A paraplanner receives a new case.
The adviser has explained what they want to achieve, the client is expecting a recommendation and the work is ready to begin.
Except it isn't.
The fact-find is missing some important information. The provider documents haven't been uploaded. The client's objectives aren't entirely clear. And there's a deadline, but nobody has explained why it's important.
So before the paraplanner can begin researching or preparing the advice, they need to go back to the adviser.
Another email. Another question. Another delay.
It's a familiar situation in many financial advice and paraplanning firms. And while it might seem like a small administrative inconvenience, the consequences can extend throughout the entire case journey.
Sometimes the best way to improve paraplanning efficiency is to improve what happens before paraplanning begins.
The hidden work created by incomplete submissions
When a case arrives without everything required to progress it, somebody needs to identify what's missing and obtain it.
That usually involves more than simply sending one email.
The paraplanner may need to:
- Review the information already provided.
- Identify missing or unclear details.
- Contact the adviser for clarification.
- Wait for a response.
- Review additional documents when they arrive.
- Check whether the information is now sufficient.
- Repeat the process if further questions arise.
Each individual step may only take a few minutes.
But those interruptions accumulate, particularly when the same problems occur across dozens of cases.
More importantly, the elapsed time between requesting information and receiving it can be considerably longer than the time required to ask the question.
A five-minute query can become a three-day delay.
Not all case types need the same information
One challenge with standardising submissions is that financial advice covers a wide range of circumstances.
A pension transfer has different requirements from a protection recommendation, investment review or retirement income case.
Asking advisers to complete one enormous generic form for every type of advice can create unnecessary work.
Equally, allowing every adviser to submit cases in their own way can leave the paraplanning team trying to piece together the information they need.
A more useful approach is to define submission requirements according to the type of work being requested.
For example, firms might require:
- Relevant client and fact-find information.
- Clear objectives and adviser instructions.
- Details of existing arrangements.
- Provider information and supporting documents.
- Risk and capacity-for-loss information where relevant.
- Fees and charging information.
- Target completion dates and important deadlines.
- Any unusual circumstances requiring consideration.
The exact requirements will depend on the advice area and the firm's own procedures.
The important principle is simple:
Ask for the right information for the right type of case.
A consistent process benefits advisers too
Standardising submissions isn't just about making life easier for paraplanners.
It can also make the process clearer for advisers.
Instead of remembering which documents a particular paraplanner prefers, searching through previous emails or asking what information is required, advisers can follow a defined process.
They know what needs to be provided before submitting the case.
That can reduce the likelihood of receiving requests for additional information after the work has supposedly begun.
It also creates more consistent expectations between advisers and the wider support team.
The impact on turnaround times
Incomplete submissions don't just create additional administration. They can make turnaround times harder to predict.
Consider two cases submitted on the same day.
Case A: Complete submission
The adviser provides the required information and documents from the outset.
The case can be reviewed, allocated and progressed without immediately needing clarification.
Case B: Incomplete submission
The paraplanner identifies missing provider information and unclear client objectives.
The case is placed on hold while the adviser obtains the outstanding details.
Both cases entered the workflow at the same time, but one was ready to progress and the other wasn't.
If the firm only measures the time between submission and completion, it may struggle to understand why their turnaround times differ.
Understanding submission quality alongside the wider case journey gives managers a clearer picture of where delays originate.
Why checklists are useful
A well-designed checklist provides a simple way to communicate what is required before a case is submitted.
It helps advisers confirm that the necessary information has been gathered and supporting documents are available.
For the paraplanning team, it creates a more consistent starting point.
However, checklists should support the process rather than become an administrative exercise in their own right.
A checklist containing dozens of irrelevant requirements can be just as frustrating as having no checklist at all.
Requirements should reflect the work being requested and be reviewed when processes or expectations change.
What about cases that aren't ready yet?
Not every adviser will have all the required information available immediately.
A client may still be gathering documents, or provider information may be outstanding.
That doesn't mean the adviser should have to start the submission process again later.
Allowing advisers to begin a submission, save their progress and return when more information becomes available can make the process more practical.
The important distinction is between a case being prepared for submission and a case being ready for the paraplanning team.
Keeping that distinction clear helps avoid creating unnecessary work for the receiving team.
Use submission problems to improve the process
Even with a well-designed submission process, some cases will require further information.
Financial advice is complex, and new questions can emerge during research and analysis.
The objective isn't to eliminate every follow-up question.
It's to reduce avoidable ones.
If paraplanners repeatedly request the same missing information, that's useful feedback.
It may indicate that:
- A required document isn't included in the submission checklist.
- A question needs clearer wording.
- Different case types need different requirements.
- Advisers need better guidance about what to provide.
- The firm's submission process needs reviewing.
Rather than treating every incomplete submission as an isolated problem, firms can use recurring patterns to improve the process itself.
How GoSubmit helps
GoSubmit allows financial advice and paraplanning firms to define how advisers submit work.
Firms can configure different case types with their own information requirements, documents and checklists.
Advisers follow a consistent submission process, while the paraplanning team receives the information within a shared case workflow.
Advisers can also save submissions as drafts and return to them when additional information becomes available.
Once submitted, cases can be reviewed, allocated and progressed through the paraplanning workflow, with visibility for the people involved.
The aim isn't to make the submission process unnecessarily complicated.
It's to help advisers provide the right information and give paraplanners a better starting point.
Better paraplanning starts earlier than you think
When firms look for ways to improve paraplanning efficiency, the focus often falls on what happens after the case has been allocated.
Workload, capacity, turnaround times and checking processes all matter.
But the information provided at the beginning of the journey can have a significant impact on everything that follows.
A clearer submission process can mean fewer avoidable questions, fewer interruptions and a more consistent experience for everyone involved.
Sometimes improving the workflow doesn't start with changing how the paraplanner works.
It starts with changing how the case arrives.