The days when a three-year payback period was acceptable are long gone. Today’s leaders are expected to make strategic decisions, in less time, with faster returns. This is especially true when it comes to digital investments: none are cheap, so the faster an initial investment can pay for itself, the easier it is for companies to jump in.
Most companies (and regulators) agree that we should do whatever we can to reduce the Human Error Tax, the expected cost of human error paid by companies in the form of money and time. After all, who wouldn’t want fewer errors, higher profits, better customer experience, and greater operational resilience? But getting there requires technological investment; and companies now demand a quick return.
But what if we made it possible to reduce the Human Error Tax by self-funding, rather than incurring incremental cost with an undefined return timeline?
We have tended in the past to react to human errors after they happen. But today’s tighter margins, focus on efficiency, and growing regulatory scrutiny make a strong case for solutions that can help prevent human errors in the first place.
What if we could reduce the Human Error Tax by self-funding, rather than incurring incremental cost with an undefined return timeline?
To do this, we must first predict when an error is likely and then provide a specific prompt to human users, to offset the behavior (input error, missed execution, or miscommunication). For example, to prevent input errors, we may simply prompt the human to ‘slow your input’ on a specific day. The prompt must be given only when there is a high risk of error and with enough time for the human to act.
Machine learning has made this possible. We can train models to identify the factors that collectively contribute to higher likelihood of human error. Unlike linear regression, which finds that x is correlated with y, machine learning can determine that when a, b, c, d and e move in a certain way, then f and g are likely.
If we use this technology to target specific areas of the business where human error is most common, we can not only help to reduce the Human Error Tax, but we can help free up resources to tackle a more complex redesign of end-to-end processes.
Creating Capacity (Money and Time)
Let’s say that human errors cause a business to lose $10 million annually and that employees will spend thousands of hours responding to those errors (rebooking trades; investigating and resolving payment or reporting errors; communicating with clients and regulators; and reporting in committee meetings). Estimating that one FTE is equivalent to 2,000 hours a year, it’s easy to see how the opportunity cost of human error adds up.
In this example, if a business invests $1 million in technology to reduce human errors (and their resultant losses) by 10%, it will have self-funded the investment in 12-18 months. The time saved in stopping just 10% of human errors can also create capacity in employee time.
This becomes the new steady state: preventing human errors and reducing time spent responding to them, the beginning of an upward spiral of self-funding and capacity creation.
The new steady state: preventing human errors and reducing time spent responding to them, the beginning of an upward spiral of self-funding and capacity creation.
The Value of Momentum
In our example, reducing losses by just 10% can not only offset the cost of the technology, but also create capacity in time. This can free up an employee to organize the next segment of efficiency work, which could include business processes and alignment on areas where there is real versus perceived risk.
Let’s look at some specific examples. In tranche 1, a 10% reduction in human error leads to a $1.0MM reduction in losses and the equivalent of 1 FTE capacity of time. With only a 10% reduction in losses due to human error and the resulting 1 person freed up, a leader can create momentum that leads to self-funding lasting change.
|Tranche||Self-funded by||Capacity created|
||$1.0MM reduction in losses||Creates capacity in time (FTE 1) to create an inventory of opportunities for efficiency|
||FTE 1 (2,000 hrs) released by not having to respond to the 10% of human errors reduced in Tranche 1||Creates capacity in time (FTE 2 & 3) for process/control mapping & targeted process enhancements|
||Reuse FTE 1 and add FTE 2 & 3||
The table below sets forth an example of the inventory described in Tranche 2 with common activity that can be adjusted or eliminated because it is not required, is inefficient, or doesn’t make us safer.
Table: Inventory of Opportunities for Efficiency
|Activity||Reason for adjusting|
|Committee mtgs/Forums to discuss operational risk framework activity (events, risk assessments, KRIs, scenarios)||
|PowerPoint decks and materials required for committee mtgs/forums||
|Reporting about events (at the time of, monthly, quarterly) and entry of information into risk systems||
|Emails about operational risk framework activities (risk assessments, KRIs, events)||
|Approvals and minutes – number of people in a business or corporate area required to approve risk assessments, events, KRIs||
|Effective challenge – done for everything by multiple independent parties||
OLI - Predicting and Preventing Human Error
OLI is BMO’s Operational Loss Intelligence solution, used to predict when operational losses, often caused by human error, are likely so that clients can take action to prevent them.
Using machine learning, OLI combines a company’s internal data with external data to identify the likelihood of a human error resulting in a loss. This likelihood is based on patterns that the model has identified about the internal and external data. Once the likelihood of an error reaches a threshold, OLI alerts humans and prompts them to take specific action to prevent the loss.
For example, in a trading business, OLI may predict 75% likelihood of a human error on a desk on a given day, alerting the employee of the higher risk and prompting them to “slow your input”. Repeated high signal may prompt colleagues to review a process for adjustments that enable better resource management or automation.
The same approach can be applied to other areas that pay the Human Error Tax such as payments and operations functions, fraud departments, and third-party vendors to which companies have outsourced.
With the self-funding advantages that machine learning can offer in reducing operational losses from human error, the question isn’t “should I make the investment?” but rather “why would I wait?”
Technology investments deserve to be carefully evaluated to determine how suitable they are for an enterprise, and how quickly return will be generated. But with the self-funding advantages that machine learning can offer in reducing operational losses from human error, the question isn’t “should I make the investment?” but rather “why would I wait?”