Allocation of internal division of work - manger level

Allocation of internal division of work -...

Didn't find your answer?

Hello

I just wondered if some of the larger practices (1000 clients+) could give their take on how they arrange the internal division of work amongst the client mangers. 

Here, we started a few years ago to divide the clients into alphabetical regions, so for example, clients A to F would belong to client manager 1, G to L, client manager 2, and so on. 

The only problem now is that it starting to become a bit one-sided for client manager  A to F, taking a higher proportion of the new clients as they come on-board. 

Would anybody like to suggest an alternative arrangement?

Replies (11)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By Tim Vane
27th Jan 2015 15:28

You could try wrapping the clients in swaddling clothes before allocating them to a manger.

Thanks (3)
pic
By jndavs
27th Jan 2015 15:37

or
Bubblewrap.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
27th Jan 2015 15:48

Beat me to it

Tim beat me to it so I had better say something else.

You are better allocating clients to match the skills & preferences of the individual managers.  You don't say for example whether you are dealing with a complete cross section from Audit Ltd Companies to small self employeds, through, high wealth tax cases, charities, LLPs etc, in which case it's unusual to find a bunch of managers who are each comfy taking on any of these.

If on the other hand you have a client base mainly made up of small OMBs then, as I used to, look at each manager's workload and move the new client to the one who is more likely to have the immediate investment time to "onboard" them and build a relationship.

PS: I wanted the opportunity to try out the new buzz word "onboard" to see if I still hate is as much as when I first heard it....and I do!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By TerryD
27th Jan 2015 16:16

In addition to the above, I'd make sure that each manager has a good spread of year-ends. If one has all the 31 March year-ends, for example, then he'd need to offboard a few.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
27th Jan 2015 16:20

By field?

If it's outdoor mangers you use then try allocating the clients by fields instead - should be more even as you're presumably unlikely to put a lot of clients in one field and only a couple in another (assuming fairly even field sizes and conditions). Or maybe move the sheepdogs around a bit so you've still got a shepherd in charge of the manger but more dogs to herd the clients in to feed or drink at the right time.

Failing that then just insist your new clients change their names to fit where you have gaps. Simple really.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
27th Jan 2015 16:22

Clients not changing

Where clients refuse to change their names I'd suggest waterboarding rather than onboarding - it makes them more compliant all round...

Thanks (0)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
27th Jan 2015 16:26

Surnames has the disadvantage

Surnames may have a disadvantage re family groups of clients . Where children marry and change their name they might end up in a different group from their siblings/parents, managing the whole family tax planning then becomes more difficult- clients like staff continuity.

The firms I worked  for when I moved to Edinburgh (I started my career in Glasgow) tended to allocate clients by experience ,so for instance those industry areas I had experience with got allocated to my portfolio- Edinburgh does not of course have that much industry/manufacturing so other staff in Edinburgh had less exposure to goods in/goods out/stock costing/cut off etc.

I also got landed with anything connected with motor dealerships as the firm I had previously worked for in Glasgow audited vast numbers of Nissan dealerships. (I seem to have spent half my apprenticeship  locating and checking VRN plates in greasy cars/vans located in freezing yards with rain soaking the stock sheets.)

Playing to experience appears the best approach re work allocation, albeit mixed with a little variety to prevent staff becoming really bored. (One of the reasons I was keen to initially leave practice was I got a bit fed doing internal audit work every month for the same client- I really started to get bored with auditing)

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tom 7000:
pic
By jndavs
27th Jan 2015 16:40

Surnames

DJKL wrote:

Surnames may have a disadvantage re family groups of clients .


Especially in Norwich!
Thanks (0)
avatar
By TerryD
27th Jan 2015 16:27

I'm board with new words now.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andy.partridge
27th Jan 2015 16:52

Unbelievable

if you were starting anew can you think of a worse way to allocate than an arbitrary chunk of the alphabet?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By BroadheadAccountants
27th Jan 2015 17:59

Client database

Isn’t this just a matter for finding some driver for who to allocate the work to and recording this in your practice client database?

 

Funny story…. can much amuse us in January…. I lost a client to a bigger firm.  Obviously their systems were quite weak for when I responded to the professional clearance I got a reply that I was confused.  I’d referred to the staff member now handling this and suggested they pass the letter through.

 

It could be said their on-boarding didn’t go well.

 

Can I just add it wasn’t to Barry131 that I lost the client!

 

Incidentally, the client said they enjoyed our personal service.  Can’t see this continuing with obviously automated emails at 3am in the morning!  Still it is self-assessment season so 3am emails could be the norm!

Thanks (0)