Reflections on my address at the 7th Annual Africa Pension Funds & Retirement Summit, Mauritius, 2026.
A pension scheme can submit its regulatory returns, produce audited financial statements and operate a modern administration system, yet leave a retiring member uncertain about when their benefits will arrive. That tension was at the centre of my presentation in Mauritius on enhancing operational efficiency using the Member Outcomes Compliance Audit, or MOCA.
My central proposition was that we need to assess operational efficiency through the experience of the person the pension scheme exists to serve. Internal controls and sound administration remain essential. Their value must also become visible in accurate benefits, dependable timelines, understandable information and dignified service.
The compliance outcome blindspot
I organised the presentation around a triad: the high, the low and the blindspot between them. The high represents the institutional picture of financial compliance, investment oversight, actuarial soundness, ICT controls and regulatory reporting. These are achievements that boards and management rightly take seriously.
The low is the experience that can coexist with that picture: benefit processing delays, unclear information, inconsistent treatment and unresolved dissatisfaction. A member may hear that a fund is performing well while struggling to obtain an explanation of their own benefit.
The blindspot appears when evidence that processes exist is treated as sufficient evidence that members receive the intended outcomes. A functioning system does not, by itself, explain why a claim remains unpaid. A complaints register demonstrates that a complaint was recorded; it does not establish that the underlying problem was resolved.
For trustees, this creates a demanding governance question: what evidence connects the assurances we receive in the boardroom with the experience members have when they need us?
What MOCA brings into view
MOCA is an outcomes based assessment framework designed to examine whether a pension scheme delivers fair, timely, understandable, accessible and trustworthy outcomes. It asks whether members receive what they are entitled to, accurately and in a manner that respects their dignity.
In Mauritius, I emphasised that MOCA complements financial, IT and regulatory audits. It adds an explicit assessment of the member’s lived experience to those established forms of assurance. Compliance remains necessary; leadership also needs to understand how that compliance translates into service.
This changes the evidence we seek. An approved service standard should lead us to examine actual turnaround times. A member communication policy should lead us to test whether people understand their statements and choices. A complaints procedure should lead us to examine the quality and durability of the resolution.
Assess outcomes through seven pillars
The seven MOCA pillars provide a structured way to investigate these questions across the institution. Each brings a different part of the member experience into focus.
Accuracy and Benefits Integrity examines whether benefits are calculated correctly and paid in full. The assessment must connect the member’s records and entitlement with the amount ultimately delivered. Errors that require repeated correction are both an operational burden and a threat to confidence.
Timeliness and Predictability examines whether processing meets published timelines and whether members can rely on the process. Speed matters, but so does knowing what will happen next. Unexplained waiting leaves members unable to plan around money they expect to receive.
Clarity and Member Understanding considers whether members understand their benefits, statements and options. Sending a document is only one step. The more meaningful question is whether its recipient can use it to make sense of their position without unnecessary dependence on an intermediary.
Accessibility and Dignity examines the effort required to obtain service. Rural members, older people and those facing difficulties with digital channels should remain visible in service design. A convenient process for the institution may still impose considerable hardship on the member.
Fairness and Equity asks whether outcomes are consistent across regions, cohorts and demographics. An encouraging overall average can conceal groups that repeatedly experience delays or barriers. Assessment should investigate those differences and their causes.
Trust, Voice and Redress considers whether members can raise concerns and receive fair, timely and transparent resolutions. Closing a complaint administratively is not enough if the member’s underlying issue remains. The quality of redress affects whether confidence can be restored.
Governance, Learning and Continuous Improvement examines whether leadership acts on the evidence. Recurring failures should inform decisions, revised processes and follow up. The framework becomes useful when findings change what the institution does.
Connect operational efficiency to the member journey
These pillars make operational efficiency more concrete. Consider an illustrative survivor claim that passes through several departments. Each team might complete its allocated task, while repeated requests for information and gaps between handovers leave the family waiting. Looking at departmental activity alone can miss the accumulated burden.
A member journey assessment would follow the claim from the first enquiry through to payment and communication of the outcome. It would examine where time was spent, what the family was asked to provide and whether the eventual benefit was correct and understood. That view creates a clearer basis for improving the whole process.
The same reasoning applies to onboarding, contribution records and retirement claims. Where members repeatedly seek explanations, resubmit documents or ask for corrections, their experience may reveal avoidable work inside the institution. Addressing the cause can improve service and reduce rework. Any claimed improvement should then be tested against actual results.
Technology can support that work through reliable records, workflow visibility and better communication. Leadership still needs to decide what outcomes the system should help deliver and how those outcomes will be monitored.
Give the board evidence it can act on
My presentation identified four practical MOCA outputs intended to make member outcomes visible to boards and chief executives.
The Member Outcomes Scorecard provides a comparable view of strengths and risk areas. Its usefulness depends on clear measures and credible evidence. Leadership should be able to understand what a result means and which members or processes require attention.
The Member Journey Heatmap identifies where service breaks down across onboarding, contributions, retirement and survivor claims. It helps locate the points where an apparently orderly internal process becomes a difficult experience for a member.
Early Warning Indicators draw attention to emerging risks before they escalate. Illustrative signals could include an increasing backlog of older claims, repeated requests for the same information or recurring complaints about a particular service. Institutions should select indicators that reflect their own risks and can trigger a defined response.
The Governance Assurance Statement records leadership’s oversight of member outcomes. It should rest on evidence of review, decisions and follow through, so that assurance reflects active governance.
Together, these outputs position member experience as a board responsibility. They give trustees a basis for asking management where outcomes are falling short, what is being done and how improvement will be demonstrated.
Start with a journey and follow the evidence
A practical way to begin is to choose one member journey that carries significant consequences, such as retirement or survivor benefits. Examine it against the seven pillars, drawing on case records, processing information, communications and members’ accounts of their experience.
Establish what is happening before setting an improvement target. Identify the causes of delays or inconsistencies, assign responsibility for corrective action and agree when leadership will review progress. Follow up should test whether the change improves the outcome experienced by members.
This also requires room for difficult findings. An assessment has little value if inconvenient evidence is softened into a reassuring report. Trustees and executives need enough curiosity to investigate the gap between what the institution believes it delivers and what members actually receive.
The question I brought to Mauritius remains relevant every time a board receives an assurance report: can we trace our institutional performance all the way to a fair, accurate and dignified outcome for the member? MOCA provides a framework for making that question part of routine governance.
Continue the conversation
I welcome opportunities to engage pension boards, regulators, administrators and industry associations on MOCA and member outcomes. Keynotes can introduce the governance challenge, while focused workshops can help leadership teams examine their own member journeys and identify practical priorities for improvement.
About the author
Timothy Mukoba is Co-founder and Chief Commercial Officer of Systech Limited and author of The Practitioner’s Guide to Pension Administration. His work brings together pension administration, enterprise technology and governance, with a focus on improving member outcomes across African markets.
Source note
Adapted from Timothy Mukoba’s presentation, Enhancing Operational Efficiency Using MOCA, at the 7th Annual Africa Pension Funds & Retirement Summit in Mauritius in 2026. The practical scenarios and suggested starting steps develop the presentation’s themes; they are illustrative rather than reported results from a particular pension scheme.
