Component: SOPs (Work Instructions and Training)

Description

SOPs, work instructions, and training materials are directly driven by screen behaviour, workflow design, task ownership, and exception handling.

In PCC upgrades, SOP effort is often underestimated because:

• UX changes alter how work is done, even when intent is unchanged

• Decisioning, routing, and activity behaviour shift subtly

• Reporting and controls no longer align to documented processes

In parallel, there is existing work underway to evaluate current SOPs and migrate content into new SOP guidelines, templates, and delivery channels, including websites and knowledge centres. Any PCC-related SOP work must align to this new framework.

As a result, SOPs should not simply be “updated”. They should be rewritten once, correctly, and aligned to the new operating model and channels.

Option 1: Continue on PCC Upgrade Plan

Rewrite SOPs to reflect new PCC 2.4 screens and workflows (legacy intent mapped forward)

Action

• Rewrite SOPs and training materials to reflect PCC 2.4 screens and widgets.

• Preserve existing process intent and sequencing.

• Update screenshots, navigation steps, and data entry instructions.

• Align all SOP outputs to the new SOP templates, standards, and channels currently being defined.

• Treat SOPs as a translation exercise rather than a redesign.

Target State Score

2 / 5

Change Impact

5 / 5

• All SOPs require rework due to:

  • new screen layouts

  • new navigation patterns

  • new activity UX

• Agents must be retrained despite processes being “the same”.

• High cognitive load as staff reconcile old intent with new execution.

Business Benefit

1 / 5

• No material improvement to process clarity or efficiency.

• SOPs become longer and more complex to explain system behaviour.

• Limited value from rewriting content beyond compliance alignment.

What this option gets

• SOPs aligned to PCC 2.4 for audit and compliance.

• Content migrated into new SOP templates and delivery channels.

• Training materials updated to support go-live.

What this option does not get

• No simplification of processes.

• No reduction in SOP volume or complexity.

• No improvement in agent understanding of “why”, only “how”.

• Missed opportunity to meaningfully uplift SOP quality despite rewrite effort.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• High change fatigue driven by SOP and training updates with no perceived benefit.

• SOP rewrite effort consumed by technical translation rather than improvement.

• Risk that teams disengage from SOP reform due to poor outcomes.

Delivery Risk

• SOP rewrite effort underestimated and left late.

• Parallel SOP transformation and PCC delivery causes duplication or rework if not tightly coordinated.

• Inconsistent adoption of new SOP templates and channels.

Accelerator

• Cursor can support:

  • migration of content into new SOP templates

  • alignment to websites and knowledge centres

• Limited acceleration benefit because SOP content still mirrors PCC complexity.

Option 2: Pivot to Target State

Redesign SOPs around Mini App-led journeys and new SOP framework

Action

• Rewrite SOPs to align to target-state journeys, not PCC screens.

• Structure SOPs around:

  • customer outcomes

  • decision points

  • exceptions and escalation

• Fully align SOPs to the new SOP templates, governance, and digital channels.

• Use Mini Apps, dashboards, and knowledge centres as the primary reference points.

Target State Score

5 / 5

Change Impact

4 / 5

• Meaningful change to SOP structure and delivery.

• Shift from screen-based instructions to scenario and outcome-based guidance.

• Change is easier to absorb due to reduced system complexity.

Business Benefit

5 / 5

• SOP rewrite effort delivers genuine uplift rather than technical compliance.

• SOPs become:

  • shorter

  • clearer

  • easier to maintain

• Strong alignment with broader SOP reform and digital knowledge initiatives.

• Reduced training time and improved onboarding.

What this option gets

• SOPs rewritten once, aligned to the true target state.

• Full leverage of the new SOP framework, templates, and channels.

• Clear linkage between policy, execution, and outcomes.

• Consistent operating logic across Care, CAT, and collections.

What this option does not get

• Immediate reuse of legacy SOP content.

• Requires stronger upfront design ownership.

• Virtual worklist handling still requires explicit SOP treatment.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• Requires discipline to avoid over-documenting.

• Risk if SOP rewrite starts before target-state journeys are agreed.

Delivery Risk

• Dependency on Mini App timelines.

• Requires close coordination between SOP reform and PCC delivery.

• Risk if SOP work is delayed and becomes a critical path item.

Accelerator

• Cursor can rapidly:

  • restructure SOPs to new templates

  • migrate content into knowledge centres

  • align SOPs to Mini App journeys

• Reduced SOP volume due to removal of ~125 PCC screens from scope.

Option 3: Tactical Legacy Hybrid

Retain existing SOPs with minimal alignment to new framework

Action

• Retain existing SOPs with minimal updates.

• Make only necessary changes to meet new SOP template requirements.

• Avoid large-scale rewrite or retraining.

Target State Score

1 / 5

Change Impact

2 / 5

• Minimal change for agents.

• Limited retraining required.

Business Benefit

1 / 5

• Short-term continuity only.

• Little value gained from broader SOP reform.

What this option gets

• Avoids immediate SOP rewrite effort.

• Preserves existing training investment.

• Short-term stability.

What this option does not get

• SOPs remain misaligned to the new SOP framework and channels.

• Missed opportunity to improve clarity, quality, and usability.

• SOP reform work is effectively deferred or wasted.

• Reinforces outdated practices and documentation sprawl.

Key Risks and Considerations

Business Risk

• SOPs increasingly diverge from system behaviour and governance expectations.

• High likelihood SOP reform is never properly completed.

• Increased audit and operational risk over time.

Delivery Risk

• Retrofitted system behaviour may invalidate retained SOP content.

• Knowledge centres become populated with outdated or low-quality content.

• Support burden increases due to unclear guidance.

Accelerator

• None material.

• Any short-term saving undermines the broader SOP transformation effort.