Every fall, HR teams brace for open enrollment—the season that always seems to take more time, more energy and more patience than anyone expects. Despite capable systems, detailed timelines and committed stakeholders, the same issues return year after year—not from a lack of effort or system knowledge, but from a lack of complete process ownership.
Open enrollment sits at the intersection of HR, payroll, benefits, IT, consultants, brokers, system vendors and carriers. With so many stakeholders, it’s easy to assume that “someone” is handling every step. Yet when everyone’s involved but no one is in charge, even the most capable teams fall into familiar traps.
See more: Will employers try new tech for this open enrollment?
The core problem: No clear project lead
Open enrollment is, at its core, a project—with deadlines, dependencies and deliverables. But in many organizations, there’s no defined project lead to connect the dots. HR leaders trust that internal teams are managing their pieces, brokers are updating plans and rates, and system vendors and consultants are configuring everything correctly.
Yet no one is double-checking whether those pieces truly align. Were the final plan designs and rates validated across stakeholders before system setup began? Did the configuration team load the right limits and maximums? Did the carrier receive and test the file before go-live? Someone has to be a step ahead—anticipating gaps, validating assumptions and holding every partner accountable. Without that lead, issues go unnoticed until they surface where they matter most—with employee coverage.
Without that central role, the process defaults to reaction mode. Deadlines slip. Thorough testing is missed. Blackout dates sneak up. Each function moves within its own silo, confident it’s handling its part but unaware that another group is out of sync. And when errors surface during or after enrollment, there’s no single place to trace ownership or lessons learned.
The lack of a clear project lead creates a ripple effect that undermines trust in the entire process. When issues surface like incorrect payroll deductions, mismatched elections or data discrepancies—teams scramble to fix them without fully understanding where things went wrong. As a result, frustration builds and blame often lands in the wrong place—whether on HR, external partners or the technology itself. Resolving those issues requires multiple groups, internal and external, to unwind and correct errors across systems, leading leaders to question whether the tools and processes they’ve invested in are truly working as intended.
The hidden pitfalls that follow
When ownership is unclear, process breakdowns are inevitable, and they tend to compound over time.
- Lack of documentation: Every open enrollment cycle produces lessons—what worked, what failed and what needs attention next year. Yet without a documented playbook, those lessons disappear once the project wraps. The next cycle starts from scratch, repeating the same missteps. Even a brief “what worked/what didn’t” recap within 30 days of close can prevent months of rework.
- Testing that stops too soon: Teams often test configurations but not full scenarios. End-to-end testing is essential, and that includes validating different employee lifecycles, from a new hire to a dependent aging out to an age-based coverage reduction. When test cases and ownership aren’t clearly defined, testing becomes everyone’s job and, eventually, no one’s.
- Enrollment files that go unaudited: Enrollment files are the backbone of OE accuracy, yet they rarely receive a full audit. A single mapping issue or unchecked field can trigger incorrect deductions or missing coverage. These problems are often caught after the fact, leading to coverage and billing errors and frustrated employees.
- Overreliance on passive enrollment: Passive enrollment may seem efficient, but it can mask recurring problems when data isn’t regularly reconciled. Elections roll forward automatically, and without an intentional review and audit process, discrepancies and outdated data can persist across systems. An OE lead ensures that someone is accountable for validating that what’s in the system matches what’s intended. Passive enrollment works when ownership extends to data accuracy and post-enrollment validation.
Each of these pitfalls stems from the same root cause: No one is managing the process end-to-end or confirming that every handoff is truly complete.
What fixes it: True ownership and year-round accountability
The solution is not another tool or checklist—it’s ownership. Assigning a clear project lead, internal or external, changes everything. That person sets timelines, confirms deliverables and ensures that every stakeholder—HR, payroll, IT, consultants, brokers, system vendors and carriers—stays aligned. When ownership is defined, the inevitable issues that arise stay small and manageable.
But ownership shouldn’t stop when open enrollment ends. The most effective HR teams treat it as part of a year-round process. Once the OE project lead wraps up, ongoing accountability shifts to HR and benefits leaders who review outcomes, vendor performance and opportunities for improvement. They hold regular discussions with consultants and vendors to confirm service levels, track plan performance and plan next year’s updates. They also evaluate employee feedback to strengthen communication and engagement.
This year-round rhythm allows HR teams to:
- capture lessons learned within 30 days of close
- audit and QA enrollment files to prevent errors
- maintain test cases and scripts for next year’s starting point
- confirm carrier file timing and process for blackout dates early
- review communication strategies well before the next cycle
When ownership continues beyond open enrollment, it becomes part of how HR manages benefits every day—continuous, proactive and built on accountability rather than crisis management.
From chaos to confidence
Open enrollment doesn’t have to be an annual fire drill. It can be a predictable, well-orchestrated process that reinforces trust across the organization, but only when someone is clearly empowered to lead it. This starts with defining what ownership means inside your organization. Who will lead the process? What are they accountable for? How will success be measured? Setting those expectations early gives the project lead the authority and clarity they need to make decisions, align teams and hold partners accountable.
Strong ownership also means treating open enrollment as part of a continuous cycle, not a one-time event. The work doesn’t stop when elections close—it evolves into monitoring, adjusting and preparing for what’s next. When leaders define that rhythm and empower someone to drive it, open enrollment becomes less about surviving the chaos and more about building confidence in every cycle that follows.
