industry practices in records retrieval

Industry Practices in Records Retrieval

Study Findings

A CLM Advisors Report

Spring 2016

Current Practices in Records Retrieval

A CLM Advisors Industry Study

Spring 2016

© CLM Advisors 2016

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Thank You to Our Participants .................................................................................................................. 3

About This Industry Practices Study ......................................................................................................... 3

The Study’s Underwriter ........................................................................................................................... 4

Key Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Participant Demographics ............................................................................................................................. 7

Participant Profile ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Size of Organization .................................................................................................................................. 7

Pending Claim Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 7

Roles of the Survey Participants ............................................................................................................... 7

Pending Litigation Inventory and Legal Spend .......................................................................................... 8

Use of Staff Counsel .................................................................................................................................. 9

Current Practices – Frequency and Measurement ..................................................................................... 10

Retrieval Activity – General Frequency ................................................................................................... 10

Retrieval Activity – Per Claim Frequency ................................................................................................ 11

Measuring Current Processes ................................................................................................................. 11

Other Records Retrieval Considerations ..................................................................................................... 13

The Relationship of Retrieval Speed to Cycle Time ................................................................................ 13

Retrieval Activity Costs – Internal Staff................................................................................................... 14

Retrieval Costs When Law Firms Retrieve .............................................................................................. 17

What Executives Want In Their Retrieval Process ...................................................................................... 19

Accuracy, Speed and Cost ....................................................................................................................... 19

Allocated vs. Unallocated........................................................................................................................ 19

Formal Retrieval Vendor Programs ......................................................................................................... 20

Desired Vendor Features and Attributes ................................................................................................ 21

Record Organization Services ................................................................................................................. 22

Challenges to Record Retrieval Program Implementation ..................................................................... 24

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 25

About CLM Advisors ................................................................................................................................ 27



Spring 2016


Introduction

Thank You to Our Participants

We thank the 66 senior claim and litigation executives who participated in this Study. We

believe this is the most comprehensive study of its type in the industry, and without such

participation, this Study would not have been possible. Representing a wide range of property

and casualty claim organizations, these executives took the time to share their practices and

perceptions about this important claims management function.

The dedication of these executives is a reflection of their commitment to the industry, and to

their interest in promoting and furthering the highest standards of claims and litigation

management.

About This Industry Practices Study

The retrieval of supporting documents and records is a critical, core activity for all claim

organizations. Medical records, wage and employment records, diagnostic imaging files,

pharmacy, and Social Security records are just some of the records retrieved during the claims

process. These records are retrieved on a daily basis and often at a very high volume. Accurate,

timely, and efficient retrieval of these records is crucial to establishing liability, causation, and

damages.

Claim organizations differ significantly in how they approach this critical task. Some rely on their

claim professionals, while others have clerical units dedicated to the retrieval process. In the

litigation arena, some claim organizations rely on their outside or staff counsel to secure the

appropriate records, while others use third-party vendors. For almost all claim organizations,

however, the cost of retrieving these records is a material loss adjustment expense.

This Study examined different best practices for records retrieval across claim organizations of

varied size and complexity. The Study explores claim executives’ perceptions about their own

processes, retrieval costs, and current industry practices generally.

Study Methodology

This Study was administered by CLM Advisors, the consulting arm of the Claims and Litigation

Management (CLM) Alliance. The data gathering instrument used was an online survey,

consisting of approximately 60 questions. The majority of the questions were multiple choice,

but several questions called for open-text responses.



Spring 2016


All information gathered was then aggregated and de-identified. Particular care has been taken

to ensure that no specific responses or data elements can be attributed back to any specific

organization or participant.

The Study’s Underwriter

The costs of assembling the Study’s questions, gathering raw survey data, analyzing participant

responses, and preparing the Study’s Report, were underwritten by Keais Records Retrieval. No

identifying or proprietary Study information was provided to Keais as part of their Study

sponsorship.

We are grateful to Keais for their sponsorship and support of this Study. Keais is a market-

leading and rapidly growing provider of records retrieval services for the claims industry. Its

dramatic growth has made it one of the largest providers in this industry. Keais has been a long-

standing supporter of the CLM and the industry collaboration and educational resources that

the CLM makes possible. More information about Keais can be found at www.Keais.com.

Questions About this Study

This Report was authored by Taylor Smith of CLM Advisors. Questions can be directed to:

Taylor Smith,

President, CLM Advisors

224-212-0134

[email protected]



Spring 2016


Key Findings We believe this to be the most comprehensive industry study on the topic of records retrieval

done to date. The findings suggest that records retrieval processes, for most claim management

organizations, are both resource intensive and costly, including a potential correlation to higher

claim cycle times. Further, most organizations appear to have little visibility into the level of

resources being utilized, or the costs these retrieval activities represent.

Most of the executives polled appeared to agree that the overall costs associated with this

process are high, and in the litigation context extremely significant. At the same time, most

survey respondents accurately described the relative low level of resources required to

implement program changes.

This combination factors, in our view, make records retrieval an area of low-hanging fruit for

claim executives, both in terms of process improvement and enhanced cost control.

Key findings from this Industry Practices Study include:

• Records retrieval is a very high-frequency activity for claim organizations. Sixty four (64)

percent of claim organizations retrieve records on 60% or more of their files. Almost 40% of

organizations retrieve records on 90% or more of their files. 72% of the responding

executives agree with the industry statistic that, on average, at least 7 records are retrieved

on claims that require records. These findings exceeded our assumptions about retrieval

frequency.

• In most claim organizations the frequency and cost of retrieval is essentially unmeasured.

The absence of current measurement processes makes it difficult to benchmark baseline

starting points. 94% of the organizations responding said that they do not capture the

number of record retrievals made by their organization. 70% said that they do not capture

the amount they spend on retrieving records.

97% of the responding organizations said they have never done a time and motion study to

capture how much time their internal staff spends on this activity. Only 5% have ever

measured internal retrieval time (i.e., the number of days required to secure records). Only

10% have ever analyzed law firm invoices to understand what law firms charge for retrieval-

related activities.



Spring 2016


• Claim executives agree that retrieval activities consume significant internal resources

and drive significant cost. Claim executives reported that retrieval activities can take on

average up to 12% of a claim professional’s day. This can reflect a significant investment

of resources, consuming more than 200 hours a year of claim professionals’ time.

In the litigation context, 41% agreed that records retrieval may in fact represent the

second highest area of “controllable” litigation expense. Almost half the executives feel

that their staff resources spend “too much time” on retrieval activities and would like to

reduce that time. Executives with those beliefs are clearly not alone.

• Claim executives believe there is a correlation between faster retrieval time and

improved claim cycle time — almost 7 out of 10 organizations reported that they

“sometimes” or “frequently” have to wait for records to come in before they can close a

file. 82% of responding executives agreed that faster retrieval could mean faster file

closure times. Given the strong focus, for most organizations, on managing claim cycle

times, retrieval speed should be examined as yet another tool to accomplish this

objective.

• Record organization ranked highest among the key attributes of a successful retrieval

program. Further, Executives prioritized record organization and speed of retrieval

over the cost of retrieval Executives identified record organization as the most

important benefit of a retrieval service, assumedly under the premise that claim

professionals can be more effective with organized records, and that it makes sense to

not require high-paid professionals to do this essentially clerical function. One corollary

indicator that supports this is the finding that 7 out of 10 executives would rather pay a

vendor to organize records than to have internal claim professionals do so. We believe

this reflects a desire to have claims professionals focused on more valuable activities,

such as analyzing the records.

• Executives appear to recognize that few resources are required to roll-out more

formal retrieval programs. In the litigation context, for example, 98% of the executives

polled felt that the resources required to roll-out a formal vendor program across their

panel counsel would require only a “fair amount” of resources (1-2 people) or less.

Almost half felt that law firms would provide no push back at all. This may help to

explain the rapid growth of formal retrieval vendor programs across the industry.



Spring 2016


Participant Demographics

Participant Profile

Sixty-six (66) claim organizations participated in this Study, representing a wide range of

organizational attributes and all lines of business. So that readers can identify how their own

organization compares to this participant pool, we provide this high-level profile of participant

organizations:

Staff Size Pending

Files

Litigation

Inventory

Litigation

Spend (YR)

Staff

Counsel

Size of

Staff

Counsel

Average 292 37,610 4,915 $6-40M 33% of

respondents

use

<20

Attorneys Median 60 4,300 1,000

Size of Organization

This Study encompassed claim organizations of all sizes, ranging from organizations with just a

few claim staff (often overseeing external TPA resources) to those with thousands of claim

professionals. The largest participating organization reported 5,000 non-clerical claim

professionals. The number of the non-clerical claim staff for all participating organizations

averaged 292. The median size of participating organizations was 60 non-clerical claim staff.

Pending Claim Inventory

Participants were asked to approximate their open, pending claim inventory. Inventory counts

ranged from the low hundreds to more than 100,000. The average open inventory was 37,610;

the median was 4,300.

Roles of the Survey Participants

Approximately 60% of the executives who responded to our survey are the most senior claim

executive in their organization, holding the titles of Chief Claim Officer, Senior Vice President, or

Vice President of Claims.



Spring 2016


23% of the respondents are in senior technical roles, holding titles of Vice President or Director.

The remaining 17% of respondents split equally between roles as Head of Litigation or AVPs of

technical areas.

Pending Litigation Inventory and Legal Spend

As expected, participants ranged widely in their open litigation inventory as well. The average

litigation inventory was 4,915; the median was 1,000 open files.

The majority of participants reported annual outside counsel legal spend at $40MM or less.

Approximately one fifth of respondents are spending more than $40MM annually in outside

litigation expenses.

Head of Claims /

Chief Claim Officer

59%

Head of Litigation

9%

Senior Technical

Role

23%

AVP

9%

Role of Survey Respondent



Spring 2016


Use of Staff Counsel

One third (33%) of the participants use staff counsel in their litigation operations. As would be

expected with a participant pool this diverse, the number of attorneys used in these staff

counsel operations varied widely. However, the majority of responding companies use less than

20 attorneys in their staff counsel operations.

>$300M

1%

$151-300M

3%

$81-150M

2%

$41-80M

15%

$6-40M

44%

<$5M

35%

Annual Outside Legal Fees

>$300M $151-300M $81-150M $41-80M $6-40M <$5M

<20 Attorneys

59%

21-50 Attorneys

13%

51-100 Attorneys

14%

>100 Attorneys

14%

Size of Staff Counsel

<20 Attorneys 21-50 Attorneys 51-100 Attorneys >100 Attorneys



Spring 2016


Current Practices – Frequency and Measurement

When we launched this Study, we had a core assumption that, in the claims management

context, records retrieval is a high frequency activity – both generally and on a per-claim basis.

We assumed that records of some type (i.e., medical, wage, employment, etc.) are retrieved on

most claims. We further assumed that, when records are required on a specific claim, multiple

records are generally required. We asked several questions designed to validate this.

Retrieval Activity – General Frequency

The need for records is often line of business specific. Obviously, property claims rarely require

medical records. However, given that Study participants were not chosen or excluded by line of

business or type of claim, and given that a number of participating organizations specialize in

lines of business less conducive to retrieval, the Study’s responses actually affirmed a higher

retrieval rate than we had anticipated.

Sixty-four (64) percent of the organizations reported that they retrieve records on at least 60%

of their claims. More specifically, a full 37% reported retrieving records on 90% or more of their

files. Almost one fifth (18%) said they retrieve records on essentially every claim.

<10%

13%

10-25%

7%

26-60%

16%60-90%

27%

90-100%

37%

We Retrieve Records on ____% of Files

<10% 10-25% 26-60% 60-90% 90-100%



Spring 2016


These numbers affirmed our assumption that records retrieval is an activity affecting “most”

claims – and in fact, in some cases, “all” claims.

Retrieval Activity – Per Claim Frequency

We also examined claim executives’ perception of how many records tend to be ordered on a

single claim. Industry data suggest that, on average, approximately seven records are retrieved

on the typical claim, and we wanted to test how executives’ responded that data point.

Roughly 60% of responding executives said that this statistic “feels about right.” Another 12%

said that this number is low, and that they would have expected the number of records

retrieved per file to be higher. Twenty-nine percent (29%) said that this statistic felt high.

Measuring Current Processes

Looking at Study data we concluded that claim organizations might estimate the current

frequency of their retrievals by following these simple steps:

1. Identify the number of files closed per year – both litigated and non-litigated;

2. Multiply that number by an average of 7 retrievals per file;

3. Divide that number by the average lifecycle of the file (multiply for files with average

cycle times of less than one year) to reach an annualized estimate.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Sounds Right

Sounds High

Sounds Low

Reaction to Industry Statistic:

7 Records Retrieved on Average Per Claim



Spring 2016


This process for estimating the volume of retrievals may be helpful to many claim organizations,

since so few are currently capturing either the number of retrievals or the costs associated with

that activity. In our view, this relatively unmeasured but extremely common activity may

represent low-hanging fruit for claim executives looking to improve their process or reduce

cost.

Specifically, 94% of the organizations responding said that they do not capture the number of

record retrievals made by their organization.

Roughly 70% said that do not capture the amount they spend on retrieving records.

Captured

6%

Not Captured

94%

Measurement of Retrievals Per Year

Captured Not Captured

Captured

31%

Not Captured

69%

Measurement of Dollars Spent on Retrieval

Captured Not Captured



Spring 2016


Other Records Retrieval Considerations

The Relationship of Retrieval Speed to Cycle Time

Given that claims organizations retrieve records on a high percentage of files, and given that

many claims organizations focus on cycle time (the time a claim file remains open) as a key

performance metric, the Study examined claim executives’ perceptions about the linkage

between the two.

In terms of current performance, executives were asked whether how often they feel their

claim professionals have to wait for records to come in before the claim can be resolved

(closed). Participants clearly identified an opportunity; almost 7 out of 10 (69%) said that they

have to wait “sometimes” or “frequently” for records before they can close the file.

Rarely

31%

Sometimes

19%

Frequently

50%

How Often Do You Have to Wait for Records

In Order to Close the File?

Rarely Sometimes Frequently



Spring 2016


Executives were also asked this question: “If you could retrieve records more rapidly, do you

believe it would positively affect your overall file cycle time?” A full 82% of the responding

executives believe that more rapid retrieval would have this positive effect.

Only 5% of the responding organizations indicated that they have ever measured internal

retrieval times (i.e., the number of days required to retrieve an average record.” And, when

cases are assigned to outside counsel, 100% of the responding organizations said that retrieval

time is not measured or captured. One responding organization said that their outside law firms

have provided average retrieval times reports, but the remaining 98% have not seen such data

from their firms.

Getting a handle on current retrieval times may in fact be the foundation to improving those

processes and getting to the cycle time improvements that respondents alluded to. Given the

importance of cycle time management to most claim organizations, and the commonly held

belief that claim payments increase with longer cycle times, the opportunity to secure records

more quickly is one that should be examined.

Retrieval Activity Costs – Internal Staff

There are multiple ways to quantify the costs of retrieving records, the most obvious being

what the claim organization may be spending on outside vendors, or on the custodian fees

Yes. I believe it would lower

cycle time

82%

No. I don't believe it

would lower cycle time

18%

Would Faster Retrieval Improve File Cycle Time?

Yes. I believe it would lower cycle time No. I don't believe it would lower cycle time



Spring 2016


themselves. In addition, there is the softer cost of the internal resources (staff) being used to

actually initiate and follow-up on retrieval activities.

The vast majority of respondents (71%) said that they rely on their claim professional (as

opposed to vendors or clerical staff). This underscores the opportunity to measure the true

costs associated with these internal resources.

Study participants were asked whether their organization had ever conducted a time-and-

motion study to quantify the cost of internal staff involved in the retrieval process. 97% of the

participants said that they have not had such a study.

To help understand the level of hidden costs associated with the use of internal staff in the

retrieval process, executives were asked this question: “On an average day, what would you

estimate the percentage of time your claim professionals spend on activities related to ordering,

tracking down, and following up on record retrieval requests?”

The average response given was that 12% of a claim professional’s day is spent on retrieval-

related activities. This is a significant number and bears some emphasis. Executives can

extrapolate these numbers to gain a sense for how resource-intensive this activity can be.

Claims

Professional

71%

Clerical Staff

12%

Outside Vendor(s)

17%

Resources Used to Retrieve Records

(Non-Litigated)

Claims Professional Clerical Staff Outside Vendor(s)



Spring 2016


Assuming a 2,000 hour FTE role, 12% of this is 240 hours per year, multiplied by the number of

claim professionals involved in the activity. In short, claim leaders might consider how this time

might be freed up to focus on activities more relevant to the affirmation of coverage, analysis

of liability and exposures, and to resolving the claim itself.

Calculating How Resource-Intensive Records-Retrieval Can Be

2,00 hour FTE x 12% = 240 hours per year x Number of claims professionals

= Significant Resources

Answers to this question ranged from .5% to 40% (assumedly related to line of business and

type of claim involved). However, the percentage of time estimated averaged 12% and the

median response was 10%. These are significant numbers, and underscore the relevance of

measuring, understanding, and managing these activities.

When asked how they felt about the percentage of resource involvement indicated in their

answers, executives clearly see an opportunity to reduce this time, or at least were of the

opinion that they would like to reduce it. 46% of respondents said they feel that the claim

professionals’ time involved in retrieval is too high and that they would like to reduce it.

Yes. I'd like to

reduce it

46%It's about right. I feel

no need to reduce it

54%

Do Claims Professional Spend Too

Much Time on Retrieval Activities?

Yes. I'd like to reduce it It's about right. I feel no need to reduce it



Spring 2016


For almost half the respondents, exploration of third-party services to perform the retrieval

function may be an easy path to accomplish the objective of reducing the time-consuming

burden that retrieval requirements create for claim professionals.

Retrieval Costs When Law Firms Retrieve

When claims are assigned to outside counsel retrieval activities are most frequently performed

by the law firm (54%). Fifteen (15%) percent of the organizations said they rely on retrieval

vendors to obtain records in litigated claims; 31% said their internal staff obtain records and

send them to counsel.

This reliance on counsel represents the potential for significant cost shifting, as law firms look

to be compensated for their time and effort in obtaining the records they need. We were

particularly interested in determining whether claim organizations have any visibility into these

costs.

Interestingly, approximately one quarter (26%) of the organizations polled specifically prohibit

firms from billing for retrieval activities. That is, in their billing guidelines for firms, these

organizations have treated time spent retrieving records, regardless of the timekeeper level

involved, as a firm overhead cost.

Not Allowed

26%

Yes. We Allow This

74%

Do You Allow Firms to Bill for Time Spent

Retrieving Records?

Not Allowed Yes. We Allow This



Spring 2016


This prohibition on billing for retrieval generally extends to actually working with the custodian

of records to secure the records themselves (i.e., pure retrieval time). However, once received,

most billing guidelines allow the firm to charge for organizing the records, and for summarizing

them.

Importantly, 90% of the respondents said that they have never analyzed their law firm invoices

to see what their firms are charging to retrieve records. As the 10% of organizations that have

done this analysis know, such analysis can be difficult to perform, given the lack of a uniform

coding system for this activity.

In our view, there are two corollary considerations for claim organizations when so little

transparency exists into this cost item and when firms are not allowed to invoice for the activity

in the first place. First, the lack of visibility into law firm retrieval activities make it difficult to

determine how much longer a litigated file is dragging on based on certain retrieval efforts.

Second, when invoices don’t even list the activity, it makes it difficult for the file handler to

determine precisely when and which specific records have been ordered or retrieved. Both of

these problems can potentially be solved by using a retrieval vendor with better reporting and

more transparent activities.

Given the high lack of transparency into retrieval costs for most claim organizations, we wanted

to test whether claim executives perceive these costs to be as high as some data points suggest

they are.

Specifically we asked each

executive whether they believe

that retrieval costs “are the

second highest area of

controllable litigation expense,

after legal fees.” A full 40% of

the executives agreed with this

assertion (the remainder felt

that that premise seemed high

to them).

Yes. I agree

40%No, this seems

high

60%

Could Retrieval Costs Be the Second

Highest Area

of Controllable Spend After Legal Fees?

Yes. I agree No, this seems high



Spring 2016


What Executives Want In Their Retrieval Process

Accuracy, Speed and Cost

Each executive was asked to rank on a scale of 1-5 how important they believe it is to retrieve:

1. …the right record

2. …as quickly as possible

3. …as cost-effectively as possible

The median responses suggest that accuracy is the most important attribute of the process,

followed by cost and then speed.

Allocated vs. Unallocated

We were also interested in whether claim executives prefer that the total cost of their retrieval

process be handled as an allocated or unallocated adjustment expenses. Those organizations

who use external vendors for retrieval do so on an allocated basis, while those using internal

staff to obtain records leave the majority of the retrieval cost (staff time) in the unallocated

bucket.

More than 7 out of 10 prefer

an allocated categorization.

12% prefer unallocated, and

for 17% it simply doesn’t

matter which bucket the

expense falls into.

Median Score

Accuracy 5.0

Speed 4.0

Cost 3.0

Allocated

71%

Unallocated

12%

It Doesn't

Matter

17%

Preferred Categorization of Retrieval

Costs

Allocated Unallocated It Doesn't Matter



Spring 2016


Records-Related Activities That Executives Would Prefer Claims Professionals Perform – Or that They

Are Willing to Pay Counsel to Perform

Claim executives were asked to rank several records-related activities and to prioritize which

are most important for the claim professional to perform. They were also asked which records-

related activities they are most comfortable paying for when it comes to litigated files assigned

to counsel.

There are three primary areas of records-related activities presented were:

1. Retrieval (the process of securing the records)

2. Organization (putting the records into a usable order and format); and

3. Analysis (interpreting and analyzing the information within the records.

Not surprisingly executives ranked

these three functions identically for

both internal staff and counsel.

Executives prioritized analyzing over

organizing and organizing over

retrieving. This will come as no

surprise to those who recognize that it

is the analysis itself that adds the

greatest value to the claim process.

This suggests that, for claim

professionals with limited time, and

for counsel whose time is expensive,

organizations may wish to free-up or eliminate the “retrieval” and “organizing” time, so that

more time can be spent on analytical activities.

Formal Retrieval Vendor Programs

One quarter (25%) of the respondents reported having a formalized panel of pre-vetted, pre-

authorized retrieval vendors. The number of vendors in these programs ranged from one

(exclusive) to 10; however, the median number of vendors in the programs was “2”.

Most have had a vendor program for records retrieval for 5 years. Responding executives find

good value in these programs, giving an average score of “3.3” on a 1-5 scale.



Spring 2016


Desired Vendor Features and Attributes

Participants were asked to rank several important features and services offered by record

retrieval companies. These ranged from:

1. National Presence – the ability to support retrieval work across the nation

2. Subpoena Process – the ability to support the subpoena process

3. Records Repository – offering an online repository for records access and storage – and

the ability for claims professionals to have immediate access to the records when they

are retrieved.

4. Online Ordering and Alerts – the ability to order online and to receive alerts when

records are received

5. Secure Records Collaboration – the ability to share select records with counsel and

experts

6. References – the importance of offering references from similar-type claim

organizations

7. Organization Services – the ability to organize records chronologically by type of records

8. Paperless Bookmarks – the ability to hyperlink bookmarks for access to specific records

Respondents ranked the relative value of these attributes as follows:

MOST IMPORTANT RECORDS RETRIEVAL PROGRAM

FEATURES (Tied for First)

• Secure Records Collaboration (sharing with experts)

• Organization Services (use of records more effective)

• Paperless Bookmarks (faster navigation)



Spring 2016


Each executive was also asked to rank four possible benefits of a Records Retrieval Program, in

terms of their importance. The findings were as follows:

VALUE RANKING — RECORDS RETRIEVAL PROGRAM BENEFITS

1 — Organization (i.e., makes the use of records more effective)

2 — Speed (i.e., records come in faster)

3 — Cost (i.e., we will spend less overall on this activity)

4 — Improved Resource Allocation (i.e., frees up claim professionals to do more important

things)

Record Organization Services

The identification of organization services may reflect how frustrating it is when those

retrieving records receive a large pile of unorganized documents from the records custodian.

The effort required to organize the records is often seen to be a waste of time for internal staff.

That said, there can also be a cost to having a third-party organize the records.

ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT RETRIEVAL FEATURES

(Ordered by Rank)

• Online ordering and alerts

• References

• Subpoena Process

• National Presence

• Records Repository



Spring 2016


With that thought in mind, we asked participating executives the following question: “Would

you rather have your internal claim professionals spend time organizing the record, or would

you prefer to pay the retrieval company to organize the records?”

For both non-litigated and litigated files alike, approximately 7 in 10 said that they would

prefer to pay the retrieval company for this service. This may reflect how valuable these

executives find the time of their internal staff to be.

In the case of litigated claims, we presented the following three choices: 1) Pay the law firm to

organize the records; 2) Pay the retrieval company to organize the records, or 3) Have our

internal staff organize the records. Again, approximately 7 out of 10 executives indicated the

retrieval company was the best resource to do this organizing work.

Internal Staff

31%

Retrieval Provider

69%

Who Would You Prefer Organize the Record?

(Non-Litigated)

Internal Staff Retrieval Provider



Spring 2016


Challenges to Record Retrieval Program Implementation

Roughly 25% of the responding organizations report already having a formal records retrieval

vendor panel in place. Industry-wide, those figures are higher. Given that fact, we were

interested in these executives’ perceptions about how complicated it is to implement a formal

records retrieval program across panel counsel.

The respondents answered as follows:

Response Percentage Answer

40%

Not Complicated at All – Our firms are accustomed to our telling

them which vendors to use for non-legal work. Almost no firms

would push back.

57%

Somewhat Complicated – We would anticipate some pushback

from our law firms if we did this.

3%

Very Complicated – Our law firms are not accustomed to our

telling them what vendors to use in this service area. Most of

them would push back pretty hard.

Internal Staff

15%

Retrieval Provider

67%

Law Firm

18%

Who Would You Prefer Organize the Record?

(Litigated)

Internal Staff Retrieval Provider Law Firm



Spring 2016


For those executives considering a new retrieval program, or the use of new retrieval vendor

resources, we also asked each executive how resource-intensive they perceived an

implementation process to be. There answers were as follows:

Response Percentage

41%

Almost No Resources – We could simply tell the vendor who our

panel counsel are and the vendor would take care of the rest.

57%

A Fair Amount of Resources – I envision that 1-2 people would

be needed to oversee a roll-out across our panel counsel, at

least in the beginning

2%

A Lot of Resources – I probably would want an entire team

involved in any new project that affected our panel counsel

Conclusions We believe this Study’s data reflect that the analysis and improvement of a claim organizations’

records retrieval function will potentially yield low hanging fruit for claims executives who wish

to improve their processes, save money, and deliver high ROI.

Records retrieval is an exceptionally high volume activity for claim organizations. Almost 40% of

the organizations surveyed believe that they retrieve records on 90% or more of their files and

almost one fifth (18%) believe they retrieve records on all their files. Further, most agreed that,

on average, they retrieve at least 7 records on each file.

Yet most organizations have minimal transparency into how many resources are required to

retrieve records, the cost of those activities, or even performance metrics related to how

quickly records are retrieved. At a minimum, we believe these data points would help all

organizations, given how prolific the activity is.

Measurement and improvement of retrieval processes may lead to dramatic improvements in

the claim management process. Survey respondents believe that current retrieval activities may

consume up to 12% of a claim professional’s day. In the context of litigated claims, almost half

of the executives agreed that records retrieval costs may be the second highest area of

“controllable” litigation expense, after legal fees.



Spring 2016


Across larger portfolios of claims, an executive’s ability to reduce or eliminate the internal

resources currently allocated to retrieval activities could lead to significant cost savings. At a

minimum, shifting these activities to more cost-effective vendors or partners will free up time

for claims professionals to do more valuable work.

Possibly more important, however, was the Study’s finding that claim leaders see a clear

correlation between faster retrieval and lower file cycle times. For organizations that measure

and value their ability to close files quickly and effectively, slow retrieval can be an obstacle.

In today’s environment, few claim organizations measure retrieval performance, either by their

own staff or by the more expensive outside law firms to whom they’ve delegated this function.

Yet almost 7 out of 10 agree that they “frequently” or “sometimes” have to wait for file closure

while records are being retrieved. Given the importance of overall file cycle time to most

organizations, this may be a significant issue.

The Study affirmed a core assumption, that the actual retrieval process is the least “valuable” of

several records-related functions within a claim organization. Not surprisingly, claim executives

stated unequivocally that analyzing the records is the most important records-related activity,

followed by the proper organization of records. To that end, executives also indicated their

support for having third-parties organize records so that their own internal claim professionals

could spend time on more valuable activities.

In terms of the core benefits of a formal retrieval program, cost was identified as third-most

important, behind the benefits of more organized records and the speed of retrieval. At the

same time, executives appeared to recognize that few resources are required to put a formal

retrieval program in place. Almost all executives felt that 1-2 people, or less, might be required

for a short time in the beginning of such a program, and that very little pushback would be

expected from their defense firms.

In summary, we believe these findings support our recommendation that claim organizations of

all sizes do a deep dive into their retrieval processes, in order to quantify their current retrieval

costs, the resources they currently allocate to this process, and their retrieval performance

metrics. With this information in hand, organizations are likely to find more cost effective and

higher-performing options in the marketplace.



Spring 2016


About CLM Advisors

CLM Advisors is the consulting and advisory arm of the Claims and Litigation Management

(CLM) Alliance, and organization of 30,000 members and fellows focused on promoting and

furthering the highest standards of claims and litigation management. We provide advisory,

market intelligence, and talent acquisition services — including the provision of industry

surveys such as this one. Any questions about this survey can be directed to:

Taylor Smith

President, CLM Advisors

224-212-0134

[email protected]

industry practices in records retrieval

Documents