You may have noticed that we’ve made a number of significant refinements to openAFSL to improve its already impressive speed and usability. We’ve also made a number of technical and coding changes to improve and simplify the user experience. The changes we’ve made are documented on our website (http://www.openafsl.com/news/) but to make things even easier I’m happy to confirm the top 5 EOFY enhancements:

1.     The Advice Quality Report no longer shows an explicit qualitative assessment of the files.

For example, instead of identifying the Smith as “Very Poor advice”, colour (in this case red) is used to indicate the seriousness of the issues identified in that file. This reinforces the methodology and “traffic light” indicators used throughout the system. Rest assured that the qualitative assessment remains in the background systems available to the users but it does not appear in any of the adviser correspondence.

2.     The Advice Quality report has been reformatted

  • The first section for each observation contains the notes recorded by the reviewer. Titled “Specific Observations” this ensures that the report starts by identifying the adviser’s specific acts or omissions. The report is about the adviser and their conduct and is intended to be both educative and remedial; the reformat supports this aim more effectively.
  • The general text has been refined and qualified to minimise a perceived negative tone. While the more egregious failures maintain the previous tone, most text has been softened while maintaining clarity and without minimising the significance of the issue identified. Legal advice highlighted the absolute need to call out significant issues and their consequences to advisers and this continues but in somewhat less confrontational language.
  • To address the confusion some advisers experienced in reading the report, we have renamed the general educative text to “Why this matters” and relocated the section to follow the specific observations. This ensures that they receive the general explanation to understand the importance of the identified issue.

3.     The review process itself has been enhanced.

Observations in each section can now be listed in the order they appear or can be grouped in order of significance within the section. This accordion style presentation facilitates a faster “trickle down” review and also assists Reviewers to complete the review in a more systemic and consistent manner. If you choose this appearance then the observations in each section are grouped between “Significant”, “Material”, “Minor” or “Best Practice” Issues and nestled under the title. We’ve also called out the validation category which contains observations that are only used if no other issues are identified by the Reviewer.

4.     The underlying algorithms have been subtly refined.

As part of our commitment to continuous improvement we've tweaked some of the underlying numbers and shifted the default position moved from “Sound” to “Good”. Our modelling has indicated that this will have no significant impact on either the results or the comparability of historic results but, based on user feedback, these changes will help users build adviser engagement.

5.     “Actions” and “Issues” generated as result of the review do not become active and visible unless or until the report is finalised and locked.

This means that there’ll be no processing of these tasks until they’ve been confirmed and acknowledged.

The development of openAFSL is driven to a large extent by the suggestions of our engaged user community. We welcome your feedback and are committed to continuously enhancing the system to make it an even better tool for you and your teams.

If you have some suggestions, or additional questions about the system, please contact us directly on 02 9089 8710 or 0498 127 383.

Comment