LPL Financial · Planning services · Phase 2 of 3
Map the gap: standardizing five planning services
In order to remove operational friction, leadership wanted to standardize processes across the five LOBs, but they didn't know where the friction existed. They asked me to map all five service lines end to end, discover the pain points, and serve up possible solutions. We discovered two different paradigms, a host of problems, and a single friction every line shared.
- Role
- Principal Product Designer
- Duration
- 2023–2024
- Team
- Product Manager
5 LOB delivery leaders and their staffs - Responsibilities
- Service designProcess mappingJourney mappingWorkshop facilitation
The approach
Stack all six maps and only the shared spine stays in focus; the rest blurs where they diverge.
The synthesis
They're not the same. They're two different lines.
Paraplanning & Tax Planning
A request flows to a production pod and moves down an assembly line. Tax Planning is just Paraplanning with extra presentation and revision loops on the end. Same guts, more steps.
The three High-Net-Worth services
Opens with a paid qualification gate, runs on senior specialists (attorneys, CFAs, AVP consultants), and is built around live strategy conversations, not a ticket flowing to a pod.
View the shape comparison, map by map
Line them up and the split is down the middle, not at three points.
Same opening move, same guts. Tax is just Paraplanning with extra presentation and revision loops bolted on the end, 10 steps instead of 6, not a different process.
A different animal. HNWS opens with a paid qualification gate, runs on senior specialists (attorneys, CFAs, AVP consultants), and is built around live strategy conversations, not a request that flows to a production pod.
The same friction shows up on every single map.
Advisor non-compliance.
Advisors sit on documents and tasks. With no workflow capability, there's no system enforcement. Pipeline clogs.
Advisors aren't LPL employees. They're the customer, and LPL's brand promise has always been to work on their terms. You can't discipline your customer, and the budget for enforcement tooling didn't exist anyway.
These maps showed that hidden cost, for the first time. The fix had to come from the demand side: advisor readiness, expectations, incentives, and skill.
View the friction comparison, map by map
Only one friction is truly shared. The rest cluster by line.
Legacy
2.0
Plan
Port.
So standardize the one thing everyone shares, and stop forcing two different lines into one.
The six maps behind the read.
Every service line, mapped task-by-task across roles, pain points and opportunities called out at each stage. Pick a line to explore; scroll the frame sideways to walk the full workflow.
AdvisorSubmits the plan request through the app; may attach docs or communicate key details.
Plan MgrGets the new-request notification; checks a Sr Assoc's capacity over Teams and assigns them in the app. For off-app requests, enters the request on the advisor's behalf in support view. Sets status to In progress, data collection.
AdvisorSubmits documents.
Plan MgrSets up client folders in Box; checks software and app for data/docs; decides if a Jr Assoc is needed for MRD and fills the request form; emails the advisor about MRD gaps; does a preliminary doc review; changes statuses.
Jr AssocChecks Smartsheet for request notes; logs the start date in the app; creates Box folders; downloads and reviews docs; fills the MRD spreadsheet and uploads it; enters any new data into the software.
AdvisorAnswers follow-up questions.
Plan MgrSets status In progress, data entry; reviews the Sr Assoc questions and work; emails follow-ups to the advisor (status Pending); copies answers into an app note; meets with the advisor. Does the data entry themselves if no Sr Assoc is available.
Sr AssocReviews all docs (Box, vault, app); enters data into the software; writes follow-up questions and uploads to Box; reviews the answers and revises the data.
Plan MgrGuides the Sr Assoc on technique; sometimes writes the plan and summary themselves.
Sr AssocBuilds the plan in the software; writes the summary doc; generates all reports; posts progress notes in the app; sets status to Manager review. May meet with the PM and advisor to refine techniques before writing the summary.
Plan MgrDownloads the summary and fact-finder docs from Box; edits the draft plan; makes changes in the software; delivers the plan and summary to the advisor; sets status Plan delivered; inquires about other selling opportunities.
AdvisorSubmits revisions; may request an advisor presentation.
Plan MgrMakes final revisions; may meet with the advisor to present.
Sr AssocMay make final revisions and send back to the PM.
Sr Assoc gets no email notification when assigned to a plan.
No way to gauge Sr Assoc capacity through the app, it's all manual.
Hard to gauge the right Sr Assoc fit (experience level).
No capacity to set up a balance sheet before touching software.
The MRD can't be assigned from the app.
Advisor/client delays returning info and docs.
The system can't enforce advisor responsibilities.
MRD gets skipped, so the Sr Assoc ends up doing it before data entry.
No formatting or docs in messages; no follow-ups in the app, hard to track receipt/status of questions.
No way to change outdated software assumptions.
Advisor doesn't return docs on time.
PAYG advisors take ~1.5× the effort.
Advisor ambiguity about the model they want; the team is often surprised how much longer a plan takes.
Unclear which revisions to charge for.
Plan-summary assembly is too laborious; work gets lost in translation when the Sr Assoc never spoke with the advisor.
The PM sometimes takes a long time to review.
Before reviewing the summary, the PM must review data entry, any errant data forces a significant rewrite.
Advisors try to sneak in a big revision, or send five pages of them.
Advisor delays and lack of initiative.
System-driven pairing based on credible skills data.
Assign specific Sr Assocs to specific advisors.
Fact finder auto-validates the MRD.
A folder structure for docs inside the app.
All communication templates centralized in the app.
An MRD request flow in the app; advisor SLAs and enforcement.
Get partially-completed plans off the books.
Advisor sends only the data we need to focus on.
Let the Sr Assoc change software assumptions.
A clear signal when all follow-ups are answered.
Simplify the plan summary; a structured outline/playbook that feeds summary creation.
Flexible summary templates to match advisor preferences.
A better way to estimate true level of effort.
Automated notifications and reminders to the PM for review.
Set expectations up front, no more than an hour of revisions.
A follow-up protocol: a quick check-in a week after delivery.
Encourage a final presentation: alignment, advisor confidence, relationship-building, future growth.
Static composition lock · nothing abstracted yet · one of six service-line maps
AdvisorSubmits the request through the app; may attach docs or key details.
Plan MgrGets the notification and assigns themselves as Plan Associate. For off-app requests, emails the advisor how to submit properly in the app. Sets status to In progress, data collection.
AdvisorSubmits documents.
Plan MgrChecks software and app for data/docs; decides if a Jr Assoc is needed for MRD and fills the form, if not, does a spot-check MRD; confirms accounts are linked to the software.
Jr AssocChecks Smartsheet for notes; logs the start date; creates Box folders; fills and uploads the MRD spreadsheet; enters new data into the software.
AdvisorAnswers follow-up questions.
Plan MgrConfirms key MRD info and decides who does data entry. Enters data, writes follow-ups, and begins building the plan (and often the summary). With answers, revises the data, adjusts the due date, and changes statuses.
Sr AssocFilters the app for a blank Plan Associate field, that flags a plan needing data entry, then syncs with the PM.
Plan MgrConducts research, builds scenarios, rechecks stress tests, and reviews outputs for accuracy. Finishes the summary, generates reports, sets status Plan manager review, uploads to Box, emails the advisor, and schedules a possible presentation.
AdvisorMay provide revisions.
Plan MgrIf a proofread is wanted, hands to the Sr Assoc who did data entry; then delivers the summary to the advisor.
Sr AssocProofreads the summary.
AdvisorMay provide further revisions.
Plan MgrExecutes any revisions under an hour; may run an advisor presentation to ensure they're comfortable with the content and software.
Advisors sometimes submit requests directly to the team, who then have to coach them on how to submit properly.
The MRD can't be assigned from the app.
Advisor/client delays returning info and docs.
The system can't enforce advisor responsibilities.
MRD isn't needed when enough data is present at the start, so it becomes extra work.
No easy way to see the advisor's assumptions.
No formatting or docs in messages; hard to track receipt/status of follow-ups.
Can't auto-reject docs that are images.
Advisor doesn't return docs on time; needs multiple arrays for filtering.
PAYG advisors take ~1.5× the effort.
Advisors aren't clear on what they want modeled or in the report.
Advisors try to sneak in a big revision or send five pages of them; unclear which to charge for.
Summary assembly is too laborious; some advisors don't present to clients soon enough.
No major issues flagged at this stage.
Rarely, advisors come back with a foundational revision request.
Clearer in-app guidance so advisors submit correctly the first time.
Fact finder auto-validates the MRD.
A folder structure for docs in the app; all comm templates centralized.
An MRD request flow in the app; advisor SLAs and enforcement.
Get partially-completed plans off the books.
A modular MRD/smart fact finder linked to the request, so advisors send only what's needed.
A clear signal when all follow-ups are answered; track which goals are in play.
Simplify the summary; a structured outline/playbook that feeds it.
Flexible summary templates to match advisor preferences.
Charge for voluminous edit requests.
Proofread step keeps quality high before delivery.
Encourage a final presentation: alignment, advisor confidence, relationship-building, future growth.
Static composition lock · nothing abstracted yet · two of six service-line maps
AdvisorSubmits the request (app or email; enterprises via Smartsheet).
Client SuccessChecks for new requests, existing and new advisors.
AssociateReroutes off-path requests.
ManagerAssigns an associate.
Client SuccessSends welcome email + doc request; schedules the consultation and sends the invite.
AdvisorSubmits the client tax return; confirms the invite.
ManagerPairs an associate to the request.
1st ChairUpdates Box notifications, sends reminder emails, receives the tax return.
AdvisorClarifies the client's goals.
1st ChairReviews the tax return and preps questions (an outline); asks a 2nd chair to join if needed.
2nd ChairReviews the return before the consult.
ManagerFor highly sensitive cases, conveys additional context.
1st ChairCreates and sends the engagement letter and scoping email; requests additional info and docs; sends reminders.
AdvisorSigns and returns the engagement letter; replies yes to the scoping email.
ManagerUpdates the plan tracker with the signature date; kicks off the call and fills knowledge gaps.
1st ChairUploads the return into the analysis tool.
1st & 2nd ChairResearch tax topics, build scenarios, write the plan, and incorporate the manager's edits, an iterative, circular process.
ManagerReviews drafts, issues edits, and approves the plan for advisor presentation.
ManagerMakes strategic, 'material' edits to the plan.
1st ChairMakes 'non-material' edits, sends the final draft to the advisor, schedules the client presentation if needed.
AdvisorReviews the plan and decides whether to present to the client or ask the team to help; approves revisions.
AdvisorKicks off the call and introduces the team.
1st ChairPresents the plan.
2nd ChairScribes.
ClientGives feedback on the plan.
1st ChairMakes non-material edits and sends the final to the client; the manager reviews and approves.
Associates get no notification when assigned to a plan.
Managers have no way to gauge the capacity of associates or the team.
No way in the app to assign the MRD to an associate.
"We have to review 30 documents and set up a balance sheet before software, we don’t have capacity for this."
Client/advisor failure to return info.
Can't attach docs to messages, and there's no formatting.
Hard to track receipt of follow-up answers.
Docs aren't organized to reflect the data-entry flow in the software.
No easy way to see the advisor's assumptions.
Engagement letter and scoping are separate, manual steps.
What's out of scope isn't captured on the record or shown in the final product.
Immense workload leaves no time for reflection or QA.
Associates model in a separate Excel that mimics a 1040; lots of supporting docs to read.
Non-material changes aren't reviewed ~50% of the time; unclear guidelines on when to charge for revisions.
Too much work in too little time causes critical mistakes ~5% of the time.
Prep and revision loops span the manager and both associates, expensive coordination.
If the client has data or strategy revisions, it can cause another output round.
Get the tax team onto the app and add an initial data-collection status.
Add advisor phone to the profile; add plan type & contract type to the sales email.
Automate workflows.
A Client Success dashboard in the app.
Redesign the goals email template; app notification when docs are uploaded.
Advisor SLAs and calendar visibility.
A better way to quickly remove stalled plans.
Auto-import of data into the planning software.
An MRD per plan type and module.
Consolidate the engagement letter and scope email, templated and automated.
Use Client Success in a more robust admin role, with all tracking in the app.
Show what was out of scope in the final product.
Easily recycle work from other cases (a plan-summary configurator).
Consolidate tools so associates aren't modeling in a separate spreadsheet.
Clear guidelines on material vs. non-material edits and what's chargeable.
Set firm expectations and boundaries for post-presentation revisions.
Static composition lock · nothing abstracted yet · three of six service-line maps
AVPMeets the advisor to qualify them into the right service; explains costs, expectations, and what the software can capture. Takes notes in OneNote, copies into Salesforce, then again into the request detail page. Redirects existing advisors to the app or emails Sales for new ones.
ParaplannerHelps determine whether special cases can be modeled in the software.
ParaplannerReviews the client's profile in the software and any docs from the vault or app; creates an OUTLINE to guide the initial consult.
AVPSpot-checks for key docs and reviews data in the software (~75% of the time).
AVP & ParaplannerMeet the advisor to review the MRD and fact-finding docs (received ≤50% of the time), understand goals, and request any additional docs.
AVPFacilitates review of the base plan and objectives; discusses candidate strategies; schedules the advisor strategy call.
AttorneyReviews the base plan and objectives; discusses strategies.
ParaplannerReviews objectives, assets, and observations; scribes and writes the STRATEGY section of the OUTLINE; continues the summary and builds scenarios; changes statuses.
ParaplannerUpdates the model to reflect the proposed strategy, continues the summary, and builds what-ifs; consults the AVP and attorney to validate execution in the software.
AVPAnswers the paraplanner's questions and emails the advisor with updates.
AttorneyResponds to questions as needed.
AVPHosts a 15-min huddle to align, then walks the advisor through all scenarios.
AttorneyProvides expertise on estate scenarios as needed.
ParaplannerDrives the software during the call, scribes in the OUTLINE, and makes live tweaks.
AdvisorReviews scenarios, validates the model, and provides feedback.
AVPFacilitates the final call and guides the advisor.
ParaplannerDrives the software, makes final adjustments, and may give the advisor lightweight training for the client presentation.
AttorneyAdvises on estate strategies.
AdvisorIssues final requests; presents to the client, the team supports ~10% of the time.
Triplicating notes across OneNote, Salesforce, and the app.
~30 clicks to get to the right place in Salesforce.
MAJOR: advisors have client-driven deadlines but don't grasp how long an engagement takes, a constant source of frustration.
Advisors sometimes request work before the initial consult.
Some advisors know the software and just want to get in and play.
Fact-finding docs arrive half the time or less, so consults start with gaps.
Heavy coordination, three specialists in one room for every case.
Scenario work loops between paraplanner, AVP, and attorney with no shared workspace.
Perception of free SME access: once the attorney is on a call, advisors feel they can reach out directly for consultation.
If the advisor is unfamiliar with the software, prepping them for the client presentation is daunting.
Data or strategy revisions (~10%) cause significant delays.
Scheduled for an hour, but often runs two.
One place to take and store notes, instead of triplicating them.
Better upfront training so advisors understand the engagement.
System-enforced gates and SLAs.
A modular fact finder that validates what is needed before the consult.
A shared model workspace so the strategy meeting isn't the only sync point.
Collaborative scenario building with status visible to all three roles.
Clear boundaries on specialist access so SME time is scoped and priced.
Paid support for software and presentation training.
A fixed revision policy with fees for violating it.
Static composition lock · nothing abstracted yet · four of six service-line maps
AVPMeets the advisor to qualify them into the right service; confirms the client's LPL account numbers or data locations; explains costs and what the software captures. Takes notes in OneNote, copies into Salesforce, then again into the request detail page.
AVPHosts a 10-min prep call, then meets the advisor to set expectations and review core data-gathering docs: investment statements, tax returns, the CPC questionnaire, the risk-tolerance questionnaire. Reviews scope, schedules the review-observations meeting, and follows up for docs.
AssociateScribes the meeting and asks probing questions about the case and preferences.
AVPGathers the data and enters it into Morningstar and PAT; forwards docs to the associate on receipt and updates statuses.
AssociateResearches investments and enters/revises data in Morningstar.
AVPHosts a call to discuss advisor feedback and schedules the next meeting. Manipulates numbers in Morningstar and PAT to achieve goals; sends weekly email updates. If no associate is on the case, does the research and revisions alone.
HNWS CFAProvides a POV on advisor feedback and reviews the revised outputs.
AssociateIf on the case, attends, researches, and revises data in Morningstar.
AVPLeads the call; presents the current and proposed models, gathers feedback, and determines whether a client meeting is needed.
HNWS CFAOn ~50% of cases, co-presents the models and gathers feedback.
AssociateIf on, scribes and contributes to the discussion.
HNWS CFADrafts and revises the final summary from the associate's inputs; emails the final plan and outputs.
AVPProofreads and edits; fields advisor questions before any client meeting; delivers the final summary and outputs; sends weekly updates. If no associate, revises the data in Morningstar too.
Copying notes into Salesforce, ~30 clicks to get there.
Repeating the note entry again into the request detail page.
Advisors ask for expertise we don't offer (e.g. holdings-level analysis).
We have SMEs for that, but turnaround is a problem.
Even while consolidating the free/pre and initial calls, advisors still request both.
Data lives across Morningstar, PAT, and source docs, no single workspace.
Effort spikes sharply when no associate is on the case (AVP solo research jumps 1.75h to 3.25h).
Whether the CFA joins the advisor meeting is inconsistent (~50%).
Summary authorship hops between associate, CFA, and AVP with hand-offs at each step.
One place to take and store notes, instead of triplicating them.
Better upfront training and expectation-setting on what is in scope.
A clear, scoped path to SME analysis with a known turnaround.
Consolidate the modeling tools so data isn't re-entered across systems.
Staffing model that does not collapse onto the AVP when no associate is free.
A consistent rule for when the CFA is client-facing.
A summary configurator so authorship isn't re-keyed at every hand-off.
Static composition lock · nothing abstracted yet · five of six service-line maps
AVPMeets the advisor to determine the right service and discuss the case. Reviews the data-collection docs: estate-planning questionnaire, existing estate docs, balance sheet/data-sharing guide, captures the facts, confirms spousal gifting, enters notes into Salesforce, and forwards them to the attorney.
AdvisorProvides case context and docs.
AttorneyReviews the AVP's notes and summarizes the documents; identifies observations and strategies for consideration; updates the status checker when ready for the next meeting.
AVPSends weekly summary emails to the advisor, runs down outstanding docs (follows up if two weeks pass with no MRD), syncs with the attorney, and schedules the review-observations meeting.
AVPFacilitates the meeting, reviews findings, and finalizes strategies for consideration through a refinement Q&A; scribes notes to the advisor and Salesforce.
AttorneyProvides the point of view in the meeting and asks refinement questions.
AdvisorDiscusses and refines the strategies.
AttorneyFinalizes the strategy recommendations and summary for the case.
AVPDelivers the finalized strategies and summary to the advisor and updates statuses.
AVPFor an additional fee, attends the client presentation and provides a point of view to support the advisor.
AttorneyAttends and provides estate expertise.
AdvisorPresents to the client, team supports if requested.
Salesforce is a time suck for note entry.
The questionnaire may be slowing advisors down.
Advisor turnaround on docs and data is slow.
No single place to store notes and easily share them with the attorney, currently using Box.
Strategy refinement happens live in the meeting with no shared working record.
Deliverable is a strategy memo assembled by hand across the attorney and AVP.
Client-facing support is ad hoc and separately priced.
Reduce Salesforce friction; streamline the intake questionnaire.
One place to store and share case notes with the attorney, instead of Box.
Advisor SLAs to speed document turnaround.
A shared strategy record that captures refinements as they happen.
A templated strategy-memo deliverable.
A clear, scoped client-support offering.
Static composition lock · nothing abstracted yet · six of six service-line maps
View the full read: pain to opportunity
The deepest production-line friction is the one I'd been naming since the launch: the system tracks status, but it can't run the work.
Capacity planning, tracking priorities and tasks, providing playbooks for easy execution: none of it lives in the app. The pod carries the workflow by hand and the app just records where things stand. It's the same gap I kept arguing during the launch, now visible across every production-line map.
“Without the intelligence to do the work, we were building a ticketing system in nicer clothes.”
What came of it
Leadership put the maps to work.
6
Service maps
end to end
37
Stages mapped
every task, role, handoff
78
Pains documented
across all six maps
66
Opportunities named
across all six maps
They spun up projects that I led to drive direct improvements across service lines.
Enforcement wasn't one of the answers available; the pickups went demand-side. The Onboarding Revamp extended these maps upstream into the pre-delivery process, FP Accelerator grew from what it found, and the maps confirmed the Digital Fact Finder work already underway.
The consultative lines took a different path. New, incoming wealth-management leadership, who arrived while I was still mapping the three High-Net-Worth services, used the maps to reshape those lines themselves. By then I had moved to the work described in the next case study, Evolving the service, and after that to a different project.
The one friction every map shared became the first thing the evolution work attacked.