"A thought-provoking article in The Economist prompts DevOpsGroup co-founder Steve Thair to urge insurers to get to grips with technical debt. The shock of COVID-19 has made this more urgent then ever as customers, used to the very best in online buying and services during the pandemic, demand the same of P&C insurers.
Not just from home or motor but also for health, pet, travel, warranty and in fact every type of claim.
Commercial insurance does not escape this change either. Brokers are reported to be changing their insurer as a result of the experiences of Business Interruption Insurance. In the UK insurers have decided not to appeal against the FCA test case and will have to process all outstanding claims rapidly if they are to keep their customer satisfaction ratings.
See: Briefing: Brokers are upset - which insurers will lose customers over BI claims? in Insurance Times 28th October
" It would be unfair to pick on XXX ( named in linked article) , as there are other insurers involved who put on ice paying out on business interruption and/or denial of access claims during the pandemic.
But as the process draws to its conclusion - six insurers dropped their High Court appeal against some policies - the next big question is around how much certain insurers will lose business from the pandemic, and at the other end, who will be the big winners. "
Saxon East Insurance Times
There are pressures from all customers to deliver better claims management whilst competitive pressures will only increase.
The Economist’s article on the future of insurance, Run for Cover, has a stark warning for the sector. It says incumbents risk being disintermediated or replaced by non-traditional rivals unless they innovate and transform."
Just count the number of technology stacks in any one insurer. Even if it has upgraded to Guidewire or Duck Creek platforms it is usually for just one insurance category like Motor. The costs, time and complexity of bringing another category into the digital age are just too shocking to contemplate and the technical legacy continues to grow.
Look at the figures that Steve Thair presents- no wonder many innovation plans stay in a POC/trial environment.
This a problem 360Globalnet solves with 360SiteView; digitally transform claims across all perils without adding a multitude of new technology stacks. Avoid yet more CAPEX on the balance sheet.
Deliver an Amazon quality customer service combined with supply chain operational excellence. Delight customers, collapse costs and motivate claims teams. And you can start in it 2020 and complete deployment in 2021 bringing the organisation along with you, keeping the CFO happy and the CTO/CIO relaxed knowing legacy systems are not going to need changing, security and compliance not threatened and it gives central IT the time and space to replace legacy systems over a time period that is convenient, practical and affordable.
HR, Change Management and line of business (LOB) leaders can be assured of no upheaval as 360SiteView generally starts with small projects, proves itself within three months and expands across more perils and claims categories in a manageable way.
Being a No-Code platform, training is far shorter than complex insurance platforms- a week or so, and a small core of trained analysts can innovate, iterate, test and improve in their native language from the desktop,
NO CODING, NO DELAYS and NO BURDEN ON IT.
Large and small insurers in Europe, Australia and North America have already leveraged this solution to technical debt. Time for you to explore it?
PS- I declare an interest as member of 360Globalnet. That does not take away from the benefits described above though. So find out more - Mike.Daly@360Globalnet.com
Many traditional organisations spend 70% or more of their IT budget on Business as Usual (BAU) and just 20% on innovation and new value-added services (the remaining 10% goes on overheads and running costs). By contrast, high-performing IT organisations, spend 40% of their IT budget on BAU, and 50% on innovation and continuous improvement. This 30% difference in BAU spend is essentially the ‘interest payment’ on technical debt. Insurers’ comparatively low level of spend on computing technology suggest it’s unlikely that the principal of technical debt is being paid off. If the idea of wasting 30% of IT budget on technical debt every year isn’t enough to give insurance CFOs apoplexy, let’s calculate the principal on that technical debt. This gives a rough indication of what you might need to spend to reduce it, so transformation initiatives can succeed,
unknownx500
