Skip to content

Mortgage cover excluded from new means testing rules

July 12, 2018

SAMI Consulting were pleased to see the press release from the Building Resilient Households Group about the exclusion of mortgage cover from new means testing rules. The work by the group, co-chaired by SAMI Consulting’s Richard Walsh and Alan Woods, brings much needed good news for householders.

The Building Resilient Households Group gives regular updates on its progress to the IPTF and the CII. The Building Resilient Households Group sought clarification from DWP about how pay outs from protection policies will be treated under the new system

Changes to State help with mortgage payments

From 6 April 2018 people who suffer a loss of income from sickness or other causes can no longer get state benefits to cover their mortgage payments. Instead some people may be offered and qualify for a loan, called a Support for Mortgage Interest Loan (SMIL) in which case DWP will, where possible, put a charge on their property. This means that all mortgage holders now need to consider protection if they want to avoid eating into the equity in their home in the event of a prolonged sickness absence (an occurrence that affects two million people each year.)

Clarification of how insurance pay-outs will be treated

In the light of these changes the Building Resilient Households Group, has sought clarification from DWP about how pay-outs from protection policies will be treated under the new system. The key point from the clarification we have now received is any income received from an insurance policy which is specifically intended and used to cover mortgage payments will be totally disregarded when entitlement to means-tested benefits is assessed.This applies to both legacy benefits and Universal Credit

Two provisos should be noted:

  • If insurance pay-outs are restricted to the payment of a mortgage (e.g. by being paid direct to the lender) they will be fully disregarded. But if the claimant has choice over how to spend the payments then only any portion which DWP judge to be intended and used for mortgage cover will be disregarded.
  • If a claimant applies for a Support for Mortgage Interest Loan their insurance payout will be taken into account when their offer of a loan is considered. However, this scenario is unlikely to be a common one as people would have no need for a loan while receiving insurance payouts which fully cover their mortgage.

Implications for mortgage-holders, advisers and insurers

Richard Walsh, Joint Chair of the Building Resilient Households Group, said: “This clarification means that:

  • people who choose to protect their mortgage payments with an appropriate insurance policy can do so without fear that their pay-outswill lead to their benefits being cut
  • advisors should alert clients to the risk that loss of income through sickness or other causes may lead to mortgage holders into spiralling debt – and advise on appropriate protection
  • insurers may see opportunities to design new protection policies with a portion specifically designated to cover mortgages”

Written by the IPTF and BRHG.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

SAMI Consulting was founded in 1989 by Shell and St Andrews University. They have undertaken scenario planning projects for a wide range of UK and international organisations. Their core skill is providing the link between futures research and strategy.

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter here and/or browse our website

 

Advertisements

Disruptive technologies?

July 4, 2018

broken

VC company Tällt Ventures brought together a panel of judges from Microsoft, Google, Uber, Sainsbury’s and others under the banner of “Disrupt 100” to select the start-up businesses “with the most potential to influence, change, or create new global markets”.  Innovations that had a social benefit were particularly highlighted. They tackled this challenging task, grouping contenders together in themes:

  • Social impact enterprises
  • AI
  • Biotech
  • Space tech spin-offs

Many investors are now looking at the social impact of businesses as a KPI.  Examples on the list include:

  • Jupiter Intelligence which provides a tool for urban planners to assess flood risk using real-time satellite data and machine learning to assess the effects of climate change, rising sea-levels and erosion
  • Callisto is a platform for college students to report unwanted sexual harassment; now being extended into workplace versions
  • Flow Neuroscience, a personal medical device that treats depression by stimulating and suppressing parts of the brain using very weak electrical currents.

 We’ve seen many developments in AI in recent years and the judges saw these having a real impact very soon.  They selected:

  • Sophia Genetics, providing enhanced genomic diagnostics, specifically for cancers
  • CallSign uses AI to build a picture of the user and trigger an alert if it detects unusual behaviour.
  • Textio is an “augmented writing” platform helps recruiters improve the content of their postings and changes the way businesses use language. Small tweaks can change the appeal of an advert and targeted to specific groups: in one case the female response rate increased from 10% to 57%.

Biotech has long been one of our megatrends. In this category the judges were looking at those developments that would support sustainable consumption.

  • Memphis Meat, which produces lab-cultured meat thereby reducing water use, and includes amongst its backers Bill Gates and Richard Branson
  • Algiknit is developing a sustainable “BioYarn” that can quickly biodegrade after its use-life is over using alginate, a biopolymer derived from kelp
  • Envigreen Biotech produces starch-based substitutes for plastic bags that are 100% organic and recyclable; some of the inputs are vegetable waste bought from farmers in southern India, thereby also providing a boost to the local economy.
  • Douxmatok is looking to change the way we taste sugar, making it more potent so people consume less of it – ideally, around 30% less. A “drug carrier” transports the sugar molecules directly to the body’s sugar receptors enhancing its impact.

The fourth category was rather anomalous: “unfathomable science”, mainly space technology spin-offs. The highlights were:

  • General Fusion are developing fusion energy called Magnetized Target Fusion (hydrogen atoms fused together by heating to high temperatures); fusion energy could be relatively cheap, and of course doesn’t produce greenhouse gases.
  • Zero Mass Water have developed hydro panels to produce water using only sunlight and air from the natural humidity – a huge benefit in water-starved areas and refugee camps.
  • EnergyNova design and manufacture longer-lasting hydrogen-fuel batteries which overcome the limitations of lithium batteries.
  • Axelspace uses 50 satellites to take pictures of the world every day, and is building a space data API for anyone to use; applications are boundless.

The range of innovations on the list is startling – from nano-technology satellites to portaloos that use no water and convert waste into energy; from automated quantum chemistry to “increasing pregnancy possibilities via smartphones”!

But what I found interesting was that so many innovations targeted at social benefit are seen by a VC firm to be serious investment opportunities. Maybe this signals a change in corporate priorities.

Written by Huw Williams, SAMI Prinicipal.

NB: none of the above represents an investment recommendation by either Huw Williams or SAMI Consulting.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

SAMI Consulting was founded in 1989 by Shell and St Andrews University. They have undertaken scenario planning projects for a wide range of UK and international organisations. Their core skill is providing the link between futures research and strategy.

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter here and/or browse our website

Taking the bias out of decisions

June 27, 2018

This blog piece is a highly edited version of “Debiasing political decision-making through “Value-Free” scenario models”, a paper presented by SAMI Fellow Jonathan Blanchard Smith at the European Union’s 6th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) – Future in the Making, held in Brussels, 4-5 June 2018.

london-2393098_1920

Our recent work on Brexit, and in particular the creation and use of the SAMI futures model in client work and presentations, has thrown up an unexpected outcome. Client feedback has shown that one of the benefits of using the model is in being able to consider a politically contentious matter such as Brexit in what we are calling a ‘value-free’ state: in other words, that the model enables people to think about a complex, highly emotionally charged problem rationally.

Alongside our existing work on decision bias, and how it complicates making “robust decisions in uncertain times”, we have been developing this thinking, and recently presented it at the main European foresight conference to gain feedback and further advance our thinking. This remains very much a work in progress, but it is one which seems to have real benefits.

Brexit as an example of contested thinking

It is a feature of Brexit that people find it very difficult to engage with without having a preference for one or other side of the argument. We have seen in for instance the largely unsupported claims of the Leave side (Aaron Banks’ recent statement to the House of Commons Culture Media and Sports Committee: “Banks and Wigmore happily admitted lying to journalists during the EU referendum to gain publicity for their cause” (The Guardian, 12 June 2018)) or the much derided “Project Fear” from the Remain side that both sides exaggerated and exaggerate their positions for effect.

The binary nature of the choice inevitably intensifies the split between the two sides. The marginal nature of the referendum result gave neither side an argument that the electorate was with them.

Populism

The rise in populism raises a number of issues including:

  • Youth vs age. Whilst the people behind populist movements are of all ages, those who vote for them are predominantly older.
  • Distrust of experts. The reaction against expertise complicates decision making by introducing what is essentially an unanswerable opposition (“I don’t believe you”) to fact. There is no easy resolution of this issue.
  • Emotional investment. The oppositionalist, binary nature of many of the issues results in people gaining entrenched positions where it is emotionally easier to pick a side and defend it than it is to see that the other side has valid opinions or, even more difficult, may in fact be right.

The combination of these two last points has been compounded in what is generally known as the “backfire effect”.

The Backfire effect

Essentially, the backfire effect holds that “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.”

The issue: and its solution

The essential problem our clients found was that their thinking was clouded not only by the normal issues which affect one’s thinking about the future – lack of precise information, compromised or conflicting reasons for doing the work, unconscious or conscious desire for a particular outcome and so on – but by the fact that they were too embedded in a view about the decision that formed the start point of the scenarios in the first place. This emotional investment in one side or other prevented them from thinking clearly about the future.

By developing a futures model which does not include the problem but includes the consequences of the problem, in such a context that it is the potential future outcomes that matter, the model seems to allow a freedom of thought which is genuinely productive.

We have described the model in detail in past blog posts. Our paper described the results we gained from the model.

Feedback from clients has been overwhelmingly positive. They appreciated

  • “the space to think about this without worrying about Brexit”
  • “the clear air it gives us to think about the future”
  • “the fact that I can think about the opportunities not just how bad it’s going to be”

This implies that the ability to communicate is by itself improved by the removal of potential biases, by providing a “safe space” for clients to think about complex and divisive issues without actually having to explicitly engage with the issue itself.

We draw a number of other conclusions, specifically designed for scenario creators, around the requirement for conscious debiasing at the outset, the need for independent checking and a real sense of integrity throughout the model development process.

The backfire effect is only one of many potential biases that can influence both scenario set creation and use. However, it is also one of the most evident. Whilst scenarios are generally understood as providing a space within which one can think about the future and its implications, the underlying assumptions and methodologies are poorly recognised in the client base, and there is a question about how far one can engage clients with the engineering as opposed to the result.

Conclusions

Conscious debiasing at the outset of the scenario construction process is a multi-step process, and is dependent not only on the quality of the scenario set but upon the determination of the development team.

We believe that this model provides a potential route to thinking about the implications of contentious political topics in a way that provides clarity for clients, whether they be in politics directly or in the impact of those politics through their involvement in business or the third sector. Communication, comprehension, and results all seem to be improved through this model.

Copies of the paper are available directly from the author at jbs@samiconsulting.co.uk

Written by Jonathan Blanchard Smith, SAMI Fellow.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

SAMI Consulting was founded in 1989 by Shell and St Andrews University. They have undertaken scenario planning projects for a wide range of UK and international organisations. Their core skill is providing the link between futures research and strategy.

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter here and/or browse our website

 

“The Future Starts Here” at the V&A

June 20, 2018
V&A Exhibition

© Victoria and Albert Museum, London

The V&A have put together a very interesting exhibition “The Future Starts Here”with some 100 objects selected to illustrate current trends and future possibilities. The exhibition, on until 4thNovember, is organised in five sections: Self, Public, Planet, Afterlife and “The Future is….”.

The Self section explored what it means to be human and how connectedness does not necessarily mean an end to loneliness. This first looked at the application of AI in the home – a robot laundry, called BRETT (Berkeley Robot for the Elimination of Tedious Tasks) – and moved on to cover Roman wearable technology (a ring with a door-key attached).  The extent to which biotech can actually change the human form – and has already begun to do so – blurs what is human and what is technological.  Other difficult issues around criminal profiling (remember phrenology anyone?) and staff monitoring were also raised.

In Public, issues around democracy, cities and the use of data were explored. Is direct democracy the next stage – as evidenced by an Estonian e-citizen card and flashmob demonstrations? If refugees can compete under a neutral flag at the Rio Olympics, what does that mean for nation states? Inevitably, there was a driverless car (the whole event is sponsored by VW), and zero-carbon, zero-waste cities (Masdar, Abu Dhabi).  An example of crowd-funded infrastructure (a footbridge) asks the question of whether this a better way to pay for services than taxation. We were also invited to consider what it would be like to work for an algorithm – as UberEats drivers do.

The third section, Planet, dealt with how we manage ours and whether we reach out to others, specifically Mars. After noting that we were now in the Anthropocene, a geological era shaped by mankind, there was a proposal to green the deserts with deep-rooted grasses – have we not seen the unintended consequences of eco-engineering before, in Australia for example?  3D printing in space as a way of managing inter-planetary missions seemed a more reasonable proposition.  If Mars is the answer, what was the question?

Afterlife dealt with the prospect of living forever – who would want to do that? Cryonics potentially creates the potential for freezing bodies – or just brains – until health technology can cure their illnesses.  Will we upload our experiences and knowledge to the web, and become virtual beings?  The Svalbard Global Seed Vault providing the capability to recover plant life is one thing as is, similarly, the Millennium Seed Bank at Kew , which SAMI Fellow John Reynolds helped set up. But the Long Now library, which aims to compile all the books needed to re-boot humanity in the event of a cataclysm, is surely  something of a Desert Island Discs exercise, as everyone would have their own selection – Terry Pratchett anyone?.

Finally, visitors were invited to complete the sentence, “The Future is…”.   Suggestions included “The future is vegan”, “the future is female”, “the future is slavery to AI”.

Overall, the exhibition was perhaps overly technologically optimistic: new inventions will together make our lives wonderful. There was little consideration of the fact that technology is largely value-neutral. It can be used for good or ill – human nature includes greed and the lust for power as much as goodwill and the desire for a better society.

How would you complete “The Future is….”??

The V&A is also hosting a day-long event, “Toolkit for the Future”, on 29thJune.  “Thinkers and makers question dominant futures and imagine alternative worlds, sharing perspectives on technology, politics, and speculative design”.

Written by Huw Williams, SAMI Principal

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

SAMI Consulting was founded in 1989 by Shell and St Andrews University. They have undertaken scenario planning projects for a wide range of UK and international organisations. Their core skill is providing the link between futures research and strategy.

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter here and/or browse our website

 

 

Building and Testing Business Models – the role of scenarios and modelling

June 13, 2018

blackboard-business-chalkboard-355988

One of the most interesting recent advances in the art of business model innovation and testing has been the creation of the Business Model Canvas, a language capable of describing and manipulating business models to create new strategic alternatives (Business Model Generation: Osterwalder and Pigneur Wiley 2010).

There are nine basic building blocks in this structure covering the four areas of customer, offer, infrastructure and financial viability. The design process itself is broken out into five phases – mobilize, understand, design, implement, and manage.

Within that, design is the place where prototype models are developed, options are generated, and the best selected. This is where techniques such as scenarios and simulation are proving to be increasingly valued.

Although these were once seen as the province of two distinct (and rarely overlapping) communities, advances in simulation modeling have significantly increased the potential of an integrated approach. In fact, we see their integration as vital to the development of a modern strategy capability in any enterprise of scale.  But just how might a more integrated approach be made to work and what would be the benefits?

Business simulation modeling has been applied to every possible complex decision in every conceivable industry, and featured in the popular movie Moneyball.  In practice, simulations seek to create replicas of businesses or operating assets that allow the users of those models to experiment with them under a wide variety of real or imagined conditions.  Scenario planning, on the other hand, is the well-ordered, systematic discussion and development of a range of plausible futures facing that business based on analysis of the key drivers of future change.  Putting these pieces together, we see that a business simulation that faithfully captures the essence of the business and the way it will develop in response to the many challenges it faces, could be placed in the hands of a scenario planning team as the centerpiece of the strategy dialogue.  Doing so would offer the following advantages:

  1. The simulation ensures that the scenarios and their implications are also data-rich, not simply qualitative.
  2. A simulation model can very quickly calculate the implications of a scenario – that allows the team to consider a wider range of scenarios, even those at the “tails” of the distribution (extreme conditions).
  3. A simulation model can provide dynamic imagery that can ‘bring the scenarios to life.’
  4. Running many more scenarios would show the teams where there are “inflection points” in circumstances – i.e. a small change in the market may double (or half) the value of an asset.
  5. A more complex set of interventions/insurance against “perfect storm” scenarios might be developed, given the speed at which a model may identify and assess such conditions.
  6. Combining simulation with scenario planning respects the bare economic fact that computing power is cheap and human talent is expensive. An integrated approach provides the maximum leverage of expensive human talent.
  7. By codifying the scenario information in the form of a model, more stakeholders – suppliers, regulators, the public – can be both participants in its design as well as consumers of the final result.

Decisions about the future are naturally fraught with uncertainty. Some aspects can be modeled because the underlying assumptions and ‘rules’ remain valid. There is also increasing uncertainty as one moves further into the future. Therefore, for some aspects, data driven approaches provide rapid and powerful explorations of some possible futures. For others, uncertainty cannot be reduced to quantitative values; judgement is needed based on experience and a host of unquantifiable elements. But bringing these two capabilities together in a mutually reinforcing way will help both today’s decision makers and provide a powerful learning environment in which decion making steadily improves over time to the benefit of all stakeholders.

Scenario analysis can help determine the variable to be explored in the models. The model can be used to test, visualize and quantify a range of futures. It is not possible to remove the uncertainty of the future but a combination of scenarios and modeling will enable these uncertainties to be better understood and managed. This will lead to more robust decisions, lower risk and potential competitive advantage.

It is also important to recognize that to varying degrees we can influence the future. Those that have a better understanding of the future are better placed to influence it and be leading events, rather than reacting to them.

This note was originally produced by Torus Business Web for the Government Operational Research Service (GORS).

Written by John Reynolds, SAMI Fellow 

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

For nearly 30 years, SAMI Consulting  has been helping clients think about the future. We have undertaken more than 250 foresight and scenario planning projects for a wide range of UK and international organisations. Our core skill is providing the link between futures research and strategy, helping clients to understand key drivers of change and manage uncertainty.

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter by clicking here and/or browse our website.

 

Nesta FutureFest Forward: AI and The Future of Work, May 2018

June 7, 2018

future-2372183_1920

We recently attended a Nesta event on AI and the future of workwhich was the second of the precursors to this year’s FutureFest Forward(scheduled for 6 and 7 July 2018). With 3 speakers and an MC, this event aimed to explore, and rediscover, how we will approach work in the ‘new world’ of increased automation and AI. Each speaker put forward their ideas and visions of what might be and then discussions were opened up to the audience in the form of a Q&A session.

Charles Kriel, the chair of the session introduced the topic with some thoughts about dialogue, Google’s digital assistant and how making bots understand us likely to change our language which means that AI will be shaping our discourses over the years to come.

The first speaker was Rachel Higham, Director of IT at BT where they have been using, developing and supplying AI for over 8 years. Their use has included scheduling field engineers’ appointments; managing nuisance calls as well as other cybersecurity areas and has led them to understand how careful we need to be in deploying AI. After all data analysis and machine learning are dependent on where the data originates so can easily spread bias. As customers begin to question this data and its use, organisations will need to become increasingly transparent around AI and its implementation. There is a growing need for all of us, not just organisations, to think about governance and the necessary ethical frameworks for the use of AI – as it’s rather like a child in terms of its ability to make decisions so these do need to be monitored. Clearly AI has huge potential yet brings with it a huge duty of care and issues around trust.

Dr Phoebe Moore, University of Leicester, was our second speaker and reminded us of John McCarthy’s definition of AI – the science and engineering of making intelligent machines. This indicates that, as development continues, machines will become autonomous and not require human intervention. It also means that robots have to learn continually, and create symbols, to help themselves understand processes by which the world operates whereas for humans the world just ‘is’. Nowadays data can come from just about anywhere and be digitalised so enabling technology to measure increasingly intangible things leading, in some cases, to human profiling. A recent International Labour Organisation report has identified risks associated with such people analytics where the use of algorithms and the automation of offices has led to an overall deskilling and the replacement of jobs. This is beginning to move into the area of non-routine jobs and the use of ‘big data’ to make judgements. Again we heard that ethical and related issues will need to be addressed.

Our final speaker was Harry Armstrong from Nesta who brought in some other topics and reminded us that there are other things shaping the future of work. These include, amongst others, demographics, globalisation and geopolitics. Alongside this we also need to find better ways of dealing with AI and ensure we bring aspects of foresight and futures into the debate, for example can we create sensible labour market intelligence. We also need to accept that automation is coming and will happen to us as ‘science finds, industry invents and humans conform’. One key point, though, is to remember that we have agency over these things and through high performance work practices, and organisation design we can have a huge impact on how the coming work disruption will affect our lives and structures. We will have to find ways of functioning in and out of work in such a new world and also find ways of dealing with possible mental health issues as work may no longer define us as individuals.

These three thought-provoking presentations led us into a wide-ranging Q&A session where we discussed privacy as a human right, the need for an ISO in the area of AI, the recent setting up of the Centre for Data Ethics, how we can become more transparent in the use of data and the difficulty of explaining how data is collected and used because, at the moment, this seems to be very much a ‘black box’ process. Other topics raised included the need for interactions with everyone who gives their data not just companies and governments, how we can value the ‘human skills’, whether we are looking sufficiently hard at the philosophical side of the issues and whether the acceleration of AI increases the divide between the ‘haves’ and have-nots’.

As you can see from this list of issues – which is not exhaustive! – the debate was extremely divergent and reached no particular conclusions. The session could probably have continued way into the night had not the prospect of a glass or two of something suitably celebratory been proffered. All in all a great warm-up for the immersive installations and inspiring talks planned for FutureFest Forward in July.

Written by Cathy Dunn, SAMI Principal.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

For nearly 30 years, SAMI Consulting  has been helping clients think about the future. We have undertaken more than 250 foresight and scenario planning projects for a wide range of UK and international organisations. Our core skill is providing the link between futures research and strategy, helping clients to understand key drivers of change and manage uncertainty.

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter by clicking here and/or browse our website.

Sick pay vs group income protection

May 30, 2018

Last year I wrote about the Matthew Taylor Review into Modern Working Practices and this year the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) produced its response.

Most of the commentary focused on the decision not to change the tax arrangements for self-employed people however their response covered a lot more.

Of particular interest to protection insurance providers are their plans on workplace statements for employees and that more people in the gig economy should have the right to move to more permanent employment arrangements – with the same rights on employer statements of their entitlements – as other workers.

Building Resilient Households

As some readers will know I have been working on a project known as Building Resilient Households which is exploring how to encourage people to prepare themselves in the event of income shocks – especially sickness absence from work.

One of the obstacles to this is a lack of knowledge on what sick pay entitlements people may have and what the State will and will not provide.

On the second point it is worth noting that from this month the benefits system will no longer provide payments to support mortgage interest. Instead the only support will be a loan, charged against their property.

The Department of Work and Pensions have already indicated that they support workplace statements on sick pay entitlement and the fact that BEIS are also now moving to make this a reality is very good news. In fact, BEIS launched a consultation entitled “Measures to Increase Transparency in the UK Labour Market”.

Transparency

There are many businesses that already promote transparency in their employment relations.

There are also examples, however, where a lack of transparency has had a negative impact, leading workers to face concerns over insecurity of work and resulting in reduced workforce engagement and lower productivity.

Current legislation requires an employer to give employees whose employment has continued for at least one month a ‘written statement of employment particulars’.

The Written Statements Directive was transposed in 1993 in Great Britain and it is embodied in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). It builds upon the legislative framework the UK already had in place via the Contracts of Employment Act 1963.

Group income protection

The written statement currently consists of a ‘principal statement’ in which a certain subset of information must be contained all in one document.

Examples of what must be included are hours of work and holiday entitlement (and if that includes public holidays). However the written statement doesn’t need to cover sick pay – but it must say where the information can be found. In practice, the effect is that many employees do not know their sick pay entitlement.

The consultation proposes that this should change. They are also consulting on other information that could be included, for example all remuneration (not just pay). Although it is not specifically mentioned, I think there is a good case for group income protection to be included here.

Consultation response

Times have changed. In the past, GIP was often kept secret from employees and seen as a purely financial matter.

Today, a key feature of GIP is the provision of rehabilitation and GIP is seen as an employee benefit.

We have also seen a growing individual IP market. This market could grow further if people were clear about exactly what support they would get from their employers in the event of sickness absence and in turn help households become more resilient to this income shock.

Written by Richard Walsh, SAMI Fellow and first published in Cover magazine, April 2018

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

 

For nearly 30 years, SAMI Consulting  has been helping clients think about the future. We have undertaken more than 250 foresight and scenario planning projects for a wide range of UK and international organisations. Our core skill is providing the link between futures research and strategy, helping clients to understand key drivers of change and manage uncertainty.

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter by clicking here and/or browse our website.

%d bloggers like this: