Global alternative asset manager and retirement-services affiliate
Connecting liquidity, cash, and collateral to an executable transformation
The challenge went beyond choosing a platform: daily treasury decisions depended on data, processes, controls, and responsibilities spread across systems and teams.
I led the business operations workstream, evaluated the collateral platform build-versus-buy decision, developed the value case, and designed pilot and rollout plans. Follow-on work mapped 64 cash-flow line items and 10 collateral flows into the processes, data dependencies, and ownership needed for the new treasury platform.
Value quantified: Approximately $11.5M in potential annual value across five levers in the liquidity, cash, and collateral transformation.
What made the work complex
- Connecting asset and liability cash flows to when treasury could actually use the information.
- Comparing vendor capability, internal build scope, integration demands, and cost.
- Defining operational ownership, reconciliation, parallel runs, and the route from pilot to cutover.
The annual value figure is a quantified opportunity, rather than a claim of realized savings.
Health plan serving self-insured employers
Showing what really drives claims staffing and cost to serve
Leadership needed a defensible view of staffing and cost as the business moved between claims platforms. Claim counts alone missed the work created by reprocessing, manual handling, backlog, and service tasks.
I developed a driver-based workforce model connecting covered lives and claims demand to automation, rework, measured handling time, and effective examiner capacity. The model separated the two platforms, ongoing workload from backlog clearance, and examiner work from provider repricing queues.
Decision support: A traceable baseline and scenario model to test how enrollment, automation, productivity, and platform migration change staffing requirements.
How the model connected the operating economics
Covered lives and claim frequency determine demand. The manual share, rework, and time required determine workload. Effective capacity converts workload into staffing; staffing and unit costs provide the basis for cost to serve.
I reconciled claims records, production logs, and queue inventories so missing flags, incomplete logging, or provider repricing work would not silently distort the staffing answer.