This has been one of the toughest interviews for me to land. Fortwo years I tried to convince a reluctant subject to agree toit.

He was at once extremely modest and understandably private. ButI felt it was an important discussion to share on the record. Hehad experienced things others wished they experienced and wanted toexperience.

Related: Plan sponsors beware: ERISA does notpermit complacency

But that’s not the only reason why this interview was soimportant. This was an individual on the front lines. Indeed, itwas more than that. He – specifically, his retirement plan – led onthe vanguard of the 21^st century. He had boldlytravelled where no one had gone before, where to this day still fewcould go. This was a journey even veteran professionals continue tobelieve is not possible, let alone the future standard.

That’s why his story was so important to tell. That’s why thisinterview was so important. That’s why, unlike my usual response(which is to ask only once then move on), I continued to pursuehim. If you want to show the world what the future of plan design looks like, you must talk to plansponsors working where the future is now. Very few plan sponsorsfit that category. Almost all of them are very private.

Related: First quarter 'growth' spurt shows dangersof 'snapshot-in-time' performance anomalies

A few months ago, Dale Neibert called me out of the blue. I methim at the last-ever CCD Conference in San Antonio, Texas where Ihad been invited to speak about using behavioral techniquesdescribed by Robert Cialdini to help better teach and prepareretirement plan sponsors and participants.

Dale appeared on a panel during a different session at the sameevent. He was calling me to chair a panel he was going to be amember of during a private meeting of major institutional playerswithin the retirement industry. It was an offer I couldn’t refuse,especially since it gave me the opportunity to again ask for theinterview.

This time Dale said yes, although still modestly reluctant.Though he doubted the significance of telling his story, my guttold me it was going to answer a lot of questions I get both fromplan sponsors and their service providers.

Now, here’s the thing. I have been blessed with the goldenopportunity to speak with many thought leaders and leading-edgefolks in all areas of the retirement industry – from ERISAattorneys (both sides) to regulators to academics to plan sponsorsto plan service providers.

Many of these conversations are off the record. This means I canonly speak of their wisdom in general terms (which is often goodenough for many of audiences), but certainly not with specificexamples and actual real-life citations.

This time, however, it would be different. This time I had theprimary source willing to talk directly to my readers. This timewould be one of those “times” that would be remembered.

Dale did not disappoint. His comprehensive responses describedthe nature, structure, and actual workings of one of the nation’slargest 401k plans (read it here in “Exclusive Interview: Dale Neibert Explains 21stCentury 401k Plan Design,” FiduciaryNews.com, July 18,2017):

Allow me to briefly summarize in a way that no doubt doessuggest to his detailed answers but quickly relays the informationmost sought after by both plan sponsors and retirement plan serviceproviders.

1. Keep fund options generic – remove brand names frommenu options. Face it, if a fund is supposed to be a“Large Cap Growth Fund (actively managed),” why not just call itthat. Employers gain nothing when employees fret over the internalgoings on at specific mutual fund companies.

Worse, using specific names just adds to the already high burdenof investment decision making. Keep things simple. Use genericnames. Target-date funds are a great example of the success ofusing generic names.

2. Speaking of target-datefunds, don’t use them -- use“target risk” or “lifestyle” funds instead. These are thesame kinds of balanced portfolios used in pension plans.

The difference, though, is that while a pension plan maintainsonly one portfolio (thus creating a greater challenge to invest ina manner consistent to the needs across the entire demographicspectrum), 401k plans can offer an array of balanced options, eachfocused on just one portion of that broad demographic spectrum.

After all, not every 50-year-old needs a “moderate” glide path.Some require more aggressive glide paths while others can affordmore conservative glide paths. Rather, as some suggest, than try tofit a square peg into a round hole by overlaying “risk” on top of“date” (thus introducing that dreaded complexity into the mix onceagain), better to just simply offer traditional “conservative,”“moderate,” and “aggressive” funds.

3. Daily valuation is overrated. Again,retirement is a long-term investment. Plan sponsors ought to designplans that downplay the investing burden and augment the savingsstrategies.

There’s a reason 401k plans were originally call “401k savings”plans. Daily valuation only encourages employees to fear theirlimitations since they realize they are inexpert investors, or,worse, lead them to believe they are on the same level ofsophistication as expert investors.

4. Use a category-based investment menu. By theway, these aren’t investment categories, these are “how much workdo you want to do?” categories.

If you want to do a lot of work, then offer a “Do-It-Yourself”category consisting of index funds of different asset classes. Ifyou want to do absolutely no work, then offer a single defaultinvestment (i.e., a balanced portfolio identical to what a pensionplan would offer for a demographic pool of employees identical toyour company), and, finally, if you want to do a little bit of workbut not too much, offer a category of either balances “TargetRisk”/”Lifestyle” funds and/or a category of actively managedlong-term funds with different investment disciplines.

5. Finally, don’t be fooled by low fees.Sometimes you get what you pay for. Neibert provides real-lifeexamples where higher fees produced more attractive investmentreturns – and he explains why.

What Dale doesn’t say, but I can because I’ve spoken to manyplan sponsors with much smaller plans (some under $1,000,000 intotal assets), is that each of these five points are not sizedependent.

Not matter how large your plan, you can design it in a mannervery similar to the $2 billion plan described by Neibert.

Don’t believe me? Then you’re not looking hard enough todiscover those plans.