I think the instructor needs to come in with more awareness of MIGA's business and insurance contracts to customize the course so that it's more applicable to our work. In the end, too much of the content was not relevant to our work. I also thought that the course should have included more of a big-picture economics/finance framework around insurance (e.g. talk about adverse selection, principal-agent, expected value). In its current form, I would not recommend, but I think the course could be useful if properly tailored to MIGA.
Trainer was honest to say he was a stand in and lacked expertise in the Cyber element of the course, which was one of the main areas I would have liked to concentrate on. Have requested via Marsh that we revisit this course or atleast the Cyber element of it. Feedback on course from colleagues that have taken the course at other times has been very positive. Left this session learning a few things but overall disappointed with delivery.
As the original tutor was unable to attend due to sickness, the course felt very disjointed and cobbled together as the tutor was having to work through slides which were not his. The majority of slides were skipped and were not explained fully. The day mainly consisted of us being given activities to complete before being taught the theory. This did not create a worthwhile learning experience as it felt more like self-learning rather than being taught by the tutor. One of the activities involved reviewing a policy wording but some of the wordings provided were years out of date which rendered the task irrelevant. The group were given two different wordings and asked to discuss with your partner but as one wording was years out of date, this led to confusion and most of the time spent was discussing why we had two conflicting wordings rather than gaining any knowledge out of this activity. I am not a fan of reviewing policy wordings as part of a learning experience, it seems a bit of a cop out and as policy wordings can vary significantly I don't feel that you can gain much useful knowledge from this activity. The course content seemed to jump around a lot, and it didn't feel like we finished a topic before moving on to the next. I have a few large contractor clients and was looking forward to developing my knowledge in this area but the course did not fulfil this. Overall a very disappointing experience.
The course was very basic and was not related to the management of binding authorities. The first half of the session was detailing what delegated underwriting was, and the second half was about conducting a Coverholder audit. The former was LM1 and 2 material and the latter freely available on the Lloyds website, and unrelated to the actual management of a binding authority. The course detailed the types delegated authority (lineslip, consortium etc.), and went through a binding authority agreement, again freely available from the LMA. The audit process was interesting, but I did not think it was well covered or particularly necessary. Ben knew what he was talking about and was happy to engage with questions but the overall content was extremely basic and I do not feel as though I really learned anything new that was not taught at Cert. CII level. Considering the course was titled 'Binding Authority Management' it was assumed it would actually be about managing binders, typical Coverholder enquiries, what to expect when dealing with a new Coverholder, Bordereau processing and things of this nature. That it was labelled 'Intermediate' certainly needs to be addressed, as in no way was this an intermediate course. The venue, ETC. Venues in Moorgate was excellent. The food provided was well varied and ample beverages throughout the day was of good stock. The WIFI was easy to connect to with the provided password.
I felt the course content was geared toward larger risks/clients yet all of the brokers attending were operating in the SME market . Basic Pre Course reading material and more in course summary information would increase the course benefits for real world application. P.M In course workshop exercises caused confusion and undermined A.M Learning contents (which was good). I feel the course could be run more effectively as a 1/2 days course with more focused concise content
There is a changed of venue. My team was not told of the last minute change. Staff of CII was not able to guide us the exact place resulting us late for the training after a long walk of unfamiliar streets and poor direction given by your team. Poor administration and coordination by CII staff. Very disappointing since the training was our main highlight of our trip to London!Response from course provider : Hi Pheng, Apologies for the venue issues. We needed to move the course to a different venue for various reasons but it 's clear we could have communicated this to you better so sorry for the inconvenience caused. Good to hear from the other delegates that the course went really well so hopefully you still found the day useful. Thanks, Nick
I'm not an expert in cyber but have had some dealings with it and so I was able to see this course for what it was. I was hoping that this course could be a non-biased overview of cyber covers. Dave Hole himself was a good trainer and I appreciated his training style. However, it was clear that Dave had little or no experience with cyber. There was little or no awareness of market issues, covers, who even offered cyber etc. Some statements were just incorrect: at the outset David mentioned that all cyber polices are similar – this couldn’t be further from the truth. There is a huge amount of variation in what the market is offering and this is a big issue (cover for PCI, triggers for BI cover and notification costs etc). When it came to the finer details of what a cyber policy has to offer we were handed a two page document printed from Airmic’s website and asked to read through it. Afterwards Dave said “I think this sums up what a cyber policy is” – no analysis, no discussion – clearly trying to mask that Dave had no experience in this type of cover. Dave did spend a long time talking about risk management and this is clearly something that he is knowledgeable about. However, this advice was generic and it was clear that Dave did not have any cyber risk management knowledge. Also I’m not sure what wording the slides were based on but they were not but this was not representative of the market. The course could have also easily been condensed to 2 hours, not a full day. I did think twice about sending such critical feedback and Dave seems like a good guy. But the CII should know that this course is a waste of time. I am certain that most attendees would have come away with more questions than there were answered and also come away with very little understanding of cyber. I feel frustrated, as the feedback I have had from other colleagues who have attended the Business Interruption course was fantastic and I was hoping for the same. I was very disappointed with this course as I had been expecting much more, particularly as this insurance is about to take off in light of new EU legislation due to come in this year (again this was not raised). If I thought it would do any good I would ask for my money back. I will actively be recommending that people in our brokerage do not attend this course and the CII would be remiss to run this again without someone who actually knows about cyber running it.Response from course provider : Hi Doug Thanks for taking the time to leave your feedback and I am sorry the course did not live up to your expectations or the courses your colleagues had attended. The course generated mixed feedback as some delegates were happy with it. I will review the course content and delivery with Dave Hole and look at what changes we can make to improve the delegate experience. Your feedback is important and I appreciate you letting us know your thoughts. Thanks, Nick Plastow, CII Face -to-Face training