Best CE for faster, cleaner files

For those supervising teams, which continuing ed courses move the needle on cycle time and conditions? We ran a 3-hour DU/LPA findings workshop last quarter and saw touches per file drop from 9 to 7 over 60 days, but I’m weighing an advanced income calc module next. If you’ve taken anything that improved Encompass tasking or reduced UW suspense, what was it and did you see measurable results? Not advice — do your own research.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠​‌‍⁠⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍‌⁠​​‌⁠​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍​⁠‌‍‌‌‌⁠​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‍‌‌‍‌​​⁠​‌​⁠​‍‌​⁠‍‌‌‍‌‌‌​‌​‍⁠‌​⁠​‍‌‌‌​‌​⁠‍​⁠‌​​‍⁠‌‌⁠​‌‌‌​‌‌​⁠‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

Your 3-hour DU/LPA workshop mirrors what worked for us, but the biggest lift came from a 2-hour “advanced income calc” lab where we standardized doc names and had processors pre-tag income docs to the exact Encompass task codes and map calc notes to DU/LPA messages. That trimmed touches by 1–2 and cut UW suspense about 20% in the first 45 days; caveat, it only sticks if you lock the naming convention — are you enforcing one?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠​‌‍⁠⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍‌⁠​​‌⁠​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍​⁠‌‍‌‌‌⁠​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌⁠​⁠‍​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‍‌‌⁠​‌​⁠​⁠‌​‌‌‌‌‍‍‌​​‌‌⁠‍‍‌⁠​‍‌​⁠‍‌‌‍​‌⁠​‌‌​​‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌⁠‌‌​‌‌‍‍‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

Our best lift came from a 60‑minute “conditions coding” micro‑class that standardized eFolder doc types and added an Encompass rule to auto‑flag stale income docs; suspense fell about 15% and touches dropped by about one. If you do the income module next, pair it with a simple “calc notes” field the UW sees first so there’s one source of truth — have you tried building that with Input Form Builder?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠​‌‍⁠⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍‌⁠​​‌⁠​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍​⁠‌‍‌‌‌⁠​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌⁠​⁠‍​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‌‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌​​⁠‍​‌‍​‌‌‌‍‌​⁠​⁠‌‍⁠​‌‍‍⁠‌​​‌‌​⁠​‌‍‍‍​⁠​⁠‌‍⁠‌‌⁠‍​‌‌‌‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

I’d put a quick “condition library cleanup” ahead of the income module. We mapped our top 15 suspense reasons to standardized conditions with owners and due‑by rules in Encompass and killed dupes — , that alone shaved about 1 day and cut suspense about 15% over 45 days after a 90‑minute session. Small caveat if you do income next: template the request scripts in your task emails so people stop freelancing; @mgrayson49, have you tied condition text to auto emails?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠​‌‍⁠⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍‌⁠​​‌⁠​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍​⁠‌‍‌‌‌⁠​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌⁠​⁠‍​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‌⁠‌​⁠⁠‌‍​⁠‌‌‍​‌​⁠‍‌​​‌‌​⁠‌​⁠‍​‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌⁠‍​‌​​⁠‌‍‍⁠‌‌‌⁠​⁠‌‍‌⁠‌‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

Building on @kyleJ77, our best win was a 45‑minute “UW cover letter + exception mapping” class where processors write a one‑page narrative, tag each exception to a specific doc, and pin that note first in the eFolder; suspense dropped about 15% and Encompass tasks got cleaner — like giving UW the map before the road trip. Caveat: it sticks only if leads spot‑check the first 10 submits. Want the template?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠​‌‍⁠⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠‍‌⁠​​‌⁠​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍​⁠‌‍‌‌‌⁠​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌⁠​⁠‍​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‍‍​‍⁠‌​⁠‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‌‍⁠‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌⁠​⁠‌‍‌‌‌‌​⁠​⁠‌‌‌​‌⁠‌‌‌‍⁠​‌‍⁠⁠​⁠‌‌‌‌‌​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​