Where Is Your Paraplanning Time Actually Going?

A case is submitted on Monday and completed two weeks later.

The turnaround time was 14 days.

That sounds like a useful number. But on its own, what does it really tell you?

The case may have spent three days waiting for missing information from the adviser. It might then have waited two days to be allocated, four days being actively worked on, another two days on hold while provider information was obtained and three days waiting for checking.

Another case could also take 14 days while progressing smoothly from submission to completion without any significant interruption.

Both cases have exactly the same headline turnaround time.

Operationally, however, they tell very different stories.

If financial advice and paraplanning firms want to improve turnaround times, measuring the final number is not enough. They also need to understand what happened during the journey.

Not every delay is a paraplanning delay

Turnaround time is often discussed as though the entire period represents time spent completing the paraplanning work.

In reality, a case can spend significant periods waiting for somebody or something else.

It may be waiting for:

• missing information from the adviser;
• client documents;
• provider information;
• an internal allocation decision;
• clarification of the advice being requested;
• an adviser response;
• internal checking;
• a compliance review; or
• another external dependency.

None of those periods necessarily indicate that a paraplanner is working inefficiently.

If they are all included within one headline turnaround figure, however, it becomes difficult to distinguish genuine capacity issues from delays created elsewhere in the process.

Two 14-day cases can be completely different

Consider two hypothetical cases.

Case A

The adviser submits all required information and supporting documents.

The case is allocated quickly, the paraplanner completes the research and report, checking takes place and the work is returned to the adviser.

Total elapsed time: 14 days.

Case B

The adviser submits the case, but an important provider document is missing.

The paraplanner identifies the gap and the case is placed on hold. The missing information arrives several days later. Work resumes, another query is identified and the case pauses again before eventually moving into checking.

Total elapsed time: also 14 days.

If management information records only submission date and completion date, these cases look identical.

They are not.

Case A may suggest a healthy workflow with an expected end-to-end timescale.

Case B may suggest that the firm should look more closely at submission quality, provider dependencies or how outstanding information is managed.

Start measuring the journey

Useful operational information comes from understanding what happens between submission and completion.

Firms may want to understand:

• how long cases wait before being allocated;
• how long they spend actively in progress;
• how frequently they are placed on hold;
• why cases are placed on hold;
• how long different hold reasons typically last;
• how long cases spend waiting for checking;
• whether particular case types regularly take longer than others;
• how often additional information is required after submission; and
• where cases most commonly stop progressing.

This does not mean every action needs to become another KPI.

The objective is to capture enough of the journey to explain the outcome.

Separate active work from waiting time

One particularly useful distinction is the difference between active work and waiting.

A case may remain open for several weeks while requiring only a relatively small number of days of internal work.

For example:

• Submitted: Monday
• Waiting for missing adviser information: 2 days
• Waiting for allocation: 1 day
• Paraplanning in progress: 4 days
• Waiting for provider information: 3 days
• Checking: 2 days
• Final amendments and completion: 2 days

Total elapsed time: 14 days.

Looking only at the total could lead a manager to conclude that the paraplanning process itself needs to become faster.

Looking at the journey might show that a significant proportion of the delay happened before or around the actual paraplanning work.

The improvement opportunity may therefore sit somewhere completely different.

Hold reasons can be particularly valuable

A simple On hold status tells you that a case has stopped progressing.

It does not tell you why.

Recording a reason gives the firm far more useful information.

Common reasons might include:

• awaiting adviser information;
• awaiting client information;
• awaiting provider information;
• awaiting adviser decision;
• awaiting third-party response;
• client requested delay;
• technical query; or
• internal review required.

Once that information is captured consistently, patterns can emerge.

If a large proportion of cases are repeatedly waiting for adviser information, the firm may need to improve the initial submission process.

If cases regularly wait several days for checking, the constraint may be checking capacity rather than paraplanning capacity.

If one provider is consistently responsible for long delays, that is useful context when reviewing overall service levels.

Submission quality can affect everything that follows

The case journey often begins before the paraplanner has completed a single piece of research.

If the original submission contains clear objectives, the required client information, relevant provider details and appropriate supporting documents, the paraplanner has a much better starting point.

If those things are missing, the workflow may immediately become:

1. review the submission;
2. identify what is missing;
3. contact the adviser;
4. wait for a response;
5. review the new information;
6. discover something else is required; and
7. repeat.

The eventual turnaround figure records all of this time, but it may not explain where the problem originated.

Capturing the reasons behind delays helps firms determine whether they should focus on capacity, process, submission quality or communication.

Better data leads to better management questions

Once the case journey is visible, management information becomes much more useful.

Instead of asking only:

“What is our average turnaround time?”

firms can begin asking:

• Which stage creates the longest delays?
• What percentage of cases are placed on hold?
• What is the most common reason for a hold?
• Which case types require the most additional information?
• How long are cases waiting before allocation?
• How long do cases typically spend in checking?
• Which cases have had no meaningful activity recently?
• Where is workload accumulating?
• Are target completion dates realistic?
• Which delays are within the firm's control?

These questions are more likely to lead to practical improvements than a single end-to-end average.

Be careful with individual performance comparisons

More detailed workflow data should not automatically become a league table for paraplanners.

Case complexity varies considerably.

One paraplanner may be handling straightforward annual reviews while another is working on complex pension, tax or later-life cases. One adviser may consistently provide complete submissions while another requires several rounds of clarification.

External dependencies also vary.

A raw comparison of cases completed per month or average turnaround time can therefore create misleading conclusions if context is ignored.

Operational MI is most useful when it helps managers understand the system, not when it reduces complex professional work to one number.

Turnaround time still matters

None of this means firms should stop measuring end-to-end turnaround.

Advisers and clients ultimately experience elapsed time.

A client waiting for advice is unlikely to care that six days of the delay were caused by a provider rather than the advice firm.

Firms therefore still need to understand and manage the overall client experience.

The difference is that knowing what sits behind the headline number gives the firm a better chance of improving it.

It also helps teams communicate more accurately.

Instead of saying:

“The case is still in progress.”

the firm may be able to say:

“The paraplanning work is complete and the case is currently waiting for provider information. We will review and chase this again on Friday if it has not arrived.”

That is a much clearer operational position.

You cannot improve a bottleneck until you can see it

Firms sometimes respond to slow turnaround times by adding people.

Sometimes that is exactly what is required.

But if cases are actually spending most of their time waiting for incomplete information, internal decisions or checking, additional paraplanning capacity may have surprisingly little effect.

Visibility makes it possible to identify the real constraint before deciding how to respond.

That might mean:

• improving adviser submission requirements;
• changing how cases are allocated;
• reviewing checking capacity;
• creating clearer escalation rules;
• setting better expectations with advisers;
• changing how provider delays are monitored; or
• adding capacity where demand genuinely exceeds supply.

How GoSubmit approaches the case journey

GoSubmit is designed around the journey between adviser submission and case completion.

Rather than recording only the beginning and end of a case, the workflow can capture events such as submission, allocation, status changes, estimated completion dates, holds, hold reasons, checking and completion.

Firms can then use that operational information to understand workload, turnaround times and where cases may be becoming delayed.

The aim is not simply to produce more reports.

It is to make it easier to answer the question that sits behind the headline number:

Where is our time actually going?

Ask yourself

Pick ten recently completed cases and consider:

• Do you know how long each case spent actively being worked on?
• Do you know how much time was spent waiting?
• Can you identify why cases were placed on hold?
• Do you know how long cases waited for allocation?
• Can you see how long work spent in checking?
• Do certain case types consistently experience the same delays?
• Are advisers frequently asked for information after submission?
• Can managers identify the current bottleneck without asking the team?

If the answer to most of those questions is no, the headline turnaround number may be telling you less than you think.