Abstract:
This invention relates to computerized methods and systems for evaluating employee benefit plans. In one embodiment, a computerized method for determining improvement actions for an employee benefit plan includes uniquely associating an improvement action for one or more attributes of an employee benefit plan; receiving the status of one or more of the attributes for a first employee benefit plan; identifying the attributes of the first employee benefit plan which have a different status than a set of other employee benefit plans, and providing an action plan to improve the first employee benefit plan, the action plan comprising one or more actions associated with the identified attributes.

Description:
TECHNICAL FIELD  
       [0001]     This invention relates to computer-based methods and systems for evaluating employee benefit plans and, more particularly, to computerized methods and systems for providing recommendations for improvements to employee benefit plans.  
       BACKGROUND INFORMATION  
       [0002]     Individuals currently depend on numerous sources of post-retirement income in order to maintain a high quality of life. In the past, typical American workers often relied on an employer funded retirement plan (such as a pension plan) and Social Security as the primary sources of retirement income. However, many companies no longer offer pension plans to their employees, and even those that do may not have the capabilities to perform the record keeping functions for the plans in a sufficient manner. Furthermore, most individuals recognize that Social Security is not sufficient as a primary source of post-retirement income, and many even doubt its long-term financial viability. To supplement these two sources of income, many employees participate in so-called “defined contribution plans”—commonly referred to as 401(k) or 403(b) plans—which are offered to the employees by their employer (the plan “sponsor”) as part of an employee benefit package. Further, because of the detailed and intricate statutory requirements of these plans, many plan sponsors outsource the record keeping functions to a financial services company or data processing company (the plan “record keeper”).  
         [0003]     Many of these plans allow employees to designate some amount (often a pre-tax percentage or dollar amount) of their salary to one or more investment vehicles such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, money market accounts, as well as others. One significant benefit of these plans is that under the current tax code, they provide tax-free or tax-deferred growth of capital. After contributing to such a plan over the span of an entire career, an employee can compile a significant retirement “nest-egg” to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living.  
         [0004]     Although the basic structure and administrative requirements of these plans are statutory in nature, a plan record keeper may provide optional additional features to the plan sponsors. For example, a plan record keeper may offer a larger pool of investment options to certain plan sponsors, and likewise may provide varying levels and methods of customer support to the plan participants. This degree of flexibility allows plan sponsors to tailor a plan to the needs of the participants, meet the regulatory requirements of the IRS, SEC, and other agencies, while allowing the plan sponsors to control the cost of the plan. However, translating the many possible alternatives into discrete decisions about the design of the plan can be difficult. Tools which can assist plan sponsors in determining optimal plan design provide significant benefit to those plan sponsors.  
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
       [0005]     In general, the invention relates to computer-based methods and tools that allow a sponsor or record keeper of an employee benefit plan to compare feature sets associated with one employee benefit plan with feature sets of other employee benefit plans. Attributes of the feature sets are compared to plan data from plan sponsors with similar characteristics to those of the plan sponsor, and thus provide a more accurate comparison and improvement suggestions that are more relevant for that particular sponsor.  
         [0006]     Such tools allow sponsors, who are often the employers of the plan participants, to select and review certain attributes of the plan(s) they offer to their employees. By providing the status of these attributes (e.g., offered, not offered, etc.), a plan sponsor receives an overall “score” for their plan. Thus, the sponsor can determine if they should consider adding optional features to their plan, and review suggested action items that may have a positive effect on a plan metric such as participant engagement, diversification, etc. In addition, the plan record keeper may also use the results to suggest changes to the plan to increase revenue generated by the plan, decrease costs of the record keeping functions of the plan, as well as other metrics.  
         [0007]     Such methods and tools can compare numerous attributes of an employee benefit plan (e.g., number of investment options available, the usage of web-based customer service, the average account balances, etc.) to those of other plans without compromising the confidentiality of the data. Further, such a system allows a record keeper to associate suggested action items with particular attributes, and, where a plan falls short of a particular benchmark, recommend actions to increase plan participation, diversification, and other plan metrics.  
         [0008]     While particularly useful for defined contribution plans, these methods and tools are not limited to that specific application, and can be used to design and evaluate similar plans such as pension plans, medical plans, as well as other benefit plans offered to employees.  
         [0009]     In one aspect, the invention relates to a computerized method for assessing the features of an employee benefit plan. The method comprises providing attributes of a first employee benefit plan and the attributes of a set of other employee benefit plans, each of the plans having a plan sponsor and a plan record keeper and determining a subset of other employee benefit plans to which the attributes of the first employee plan are compared.  
         [0010]     An employee benefit plan can be, for example, a defined benefit plan such as a pension plan, a defined contribution plan such as a 401(k) or 403(b) plan, a deferred compensation plan such as a 457 plan, an employee stock purchase plan, or a healthcare plan. In some embodiments, the plan record keeper provides the attributes of the first plan to the sponsor of the plan. In some embodiments, the plan record keeper provides the attributes of the other plans to the sponsor of the plan. In some embodiments, the plan sponsor provides the attributes of the first plan to the record keeper of the plan. The record keeping functions for the first employee plan and for the other employee plans can be performed by the same entity, or in some embodiments, by two or more entities.  
         [0011]     In some embodiments, characteristics of the sponsors of the other plans are used to determine the plans to be included in the comparison subset. These characteristics may include one or more of the number of employees of the sponsor, the industry in which the sponsor operates, the non-profit status of the sponsor, and the geographic region of the sponsor. In some embodiments, the first plan is in the subset of plans to which it is being compared.  
         [0012]     In some embodiments, the first plan can be compared to the subset of the other plans using one or more metrics such as plan participation, plan diversification, participant contribution levels, participant account balances, and participant interaction. Further, the metrics may be divided into one or more sub-metrics such as the age of the plan participants, the options available for plan diversification, and the customer service channels used by the plan participants. In some embodiments, the comparison step includes comparing sub-sub-metrics of the first plan and the subset of the other plans.  
         [0013]     In another aspect, the invention relates to computerized methods for providing an action plan to improve an employee benefit plan. The method comprises uniquely associating an improvement action for attributes of an employee benefit plan and providing the status of one or more of the attributes of a first employee benefit plan. Further, the method includes providing an action plan to improve the first employee benefit plan, the action plan comprising one or more of the actions associated with the identified attributes. In some embodiments, the method further includes displaying the action plan on a printed report, and in some embodiments, on a web page.  
         [0014]     In one embodiment, the method includes selecting the employee benefit plans that are included in the set of other employee benefit plans based at least in part on the characteristics of the sponsors of the other employee benefit plans. In some embodiments, the statuses for the attributes of the plans are requested via an online questionnaire. In some embodiments, the statuses are requested from the record keeper of the first plan, and in some embodiments the statuses are requested from the sponsor of the first plan.  
         [0015]     In another embodiment, the method includes associating the attributes of the first plan with one or more metrics. In one exemplary embodiment, the metrics are one or more of: plan participation, plan diversification, participant contribution levels, participant account balances, and customer interaction. In some embodiments, the method includes performing the identification step using one or more of the metrics.  
         [0016]     Another aspect of the invention provides a computer-based system for assessing the quality of an employee benefit system, including means for storing attributes of employee benefit plans, means for segmenting the employee benefit plans into groups based on the characteristics of the plan sponsors, means for deriving a benchmark metric for each group of plans, means for transmitting attributes of an employee benefit plan to a user, means for receiving an indication of the status of the attributes of the plan, and means for comparing the received status with the benchmark metric. 
     
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0017]     In the drawings, like reference characters generally refer to the same parts throughout the different views. Also, the drawings are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead generally being placed upon illustrating the principles of the invention.  
         [0018]      FIG. 1  is a block diagram of an embodiment of the invention.  
         [0019]      FIG. 2  is a block diagram of an embodiment of a system according to the invention.  
         [0020]      FIG. 3  is a block diagram of an embodiment of a server in the system of  FIG. 2 .  
         [0021]      FIG. 4  is a flowchart of an embodiment of a method according to the invention.  
         [0022]      FIG. 5  is a continuation of the flowchart of  FIG. 4 .  
         [0023]      FIG. 6  is a flowchart of an embodiment of a method according to the invention.  
         [0024]      FIG. 7  is a screen display of a screen of an embodiment of the invention.  
         [0025]      FIG. 8  is a screen display of a segmented benchmark screen in an embodiment of the invention.  
         [0026]      FIG. 9  is a screen display of a sub-segmented benchmark screen in an embodiment of the invention.  
         [0027]      FIG. 10  is a screen display of a diagnostic screen in an embodiment of the invention.  
         [0028]      FIG. 11  is a screen display of a results screen in an embodiment of the invention.  
         [0029]      FIG. 12  is a screen display of an opportunities screen in an embodiment of the invention.  
         [0030]      FIG. 13  is a screen display of a summary screen in an embodiment of the invention.  
         [0031]      FIG. 14  is a screen display of a custom report builder screen in an embodiment of the invention. 
     
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION  
       [0032]     Referring to  FIG. 1 , in one embodiment, a plan sponsor (“sponsor”)  100  provides one or more employee benefit plans (“plans”)  105 ,  105 ′, generally  105  to its employees. Because of the significant overhead and regulatory requirements involved in the development and record keeping for the plans  105 , many plan sponsors  100 ,  100 ′ contract with a plan record keeper (“record keeper”)  110  to provide these services. Examples of plan record keepers include financial services companies such as banks, brokerage houses, insurance companies, and individual financial advisors, as well as data processing companies. In some cases, the record keeper  110  may act as a plan administrator as defined by ERISA and have fiduciary responsibilities toward the plan sponsor, and in some cases may have no such relationship with the sponsor  100  and provide only data processing and record keeping services. In some cases, the record keeper  110  offers various types of plans  105  to sponsors  100 . The number, types, and attributes  115  of plan  105  may depend, for example, on certain characteristics  120  of the sponsor  100 .  
         [0033]     For example, a record keeper  110  may offer various plans  105  with numerous optional attributes  115  to a sponsor  100  such as large public corporation with thousands of employees. The plans  105  may include a defined benefit plan such as a 401(k) or 403(b) plan, a deferred benefit plan such as a pension plan, a deferred compensation plan such as a 457 plan, and a health and welfare plan such as medical or dental insurance plans. Attributes  115  may include services offered with the benefit plans, design features of the plans, or in some embodiments, both. Further, the optional attributes  115  may include a web-based enrollment and customer service, a dedicated support staff, a large number of investment options, availability of loans, vesting periods, and the like. In another example, the same record keeper  110  may offer only one plan  105  (e.g., a 403(b) or similar plan) to a sponsor  100  such as a small non-profit organization. In cases where such small, non-profit sponsors  100  cannot afford multiple large plans  105  with a wide variety of optional attributes  1115 , the sponsors  100  often elect not to include these attributes  115  in the plan or plans  105  offered to their employees. Proper record keeping of the plans  105   100  requires that the record keeper  110  maintain the status  125  of each attribute  115 .  
         [0034]     In one embodiment, the plan record keeper  110  associates one or more action items  117  with the attributes  115  of the plan  105 . These action items  117  can include offering informational sessions about the benefits of participating in the plan  105 , offering additional investment vehicles for the employees, changing the vesting requirements, increasing the availability or type of customer service support channels available to the employees, as well as others. In one particular embodiment, the record keeper  110  associates the action items  117  with the attributes by reviewing the status  125  of numerous attributes  115  of many plans  105  offered by a wide variety of sponsors  100 . By suggesting action items  117  for specific attributes  115  of the plan  105  the sponsor  100  can be presented with action items  117  that are not offered in the current plan, and that may increase a particular metric of interest (e.g., plan participation) to the sponsor.  
         [0035]     In an attempt to provide additional value to the sponsors  100 , some record keepers  110  offer benchmark metrics  130  to the sponsors  100 . Because one record keeper  110  may manage multiple plans  105  for many sponsors  100 , the record keeper  110  can compile the metrics  130  from the attributes  115  of many, often hundreds or thousands of plans  105 . Furthermore, industry-wide metrics are often available from sources such as government agencies and private data services. A plan sponsor  100  and/or a plan record keeper  110  can then use the metrics  130  to gauge the success of a particular plan  105  for a particular sponsor  100  relative to other companies. However, a sponsor  100  such as a small private university may not find much value in comparing the metrics of the plan  105  offered to its faculty to overall metrics  130  including large international corporations and other for-profit entities.  
         [0036]     Therefore, in one embodiment of the invention, the record keeper  110  creates segments  135  of the overall population of sponsors  100  based, at least in part, on certain sponsor characteristics  120 . For example, and still referencing  FIG. 1 , the record keeper  110  can define two segments  135 , non-profit and high technology. In some embodiments, the record keeper  110  can define additional segments  135  based on characteristics  120  such as company size, geographic location, industry, or others. In some embodiments, the record keeper  110  may define sub-segments  140  by combining one or more characteristics  120 .  
         [0037]     One potential set of sub-segments  140  where the metric values  145  for a particular attribute  115  may differ significantly may be non-profit/education and large high technology companies. For example, a sponsor  100  such as a non-profit educational institution may be concerned that its employees were not contributing adequate funds to their accounts. In this case, the metric values  145  may indicate that in fact, the average account balance for participants across all segments  135  is significantly higher than the sponsor&#39;s average account balance metric value. However, by sub-segmenting the data, the sponsor  100  may in fact have a higher average account balance than the majority of other similar plan sponsors. This is because the higher average account balance metric value may include for-profit and other larger entities that can afford to offer more elaborate plans  105  to its employees, whereas the lower average account balance metric value may include only those sponsors  100  that are members of the non-profit educational sub-segment. After reviewing the data in this fashion, the non-profit educational sponsor  100  may decide not to add additional, potentially costly attributes  115  to their plan  105 , thus saving money. In some embodiments, the record keeper  100  may calculate overall metric values  155  for the overall population of plans  150  and provide the values in addition to the sub-segment attribute metric values  145 .  
         [0038]     Referring to  FIG. 2 , in one embodiment, the methods described above may be implemented using an employee benefit assessment system  200  including at least one server  204 , and at least one client  208 ,  208 ′, and  208 ″, generally  208 . As shown, the system  200  includes three clients  208 ,  208 ′,  208 ″, but this is only for exemplary purposes, and it is intended that there can be any number of clients  208 . The client  208  is preferably implemented as software running on a personal computer (e.g., a PC with an INTEL processor or an APPLE MACINTOSH) capable of running such operating systems as the MICROSOFT WINDOWS family of operating systems from Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash., the MACINTOSH operating system from Apple Computer of Cupertino, Calif., and various varieties of Unix, such as SUN SOLARIS from SUN MICROSYSTEMS, and GNU/Linux from RED HAT, INC. of Durham, N.C. (and others). The client  208  could also be implemented on such hardware as a smart or dumb terminal, network computer, personal data assistant, wireless device, information appliance, workstation, minicomputer, mainframe computer, kiosk, or other computing device, that is operated as a general purpose computer or a special purpose hardware device solely used for serving as a client  208  in the employee benefit plan assessment system  200 .  
         [0039]     Generally, the sponsors  100  or record keepers  110  of one or more plans  105  operate the clients  208 . In various embodiments, the client computer  208  includes client applications  222 . One example of a client application  222  is a web browser application that allows the client  208  to request a web page (e.g. from the server  204 ) with a web page request. An example of a web page is a data file that includes computer executable or interpretable information, graphics, sound, text, and/or video, that can be displayed, executed, played, processed, streamed, and/or stored and that can contain links, or pointers, to other web pages. In one embodiment, a user of the client  208  manually requests a web page from the server  204 . Alternatively, the client  208  automatically makes requests with the web browser. Examples of commercially available web browser software are INTERNET EXPLORER, offered by Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash., and NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR, offered by AOL/Time Warner of Mountain View, Calif.  
         [0040]     A communications network  212  connects the client  208  with the server  204 . The communication may take place via any media such as standard telephone lines, LAN or WAN links (e.g., T1, T3, 56 kb, X.25), broadband connections (ISDN, Frame Relay, ATM), wireless links, and so on. Preferably, the network  212  can carry TCP/IP protocol communications, and HTTP/HTTPS requests made by the web browser and the connection between the client applications  222  and the server  204  can be communicated over such TCP/IP networks. The type of network is not a limitation, however, and any suitable network may be used. Typical examples of networks that can serve as the communications network  212  include a wireless or wired ethernet-based intranet, a local or wide-area network (LAN or WAN), and/or the global communications network known as the Internet, which may accommodate many different communications media and protocols.  
         [0041]     In some embodiments, an employee of the record keeper  110  operates a central server  204 , which interacts with clients  208 . In some embodiments, a third party may manage the server  204 , which may include providing the hardware, communications, and service to the server  204 . The server  204  is preferably implemented on one or more server class computers that have sufficient memory, data storage, and processing power and that run a server class operating system (e.g. SUN Solaris, GNU/Linux, MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000, or other such operating system). Other types of system hardware and software than that described here could also be used, depending on the capacity of the device and the number of users and the amount of data received. For example, the server  204  may be part of a server farm or server network, which is a logical group of one or more servers. As another example, there could be multiple servers  204  that may be associated or connected with each other, or multiple servers could operate independently, but with shared data. As is typical in large-scale systems, application software could be implemented in components, with different components running on different server computers, on the same server, or some combination.  
         [0042]     Referring to  FIG. 3 , in one embodiment, a server  204  includes a web server module  305  that is the interface for communication with clients  208  involving the transfer of files and data. In some embodiments, the web server module  305  is the interface for communication with clients  208  involving HTTP/S requests and responses, Java messages, SMTP messages, POP3 messages, instant messages, as well as other electronic messages. In some instances, messages may be transferred from the client  208  to the server  204 , from the server  204  to the client  208 , or both. The web server module  305  can be implemented as software running on one or more servers, or may be implemented as a stand-alone server. In some embodiments, the web server module  305  can provide an interface to client applications  222 , so that, for example, a user can send and receive e-mail, instant messages, and so on.  
         [0043]     The web server module  305  communicates with an application server  310 , which provides the main programming logic for the operation of the system  200 . In one embodiment, the application server  310  is implemented as one or more application programs (e.g., Internet Information Server from Microsoft Corporation, WebSphere from International Business Machines Corporation, or other such application) running on a server class computer, which may be the same or different computer as the web server module  305 . The application server  310  receives requests for employee benefit plan data (such as participation rates, account balances, the current status  125  of one or more attributes  115 , etc.) from users via a client  208  and the web server module  305 . The application server  310  may also receive requests for data stored in a database (such as participation rates, account balances, participant statistics, etc.) from users via a client  208  and the web server module  305 .  
         [0044]     The application server  310  includes an HTML generation engine  320 , a segmentation engine  324 , a comparison engine  328 , a report writer  336 , an application administration module  338  for managing application procedures and logic, and a data update module  332  for providing updates to the administration module  338  and database system  315 . The HTML generation engine  320  reads static HTML stored in files on the application server  310  and requests data from the database system  315  to produce completed HTML pages, which in turn are sent to the client  208  via the web server  305 . The HTML pages may, in some cases, include data or text directed to a specific user, regarding a specific plan  105 , or other context dependent data. In some embodiments, the compilation of HTML code uses the Active Server Page (“ASP”) technology from Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash. to combine static HTML and data or context specific data into one or more HTML pages prior to being sent to the client  208 . In some embodiments, JAVA, JavaScript, XML, or other like programming languages can be used to generate HTML code or present data, text and/or graphics to a user. In one exemplary embodiment, the HTML pages include forms, which are presented to a user on the client  208 . The forms allow the user to input data, select from a series of options, and provide other responses to questions presented on the page. In one exemplary embodiment, the data refers to the attributes  115  of an employee benefit plan  105  and the status  125  of one or more attributes  115  of the plan  105 . Upon completing a form, the user sends the completed form via an HTML post command to the web server  305 , which in turn provides data to the application server  310  and the database system  315 .  
         [0045]     The segmentation engine  324  receives data relating to employee benefit plans  105 , the sponsors  100  of the plans  105 , the participants of the plans, as well as other data, from the database system  315  and groups the plans into segments  135 . In one embodiment, the segmentation engine  324  groups the plans  105  based on characteristics  120  of the sponsors  100  such as industry (high tech, retail, non-profit, etc.), sub-industry (i.e. non-profit can be further segmented in to healthcare, education, charitable organizations, etc.), geography, number of employees, or others. By grouping the plan data into segments  135  based on the sponsor characteristics  120 , the segmentation engine  324  can calculate benchmark metrics  130  for each segment  135  or sub-segment  140 . The segmentation engine  324  can send the benchmark metrics  130  to the database system  315  for storage, or, in some embodiments, can calculate the metrics  130  in real-time and provide the metrics to the comparison engine  328  on an as needed basis. In some embodiments, an external system provides the metrics  130  to the application server  310  and/or the database system  315  via data feeds, uploads, file transfers, or other similar means.  
         [0046]     The comparison engine  328  receives the status  125  of one or more plan attributes  115  from a users of the system  200  and compares the statuses to the attribute metrics  145  for similar attributes  115  from plans  105  in a like segment  135 , sub-segment  140 , and in some embodiments, and overall metric  150 . In some embodiments, the comparison is binary—i.e. a status  125  of “yes” for an attribute  115  is compared to the percentage of sponsors  100  in a particular segment  135  or sub-segment  140  that have a similar status  125 . In still other embodiments, the comparison engine  328  further segments the metrics  130  by demographics (e.g., age of participant), average account balances, and the like. By further segmenting the metrics  130 , the sponsor  100  can determine if there is a particular population of their employees whose requirements are not being fully addressed by the current attributes  115  of the plan  105 . For example, a hospital may offer a particular plan  105  to its employees, and the status  125  of the attributes  115  of the plan  105  may be favorable to similar sponsors  100 —i.e. they may offer a wider range of services and options than other hospitals. However, one population of the employees, such as those under 30, may have lower participation rates and account balances than other hospitals. To address this discrepancy, the hospital could then implement action items aimed at increasing the participation of its younger workers. Because the plan record keeper  110  provides the metrics  130  for a particular segment, the sponsor  100  can see action items targeted at their particular issues.  
         [0047]     The application server  310  also includes a report writer  336 . The report writer  336  compiles data, text, graphics and other information from the database system or other applications  315  and other components of the application server  310  and produces reports for the user of the system  200 . The report may include plan attributes  115 , the status  125  of the attributes  115 , action items  117  to improve on a particular metric, overall benchmark metrics  150 , segmented attribute metrics  145 , as well as other information about the plan  105  and the sponsor  100 . In one embodiment, the report can generated in HTML, sent from the server  204  to the client  208  over the communications network  212 , and viewed on a client application  222 , printed, or saved locally to the client  208 .  
         [0048]     Continuing to refer to  FIG. 3 , the server  204  also includes a database system  315 , for storing data related to the employee benefit plans  105 , the plan sponsors  100 , user permissions, segmentation parameters, improvement actions  117 , and the like in one or more databases. For instance, the database server  315  may store information relating to employee benefit plans, attributes of the plans, stored content, user information, server availability, and web traffic information. The database server  315  may also contain separate databases for plan data  340 , improvement actions  344 , segmentation rules  348 , user questions  350 , user administration  352 , benchmark metrics  356 , and others. The database server  315  also provides data to the application server  310  upon request, and updates data as necessary. An example of the database server  315  is the MySQL Database Server by MySQL AB of Uppsala, Sweden, the SQLServer database system of Microsoft Corporation of Redmond Wash., or the ORACLE Database Server offered by ORACLE Corp. of Redwood Shores, Calif.  
         [0049]      FIG. 4  illustrates one embodiment of a method for comparing metrics derived from the attributes of an employee benefit plan to benchmark metrics derived from benefit plans offered by sponsors with similar characteristics and providing the results of the comparison. Initially, a plan record keeper  110  accumulates data relating to one or more employee benefit plans  105  and the sponsors  100  of the plans (STEP  405 ). The segmentation engine  324  then creates segments  135  of the data based on characteristics  120  of the sponsors  100  (STEP  410 ). Subsequently, the system  200  receives a request from a user for data about a plan  105  (STEP  415 ) and provides attributes  115  of the plan  105  to the user (STEP  420 ). The user may be a representative of the sponsor  100  of the plan  105 , or the record keeper  110  of the plan  105 . The user then reviews the information provided, completes any forms or questionnaires regarding the status  125  of the attributes  115  of the plan  105 , and transmits the data back to the system  200  (STEP  425 ) via the web server  305  and network  112 . The comparison engine  328  then calculates one or more metrics for the plan  105  and calculates aggregated benchmark metrics  130  for each segment of plans  135  (STEP  435 ). The comparison engine  328  then compares the plan metrics to the attribute metrics  145  for its segment  135 , sub-segment  140 , and/or the overall benchmark metrics  150  (STEP  440 ).  
         [0050]     Because sponsors  100  of a particular plan  105  see the metric for their plan compared to benchmark metrics  130  for plans from sponsors with similar characteristics  120 , the sponsor  100  can make a better decision whether to offer additional optional features of a plan to their employees. For example, a university may provide a 403(b) plan to its employees, but not offer immediate vesting in the plan. If the university knew that on average, the account balances and participation rates for their plan were significantly below industry averages for those metrics, they might be tempted to change their policy plan design. While such a change would be beneficial to the employees, it may add additional costs to the funding of the plan for the university. However, if the representative knew that the participation rate and account balances metrics for their plans, while below the overall industry metrics, were in fact above the same metric for their sub-segment  140 , the university could justify not offering such a benefit to its employees. By providing this level of segmentation, the plan record keeper  110  adds significant value to the services they provide to the plan sponsors. Referring to  FIG. 5 , the plan record keeper  110  creates a database of action items  117  (STEP  505 ) and associates the action items  117  with attributes  115  relating to a plan  105  (STEP  510 ). Subsequent to the comparison step described above, the comparison engine  338  determines one or more deficiencies of the plan  105  by comparing one or more metrics of the plan  105  to the segmented attribute metrics  145  (STEP  515 ). Where discrepancies occur, the comparison engine  328  identifies the attributes  115  that are associated with the metric, the actions items  117  that are associated with those attributes  115 , and suggests one or more identified action items  117  (STEP  520 ). The report writer then produces a report detailing various benchmark metrics  130 , segmented attribute metrics  145 , plan attributes  115 , attribute statuses  125 , strengths of the plan, and possible action items  117  for improving the plan (STEP  525 ). In some embodiments, the plan sponsor  100  or plan record keeper  110  can select which metrics and action items to include on the report. A plan record keeper  110 , a plan sponsor  100 , or other user of the system  200  can use the report as support for implementing potential changes in attributes to a particular plan, or to provide information about the strength of the plan relative to peers of the sponsor  105 .  
         [0051]      FIG. 6  illustrates one embodiment of a method for receiving recommendations for improving an employee benefit plan. Initially, a user logs into the system  200  by providing a user ID, password, PIN number, biometric data, or other authentication data (STEP  605 ). The user then decides which plan metrics the user is interested in improving (STEP  610 ). The user may then view overall benchmark metrics  130  and segmented attribute metrics  145  for the attributes (STEP  615 ), and provides additional data about the plan  105  such as the status  117  of one or more attributes  115  (STEP  620 ). The user then views the results of the comparison to the benchmarks (STEP  625 ) and is presented with action items  117  that are designed to address any shortfalls with respect to the benchmarks (STEP  630 ) associated with the plan metrics. The action items  117  can be viewed on the client  208  using one or more client applications  222 , printed out onto a paper report, stored in the database system  315 , or otherwise communicated to the user. By presenting the user with a list of action items  117  for those attributes  115  that compare unfavorably to the comparison segment  145 , the sponsor  100   110  can target their efforts and make changes to the plan  105  accordingly.  
         [0052]      FIGS. 7 through 14  illustrate one embodiment of a system for implementing the methods described above. Referring to  FIG. 7 , in one exemplary embodiment, the application server  310  provides a Get Started screen  700  to the client  108  via the communications network  112 . The Get Started screen  700  provides a starting point where the user can review one or more plan goals  705  and a description of the benefits to the plan participants and sponsor  100  of achieving these goals. Included on the screen  700  are buttons and links  710  allowing a user to continue with the process once the user determines which goal  705  they want to address.  
         [0053]     Referring to  FIG. 8 , once a user determines which goal  705  they want to address, the application server  310  provides a benchmark screen  800  to the client  108  via the communications network  112 . The benchmark screen  800  provides one or more graphical depictions  820  of metrics relating to the selected plan goal and includes a metric title  805 , and information about the segmentation of the metrics  810 . In one embodiment, the graphical depiction  820  of metrics describes the average account balance of a retirement plan segmented by the overall size of the plan. The graph  820  includes segments  825  into which one or more plans are assigned, metrics values  830  for each segment, a metric value for the current plan  850 , and an overall average metric value  855 .  
         [0054]     In one exemplary embodiment, the metric values  830  are shaded different colors and indicated in a legend  860 . For example, in the graph  825  illustrated in  FIG. 8 , the legend  860  includes listings for the Your Plan  860   a  (the current plan), All Plans  860   b , and Your Segment  860   c . By distinguishing between those metrics that are overall benchmark metrics  855  and those that are assigned to the same segment as the current plan  850 , the user has a better indication of how their plan rates compared to plans offered by similar sponsors.  
         [0055]     In some embodiments, the plan metrics are further segmented into sub-segments. For example, and referring to  FIG. 9 , the metric is segmented and sub-segmented. Similar to the prior benchmark screen  800 , a sub-segment benchmark screen includes a metric title  805 , a brief discussion of its importance  810  in achieving a plan goal, and a graphical representation  920  of the metric values  930 . In addition to segmenting the metric values by a first segment  925  (in this case age), the metrics are sub-segmented  905 —in this case customer service channel used. As described above, the metric values  930  are shaded different colors and indicated in a legend  860 . For example, in the graph  925  illustrated in  FIG. 9 , the legend  860  includes listings for the Your Plan  860   a  (the current plan), All Plans  860   b , and Your Segment  860   c . In the example of  FIG. 9 , the data indicates the current plan, the percentage of customer service calls handled by the Web is lower for every age category than the benchmark metrics for that segment by an average of 7.85%. (11%, 7%, 5%, 7%, 12%, 5%, and 8%) This comparison is accentuated because the measurement is only 3.43% when comparing the current plan to the overall metric. Therefore, the plan sponsor may want to consider increasing the availability of services offered via the web to improve participant satisfaction and participation.  
         [0056]     Referring to  FIG. 10 , once a user has reviewed the benchmarks ( 130  and  145 ) for one or more plan goals, the application server  310  provides a diagnostic screen  1000  to the client  208  via the communications network  212 . The diagnostic screen  1000  provides an online questionnaire consisting of a list questions  1005  relating to the status  125  of one or more plan attributes  115 , radio buttons  1010  indicating the status  125  of the attribute  115 , and a Get Your Score button  1015  for submitting the completed form to the server  204 . In some embodiments, the radio button  1010  is pre-filled with the current status  125  based on data provided to the application server  310  by the database system  315 . In some embodiments, the radio button  1010  is left blank. The user completes the form by indicating the current status  125  of each attribute  115 , and submits the form to the application server  310  to receive a metric for that plan goal. By allowing the user to change the status  125  of one or more attributes  115  and re-score the plan  105 , they can see how adding or removing a particular attribute  115  from the plan  105  affects the plan goal  705 .  
         [0057]     Referring to  FIG. 11 , once a user has requested a score for a plan metric, the application server  310  provides a results screen  1100  to the client  208  via the communications network  212 . The results screen  1100  includes the plan goal  705 , a description  1105  of the goal  705 , a graphical representation  1110  of the score for the current plan for that goal  705  indicating how well the plan participants use the key plan features, a strengths section  1115  listing the attributes  115  of the plan that have a positive impact on its score, and text  1125  supporting the relationship between the attribute  115  and a positive score.  
         [0058]     In addition to providing the positive results of the comparison, the system  200  provides the user with listing of action items  117  that are aimed at improving the plan score. Referring to  FIG. 12 , the application server  310  provides an opportunities screen  1200  to the client  208  via the communications network  212 . The opportunities screen  1200  includes a listing of suggested action items  1210 , supporting documentation  1215  for each action item  117 , a button to redisplay the diagnostic screen  1000 , and a button  1225  to add the suggested action items  117  to a custom report. In one embodiment, the list of action items  1210  consists of those action items  117  associated with the plan attributes  115  the user indicated were not offered in the current plan. For example, if a plan sponsor  100  wishes to increase the overall enrollment in the benefit plans they offer to their employees, the sponsor  100  may use the diagnostic screen  1000  for the “Plan Participation” metric and indicate the current status  1010  for each attribute listed on that screen  1005 . If the sponsor  100  indicates that the current plan does not allow participants to enroll in the plan using the telephone, the list of action items  1210  on the opportunities screen  1200  could include the action of offering enrollment by phone. In addition, the supporting text provides a description of how the implementation of the action item may improve the plan metric in a given area.  
         [0059]     Referring to  FIG. 13 , in one embodiment, the application server  310  provides the user with a summary screen  1300  summarizing the results of one or more completed diagnostic pages  1000 . In one embodiment, the summary screen  1300  includes diagnostic summary  1305  which lists the plan metrics  705  for which the user completed the diagnostics page  1000 , and a graphical representation  1110  of the results of the completed questionnaires. In addition, the summary screen includes a custom report section  1310  with instructions on producing a report and a button  1320  to request a custom report screen  1400  from the server  204 .  
         [0060]     Referring to  FIG. 14 , the application server  310  provides the user with the custom report builder screen  1400 , which allows the user to include on the report along with their calculated metrics  1110 , overall metrics and segmented benchmark metrics as described above. The custom report builder screen  1400  includes buttons allowing a user to select  1410  or deselect  1415  all the benchmark data, a preview button  1425 , a listing of each plan goal  705  and check boxes for each of the metrics that may be added to the report  1420 . Thus, a user may select the specific metrics report relevant to their goals. For example, if a plan record keeper  110  was trying to convince a plan sponsor that they could encourage diversification among the investment vehicles chosen by the plan participants, a representative from the record keeper  110  could choose to include the “Percent of Assets in Each Asset Class, by Age” metric. If the current plan metrics are significantly below those of the other plans within the same sub-segment, the plan sponsor  100  may be encouraged to increase the investment options available in their plan. Furthermore, the data may be even more compelling to the sponsor if the metrics to which his plan is being compared include only those plans having plan sponsors of a similar size and in a similar industry.  
         [0061]     Variations, modifications, and other implementations of what is described herein will occur to those of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the spirit and the scope of the invention as claimed. Accordingly, the invention is to be defined not by the preceding illustrative description but instead by the spirit and scope of the following claims.