Component: Routes (Treatment Paths and Lifecycle Progression)

Description

Routes define the automated treatment paths that govern how accounts, cases, or other workable objects progress through the collections lifecycle. Routes control:

• Timing and sequencing of treatments

• Transitions between states

• SLA-driven triggers

• Escalations, holds, and exits

In the current environment, routes are:

• Built on TM-style constructs

• Highly interdependent with activities and config tables

• Often messy due to years of incremental change

Routes are also tightly linked to historical audit evidence, as they demonstrate that an account followed an approved treatment path.

Option 1: Continue on PCC Upgrade Plan

Lift and shift routes as-is

Action

• Lift and shift all existing routes from PCC 1.1.1 into PCC 2.4.

• Preserve route structure, sequencing, and logic.

• Make only technical adjustments required for compatibility.

• Treat routes as migration artefacts, not design assets.

Target State Score

2 / 5

Change Impact

2 / 5

• No material change to treatment paths.

• Minimal visible change to users.

• Low retraining impact.

Business Benefit

1 / 5

• No improvement to route quality or effectiveness.

• Existing issues remain embedded.

What this option gets

• Continuity of treatment paths.

• Reduced testing effort due to behavioural equivalence.

• Preservation of audit and historical treatment evidence.

• Faster migration with lower upfront effort.

What this option does not get

• No rationalisation of unused or redundant routes.

• No correction of misfires or SLA breach points.

• No simplification of lifecycle complexity.

• No improvement in explainability.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• Known defects and inefficiencies remain.

• Routes continue to encode outdated assumptions.

• Operational pain points persist.

Delivery Risk

• Hidden defects may surface due to execution differences in 2.4.

• Complexity remains difficult to support long-term.

Accelerator

• Cursor can document existing routes and dependencies.

• Limited ability to uplift behaviour without redesign.

Option 2: Pivot to Target State

Redesign routes during the PCC 2.4 upgrade

Action

• Redesign routes from first principles.

• Rationalise lifecycle stages, transitions, and triggers.

• Align routes tightly to redesigned segmentation and SM decisioning.

• Remove legacy constructs and unused paths.

Target State Score

4 / 5

Change Impact

5 / 5

• Significant change to treatment execution.

• Material retraining and SOP rewrite required.

• High operational impact.

Business Benefit

4 / 5

• Cleaner, more intentional treatment paths.

• Reduced long-term complexity.

• Better alignment to policy and risk appetite.

What this option gets

• Modernised route structure.

• Opportunity to remove historical defects and workarounds.

• Clearer lifecycle design.

What this option does not get

• Behavioural continuity.

• Easy audit comparability to historical data.

• Fast delivery.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• High change fatigue.

• Risk of unintended behaviour changes at scale.

• Difficult to validate all edge cases.

Delivery Risk

• Very high effort to redesign routes in bulk.

• Strong dependency on SM, activities, and data readiness.

• Elevated risk of defects at go-live.

Accelerator

• Cursor can support route redesign and rationalisation.

• Acceleration is limited by the scale and interdependency of routes.

Option 3: Tactical Route Remediation (Preferred)

Fix and rationalise routes in PCC 1.1.1, then migrate to PCC 2.4

Action

• Retain the existing route model as the baseline.

• Remediate known route defects in PCC 1.1.1, including:

  • decision misfires

  • SLA breach points (e.g. date handling)

  • incorrect transitions

• Remove unused or redundant routes.

• Then lift and load the cleaned route set into PCC 2.4.

• Migrate all activities consistently alongside routes.

Target State Score

3 / 5

Change Impact

3 / 5

• Limited change to route structure.

• Targeted fixes rather than wholesale redesign.

• Manageable training and SOP impact.

Business Benefit

3 / 5

• Improves route reliability and compliance.

• Removes known defects without destabilising execution.

• Preserves audit continuity while reducing risk.

What this option gets

• Safer and more predictable migration path.

• Reduced risk compared to full redesign.

• Preservation of historical audit and treatment evidence.

• Cleaner routes entering PCC 2.4.

• Avoids duplicating redesign effort during the upgrade.

What this option does not get

• A fully reimagined target-state route model.

• Structural simplification at a lifecycle level.

• Immediate alignment to a future-state-only design.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• Some structural inefficiencies remain.

• Requires discipline to avoid “just one more fix”.

Delivery Risk

• Requires careful coordination between 1.1.1 remediation and 2.4 migration.

• Risk if remediation scope is not tightly controlled.

Accelerator

• Cursor can:

  • evaluate all existing routes

  • identify decision misfires and SLA breach points

  • flag unused or redundant routes

  • recommend rationalisation candidates

• This creates a controlled and evidence-based clean-up without destabilising execution.

Overall Assessment

For Routes, Option 3 is the safest and most pragmatic approach.

• Option 1 preserves too many known issues.

• Option 2 is theoretically attractive but operationally risky at scale.

• Option 3 balances risk reduction, audit continuity, and delivery practicality.