visited the Maryland campus were more likely to enroll, St. Mary’s doubled down on personalized campus tours that deliver a more on-brand experience. Investing in data modernization, automation and robust platforms requires greater capital investments upfront, but it also creates better and long-lasting pull as universities seek to attract lifelong learners.

  • It takes a platform.

The single biggest lesson to learn from educational technology players is the ability to respond to market conditions with agility, and platforms are at the heart of that flexibility. Ed-tech companies are able to pivot quickly and scale their business models in new directions.

For instance, 2U built momentum and scale by positioning itself not just as a provider of online degree classes for individual students but also as a provider of cloud-based software as-a-service (SaaS) platforms to colleges and universities. The strategy elevates 2U from a services-only business model to the SaaS model.

Now colleges and universities are beginning to take steps in the same direction: Last fall, ASU launched the University Design Institute, through which it scales the innovative approaches and solutions it has developed for its own campus to help other universities create online offerings and is even partnering on community-based projects such as supply chain improvements in Ghana and across Africa. Thinking like a tech company means investing in the right platforms and building the ability to scale.

Capitalize on higher-ed strengths

The most successful tech companies also know and relentlessly develop their strengths, which is why you don’t see Apple rolling out a social network or Netflix designing smartphones. It’s no secret that education’s disruptors offer curriculum options that are fast, dirt-cheap and job-ready. Coursera estimates students can complete a Google Professional Certificates program by studying five to 10 hours per week for eight months or less.

Ed-tech clearly knows its market strengths. At the same time, two-thirds of students between the ages of 19 and 30 still think a college degree is a good investment, whether in-person or virtually. Higher ed’s brand value remains strong in the wake of COVID-19: In another survey, 93% of students polled — both enrolled in fully online programs and studying remotely due to COVID-19 — expect a positive return on their online education investment.

The scalability enabled through digital can help colleges and universities press their pedagogic advantages and compete with online competitors’ lean operations. For example, at a time when applications to full-time MBA programs have declined, enrollment in the University of Illinois’ online MBA program has reached 4,000 — up from 114 since the program’s 2016 launch.

The key to capitalizing on the momentum of digital learning is to reimagine a student experience that taps into today’s youth by reshaping your institution’s mindset and approach to education.

Download our latest research report “The Work Ahead in Higher Ed: Repaving the Road for the Employees of Tomorrow.”

Kshitij (Tij) Nerurkar is the North America leader for Education Business at Cognizant. For over 25 years, Tij has advised and implemented digital learning solutions across private and public sector clients on a global basis. In his current role, he helps educational institutions and ed-tech companies develop and implement digital strategies to transform their business model, reimagine learner experience and drive skill enablement. Previously, Tij was the Head of Cognizant Academy in North America. In this role, he was responsible for developing industry partnerships for the Academy and worked as a core member of the talent team to help bridge the reskilling gap through innovative synergistic business models. Tij has a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and a master’s degree in management studies from the University of Bombay, India, and he has completed a sales and leadership program at Harvard University. Tij is also on the executive learning council of the Association for Talent Development (ATD). He can be reached at Kshitij.Nerurkar@cognizant.com

Source: To Reimagine The Student Experience, Think Like A Tech Company

.

Related Contents:

Teaching with Digital Technologies

Digital Learning: Data, Trends, and Strategies You Need to Know

Digital Transformation 101: The Only Guide You’ll Ever Need

The case for digital reinvention

The Company Cultures That Help (or Hinder) Digital Transformation

La Transformación digital desde la arquitectura empresarial

The impact of digital transformation on the retailing value chain

E-commerce to Account for Half the Growth in Global Retail by 2025

Evolution Is not enough: Revolutionizing Current Learning Environments to Smart Learning Environments

ECE Technology: 10 Trending Tools for Teachers

Confusing terminologies: #e-learning, learning technologist, educational technologist

Zero to six: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers

Technology in the Preschool Classroom

Technology Education for High-Ability Students

An efficient, portable authoring language for microcomputers

Computer-based Mathematics and Physics for Gifted Remote Students

Computer-based Education Research Laboratory

History of Manhattan Virtual Classroom

 

Four Ways To Shift Automation From Tactical To Transformative

Organizations must transcend piecemeal approaches to business reinvention and design processes around people — tightly linked from the front to the back office, advises Girish Pai, who leads Cognizant’s Intelligent Process Automation practice.

“Going digital” has long been touted as a silver bullet for delivering better customer experiences and streamlining processes. Automation has become the go-to approach for solving immediate pain points, mainly in the form of tactically deploying one-off robotic process automation (RPA) initiatives to make our jobs a little easier and/or more efficient.

While achieving short-term gains, this piecemeal approach to process reinvention creates complexity due to disconnected strategies, siloed pilot projects and an incohesive technology strategy, among other factors. More importantly, it complicates businesses’ ability to adapt and inject fluidity into operations — characteristics crucial for delivering the future of work right now.

Old ways of thinking about automation just won’t cut it anymore, and the decentralized business world emerging from the pandemic has increased the pressure to deliver.

However, we’re finding that businesses are overwhelmingly ill-prepared for this journey. According to our research, 60% of companies have implemented or piloted automation technology, but only a tiny minority (8%) have said they’ve achieved automation at scale.

To unlock new value, opportunities and growth, organizations need to focus on the “why” of automation to achieve business results. They need to design processes around people — customers, employees, partners, suppliers — fused together from the front-office to the back-office, across all functions. Here’s how.

Anchor end-to-end process redesign to business outcomes and ensure scalability.

Organizations typically approach automation by looking for opportunities to increase speed or take complex manual tasks off their hands. It seems logical — but if they’re automating processes that just don’t work, they’re merely automating inefficiency. As customer journeys become more complex and competitors accelerate innovation, it becomes even more important to exert strategic oversight into automation initiatives.

End-to-end process change doesn’t work when organizations focus arbitrarily on finding opportunities for automation. They should first determine their overall business goals, identify inefficiencies in existing processes and then create automated systems that can scale. To succeed, they need to weave together people, processes, experiences, data insights, intelligence and technology via an automation fabric that masks complexity from users, simplifies orchestration, brings together disparate emerging technologies such as machine learning, natural language processing and intelligent document processing, and drives adoption and collaboration.

We recently worked with a healthcare provider to reduce its claims denial rate and improve net collections. We used process mining tools to identify bottlenecks and process issues, then ran possible intervention simulations to build a business case for business change.

This allowed us to create a strategic blueprint for implementing process changes, automation, monitoring and people enablement. Using RPA, optical character recognition (OCR) and artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) technologies, we were able to reduce the claims denial rate from 17% to 12% and improve net collections from 23% to 30%.

Because automation was deployed strategically instead of tactically, the processes behind the technology are efficient and will remain stable through growth periods.

Take a people-first approach.

As businesses adjust to a digital culture, they need to prioritize the human beings working alongside software and bots (i.e., digital workers). A one-size-fits-all approach to education and upskilling doesn’t work with a multigenerational and distributed workforce. Creating a people-first automation plan requires accommodations for skill level, comfort with technology and the state of innovation.

We worked with a claims processing organization to help it navigate this type of culture change. By analyzing the day-to-day challenges and dependencies of users, we created a customized training program that showcases how technology can reduce effort and improve decision-making. We prioritized initiatives based on ease of implementation and scaled them as technology understanding improved.

By prioritizing the needs of the workforce as new technology is deployed, the business will not only enhance time-to-adoption but also create a better customer experience through skilled employees, more efficient claims handling, greater cost savings from reduced penalties and more resilient operations.

Use modern technology to create modern experiences.

Digital is enabling companies to break traditional industry boundaries, introducing supportive and complementary offerings that create seamless purchasing environments for customers. But in doing so, they’re no longer just delivering products — they’re delivering experiences.

This means that back-office metric optimization can no longer be disassociated from front-office customer interaction and overall process change. The customer experience must be at the core of how processes are managed.

One leading medical device company struggled to educate customers on the features of its new devices. Because users’ health was involved, the company needed access to accurate information as quickly as possible. After reviewing patient, caregiver, payer and supplier personas and journeys, we helped create a blueprint for simplifying the interaction across ecosystem touchpoints.

We introduced chatbots, remote monitoring and AI-based patient safety services. By centering decisions around customer needs and expectations, the company was able to create a seamless user experience that reduces friction.

Guide widespread digitization with high-level strategy.

Automation is becoming more pervasive in enterprises. Low-code automation tools are rapidly entering the market, making it easier than ever to create digitally connected ways of working.

The key is to empower those closest to the process challenges with design and execution guide rails to holistically integrate and optimize disparate technologies as they learn, build and scale experiences and process transformation rapidly.

While the growing accessibility of automation offers a panoply of process optimization opportunities, the ease of use of low-code automation should not override the need for high-level strategic planning. To truly power customer-driven business decisions, organizations need data — and lots of it. If departments within your organization are approaching automation independently, data can quickly become trapped in siloes — making it impossible to efficiently gather the insights required to eliminate friction points.

Never lose sight of the “why” in automation

As process digitization evolves, it will become even more important to understand the “why” — not just the “what” — behind automation initiatives. Efficient process digitization requires a balancing act between effective technology adoption and enterprise-wide oversight.

By taking a fused, end-to-end automation approach, businesses can cut across siloes and enable data to flow freely between departments, creating an opportunity to thrive through better decision-making, reduced costs and greater business innovation.

To learn more visit the Intelligent Process Automation section of our website or contact us.

Girish Pai is a seasoned digital and transformation leader with over two decades of experience and a strong track record of delivering strategic business outcomes for clients globally across industries. Girish heads the Intelligent Process Automation Practice for Cognizant Digital Business Operations, leading the charge to create next-gen digital solutions by leveraging technology to simplify, reimagine and transform processes. Girish holds a bachelor’s degree in engineering from Manipal Institute of Technology, India. He can be reached at Girish.Pai@cognizant.com or on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/girishpai/

Source: Four Ways To Shift Automation From Tactical To Transformative

.

Related Contents:

Mapping Out Business Process Automation: How BPM Functions Like A GPS

Business Process Automation (bpa)

How Automation Can Help Your Small Business

From Process Automation To Autonomous Process

Low-code platforms help with project backlogs and software development training

Marketing Automation Software for SaaS companies

Whatever Happened To Business Process Management Software

Why Automated Billing Is Essential For Business Growth

From Process Automation To Autonomous Process

Intelligent Process Automation: The 4 Levels of AI-Enablement

Operational Excellence – The Main Principles to Continuously Improve

Business Process Management

Ultimate Guide to Business Process Management: Everything You Need to Know and How to Apply It to Your Organization

People, Process, and Performance Management in Project Management

Business Process Management (BPM) Service Pattern

Understanding the Difference Between Lean Six Sigma and Business Process Management

1st International Workshop on Business Process Management in the Cloud

Methods for Information Systems Engineering: Knowledge Management and E-Business

%d bloggers like this: