The Great Insurance Experiment

The Great Insurance Experiment

There is a battle going on today for the future of the insurance industry. Like other industries there are those within the insurance industry and new entrants who are seeking to test whether alternate, digital models will prevail. As a participant in the industry and an observer the intriguing thing for me is no one has proven the existing model is actually broken or that there is a better proposition out there. It seems the telematics experiment I wrote about a few years ago is expanding in focus.

I'm sure taxi drivers said the same when faced with Uber, hotels with AirBnB, the print industry, the travel industry, etc. However let's look at the benefits of digital propositions to customers and see if they apply to insurance.

Transparency
One of the key benefits of digital propositions is transparency and low prices – something that telematics and IoT propositions endeavour to deliver for consumers. The peculiar thing about insurance is that transparency and too much data is at odds with what insurance tries to achieve. Put another way, insurance is designed to hedge the risks to a population across the whole population, so that individuals pay a reasonable price and those that suffer a significant loss are reimbursed disproportionally to what they put in. Absolute data and visibility – transparency in its purest form – will reveal the poor risks and in practice deprive them of the very service they need. Good for some who will not see a loss, but not good for all and not good for society as a whole.

Propositions in this area have moved towards education and rewarding behaviours that reduce risk – the win-win for insurer and client. Many have observed that this is arguably not insurance but rather risk advice, engineering and management. Others observe that claims prevention is absolutely part of insurance and has been all along, albeit the tools of old have been regulation, law and classical education rather than the digital variants.

Existing experiments reveal customers care do care about not claiming, about limiting the impacts of a claim and about small rewards for good behaviour. Regulators have also shown they're keen that all parts of society have access to financial services and insurance at a reasonable cost. Use of transparency and data can go so far in insurance but there are limits to how far it can disrupt.

Control
Another key benefit of digital propositions is the just in time and just enough nature of them – the ability to finely control the product and as a result the costs. This is another area that is being tested in insurance with micro control over what is and isn't on cover available to customers via their phone.

The challenge here of course is that this again removes some of the hedging. By assigning a cost per item turning everything on will typically yield a higher price for insurance than a classic contents policy which offers blanket cover for items in a property or even while travelling.

The other benefit of the classic policy is that one doesn't have to engage with it. It's all well and good that one can turn cover for items off and on quickly but to really take advantage of this capability the insured has to care deeply about the level of cover or the cost.

There will be customers who want this level of control in their insurance and will actively seek it – but for the mass market a good enough policy at a reasonable price will be just fine.

The long tail
Now here we could see some disruption, or at least shake up of the market. We're already seeing some splits in the market as people interested in health rewards take up the various incarnations of vitality insurance, young people take up telematics car insurance after being priced out of the classic policies. There will be customers interested in control over their policies, customers who give up human interaction in favour of digital cost control.

In this way we might see smaller, more agile companies with lower cost bases taking their share of the market by satisfying a niche.

Conclusion
In practice, the jury is still out and the experiment still continuing. Do todays consumers want the products they have always been offered or something new? What of tomorrows customers?

Your customers hate your group email box (and you should too)

Your customers hate your group email box  (and you should too)

I’m currently dealing with two group email box issues. In one instance, I’m a frustrated customer, irritated beyond belief by the lack of response to my repeated email service requests. In the other instance, I’m the party ultimately responsible for a group email box, and I’m getting an earful from a frustrated customer. The overlay of these two, unrelated incidents is perfect: Some sort of cosmic justice is clearly being served.

Stages of Group Email Box Grief

You might be familiar with the Kübler-Ross model, which shows how grieving people progress through Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. I think something similar happens when any of us try to use a poorly managed group email box. It goes something like this:

  • Hope. After the initial disappointment of not finding a human being with whom we can interact directly, we console ourselves that, at least, our problem has been recognized by our service provider. By creating a named email box, the service provider is clearly implying that help is a click or two away. Got a generic question about your health plan coverage? Email coverage@xyzhealthplan.com. Need help from someone in Finance to get an expense check cut? Why, ExpenseTeam@yourcompany.com sounds like a productive place to turn. But the relief at finding such elegant, targeted service solutions is often short-lived.

  • Perplexity. After a day or so of non-response, we wonder. Did I really send an email to that email box? Did it get through? If it got through, did anyone read it? This stage is characterized by self-doubt and forensic examination. We check and recheck our Inbox, Spam Folder, and Sent Mail under the (reasonable, by the way) assumption that if the tool was working, someone would have responded by now.

  • Dismay. A week has passed. On the realization that no process could possibly take this long, Dismay sets in. In this stage, we ratchet up the pressure, typically by resending our original note with a snarky addition, like, “I really would like to hear from someone on this! Please?”

  • Anger & Activation. At this stage, we realize that help is not forthcoming. For most of us, this happens between Day 7 and Day 8. (Though my experience with them suggests that Millenials make the entire progression from Hope to Anger & Activation in as little as an hour.) We start looking for alternatives, as confidence in the system plummets. In the extreme, we try to get face to face with someone who can solve our problem (“I’m going to drive in to the cell phone store and make them solve this billing issue!”). But alternatives include calling switchboards and asking for the CEO, starting a Twitter rant, or activating a defection to other providers. None of these reactions enhance a customer relationship.

The Service Provider’s Response

As a service provider myself, I’m embarrassed to admit that emails to info@celent.com don’t always get perfect, productive responses. Of course we have a process in place that routes inbound queries to more than one person, to make sure we don’t run into out of office issues. But things occasionally fall through the cracks, due to technical reasons (e.g., aggressive, evolving spam filters), scheduling quirks (e.g., all Celent staff are in the same meeting), or simply due to human nature.

The latter category is particularly vexing. When several people are responsible for something, the real-world effect is that no one feels responsible. I’m convinced that using an info@ email box inevitably lessens the sense of accountability and responsibility that drives all effective service teams. Add in the dynamic of impersonal, electronic communicationswhich by its nature generates less empathy than a simple conversation between two human beings and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

In this annoying age of one-to-many communication (says the blogger, ignoring the irony), there’s a strong case to be made for enabling more direct, personal connections. Many companies will resist this old-fashioned, and by some measures, expensive, view. They will go down the path blazed by online retailers, and try in vain to provide acceptable service levels via FAQ and info@ email boxes. But the price they will pay is customers who frequently progress to Anger & Activation, and then walk away grumbling.

A smarter play is for firms to foster real relationships with their customers. For me, that means going old school. Making it easier for customers to navigate to a real person who is ready to listen and willing to solve problems. I’ve told my team to plaster their direct contact info on every report, presentation, and marketing piece. I’ll keep the info@celent.com address open as a benign trap for spammers. But the rest of you are encouraged to email me directly at cweber@celent.com.

A golden day for insurance: Celent 2016 Model Insurer winners

A golden day for insurance: Celent 2016 Model Insurer winners

In the historic Museum of American Finance, surrounded by golden exhibits including gold bars, a gold Monopoly game and even a gold toilet(!), the 2016 Celent Model Insurers were announced yesterday.  Part of our annual Innovation and Insight Day, we had over 150 insurance professionals in attendance (and over 300 in total), it was a great day for networking, idea sharing, learning about award winning initiatives and hearing inspiring speakers talk about the future of financial services. 

Yaron Ben-Zvi, CEO and co-founder of Haven Life, was the Model Insurer key note speaker. He discussed how Haven is using technology to reach a younger, digital-savvy customer with a life insurance experience that meets their expectations. He spoke about the journey from ideation to reality for their term insurance products which can be purchased online in only 20 minutes. He encouraged the audience to “think big but start small” and to apply the learnings along the way.

The Haven Life presentation was followed by the main event, the announcement of the 2016 Model Insurer winners. Every year, Celent recognizes the effective use of technology projects in five categories across multiple business functions.  We produced our annual Model Insurer Case Study report which clients may download here.  This year there were fifteen insurers recognized including Zurich Insurance, the Model Insurer of the Year.  Here are the winners: 

Model Insurer of the Year   

Zurich Insurance: Zurich developed Zurich Risk Panorama, an app that allows market-facing employees to navigate through Zurich’s large volumes of data, tools and capabilities in only a few clicks to offer customers a succinct overview of how to make their business more resilient. Zurich Risk Panorama provides dashboards that collate the knowledge, expertise and insights of Zurich experts via the data presented.

Data Mastery & Analytics

Asteron Life: Asteron Life created a new approach to underwriting audits called End-to-End Insights. It provides a portfolio level overview of risk management, creates the ability to identify trends, opportunities and pain points in real-time and identifies inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the underwriting process. 

Celina Insurance Group: Celina wanted to appoint agents in underdeveloped areas. To find areas with the highest potential for success, they created an analytics based agency prospecting tool. Using machine learning, multiple models were developed that scored over 4,000 zip codes to identify the best locations.

Farm Bureau Financial Services: FBFS decoupled its infrastructure by replacing point to point integration patterns with hub and spoke architecture. They utilized the ACORD Reference Architecture Data Model and developed near real time event-based messages.

Innovation and Emerging Technologies

Desjardins General Insurance Group: Ajusto, a smart phone mobile app for telematics auto insurance, was launched by Desjardins in March 2015. Driving is scored based on four criteria. The cumulative score can be converted into savings on the auto insurance premium at renewal.

John Hancock Financial Services: John Hancock developed the John Hancock Vitality solution. As part of the program, John Hancock Vitality members receive personalized health goals. The healthier their lifestyle, the more points they can accumulate to earn valuable rewards and discounts from leading retailers. Additionally, they can save as much as much as 15 percent off their annual premium.

Promutuel Assurance: Promutuel Insurance created a new change management strategy and built a global e-learning application, Campus, which uses a web-based approach that leverages self-service capabilities and gamificaton to make training easier, quicker, less costly and more convenient.

Digital and Omnichannel

Sagicor Life Inc.: Sagicor designed and developed Accelewriting® , an eApp integrated with a rules engine; which uses analytic tools and databases to provide a final underwriting decision within one to two minutes on average for simplified issue products.

Gore Mutual Insurance Company: Gore created uBiz, the first complete ecommerce commercial insurance platform in Canada by leveraging a host of technology advancements to simplify the buying experience of small business customers.

Operational Excellence

Markerstudy Group: Markerstudy implemented the M-Powered IT Transformation Program which created an eco-system of best in class monitoring and infrastructure visualization tools to accelerate cross-functional collaboration and remove key-man dependencies.

Guarantee Insurance Company: In order to focus on their core competency of underwriting and managing a large book of workers compensation business, Guarantee Insurance outsourced its entire IT infrastructure.

Pacific Specialty Insurance Company: Complying with their vision is to become a virtual carrier, meaning all critical business applications will be housed in a cloud-based infrastructure, PSIC implemented their core systems in a cloud while upgrading infrastructure to accommodate growth in bandwidth demands.

Legacy Transformation

GuideOne Insurance: GuideOne undertook a transformation project to reverse declines in its personal lines business. They launched new premier auto, standard auto, and non-standard auto products, as well as home, renter and umbrella products on a new policy administration system and a new agent portal.

Westchester, a Chubb Company: Chubb Solutions Fast Track™, a robust and flexible solution covering core business functionality, was built to support Chubb’s microbusiness unit’s core mission of establishing a “Producer First,” low-touch mindset through speed, accessibility, value, ease-of-use and relationships.

Teachers Life: Teachers Life has achieved a seamless, end-to-end online process for application, underwriting, policy issue and delivery for a variety of life products. Policyholders with a healthy lifestyle and basic financial needs can get coverage fast, in the privacy of their own homes, and pay premiums online in as little as 15 minutes.

The quality of the submissions this year is a clear indication the industry is turning a corner and embracing transformation, digital initiatives, innovation and valuing data analytics.  It is inspiring to see the positive results the insurers have achieved and a pleasure to recognize them as Model Insurers for their best practices in insurance technology.

How about your company? As you read this, are you thinking of an initiative in your company that should be recognized? We are always looking for good examples of the use of technology in insurance. Stay tuned for more information regarding 2017 Model Insurer nominations.  

 

Making property/casualty underwriting investments that pay off

Making property/casualty underwriting investments that pay off

Underwriting is at the core of the insurance industry. The processes of selecting and pricing risk and the additional operational processes necessary to deliver a policy and provide ongoing services are essential to the overall profitability of a carrier. Over the last few years, carriers have been heavily engaged in replacing core policy admin systems and increasing the automation of their underwriting processes.

Automation of underwriting processes carries the promise of improved results, but can come at a significant cost — both the hard costs (purchasing technology, implementing technology, and changing processes) and the soft costs. Change can be hard on both underwriting staff inside a carrier and on the agents who receive the output of the underwriting process.

So when does it make sense to invest in automation — or, put another way, are there pieces of the underwriting process that when automated are more likely to result in improved results? We thought it would be interesting to investigate these questions to provide guidance to carriers that are trying to prioritize their efforts.

Our goal was to understand the actual state of underwriting automation in the insurance industry. Are carriers living up to the hype in the media that implies that virtually every carrier out there has automated every step of the process? Or is the progress slower? Are carriers with older systems at a disadvantage against those who have replaced their systems with modern solutions? Do high levels of automation actually result in better financial results?

The process of underwriting was broken into 26 logical components of work. For each component, three levels were defined — ranging from little automation used to significant levels of automation. Carriers can use this report as a self-diagnostic tool by comparing their scores to the benchmarks that follow in this report. To understand what top carriers are doing in this area, Celent conducted a survey around this topic looking to answer these key research questions.

  1. What are the different components of underwriting that can be automated?
  2. Where are carriers utilizing automation in underwriting?
  3. Are high levels of automation in underwriting correlated with improved metrics?

Our key findings were:

  • Average levels of automation vary dramatically by line of business, even within the same company.
  • Personal lines carriers are more likely to be applying high level of automation in the front end processes related to automated quote, issue, and renewals — including automated communications with policyholders.
  • Commercial lines carriers tend to apply higher levels of automation for the back end including workflow, product management, rating, and reporting/analytics.
  • Workers compensation and specialty carriers tend to have slightly lower levels of automation in all aspects of underwriting but can achieve significantly better results when applying automation to processes related to analytics and service.
  • Carriers with newer systems are using high levels of automation in more of the processes. Those who have had their systems for over 15 years have had a lot of time to customize their solutions and have slightly more highly automated processes than those whose systems are between 10 and 15 years old.
  • Personal lines carriers are the most likely to benefit from high levels of automation, especially automation related to process efficiency and underwriting insights.
  • Commercial and specialty carriers benefited most from high levels of automation in processes related to underwriting insights. Generally, the best combined ratios were found in those carriers with a medium level of automation — processes that were supported by technology, but had some level of human intervention as well.
  • Workers comp carriers are most likely to benefit from high levels of automation in processes related to driving underwriting insights.

Here’s a link to the report.  You can download it if you’re a customer. If you’re not a client, ping me and we can chat.

John Hancock launches Vitality 2.0, rewarding life insurance consumers for healthy eating

John Hancock launches Vitality 2.0, rewarding life insurance consumers for healthy eating

As many of you know, John Hancock introduced the Vitality program to the US Life insurance market a year ago this month. At its core, the program offers discounts and earns points for healthy living. It is a program that has been offered for over 15 years in other markets, originating in South Africa. The program is exclusive, in the US Life insurance market, to John Hancock.

Today Hancock make another major announcement in enhancing the program and it directly, and positively, affects the health and pocketbooks of their customers.

The core of the new program is a partnership with major grocery chains, headlined by Walmart. Hancock Vitality members will get discounts, up to $600 per year, on health foods when they participate in the program, as well as points in the program that could reduce their premium up to 15%. This is measureable money and can go far towards offsetting the cost of the insurance. The real benefit, though, is continuing to encourage healthy living. In the case of Walmart, and likely other groceries, the savings are printed on the receipt, so the customer can be immediately aware of their savings.

Policyholders also gain access to nutrition information, at no charge, from the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

Just last week, a study was released that for the first time, the number of people in the world that are obese outnumber those that are under weight.

The study also shows that China and the US have more obese people than any other countries. Given the disparity in population, this confirms what we already know – Americans are dangerously overweight.

While we would not expect that this program alone will have a measurable impact on obesity in the general population, it certainly can for Hancock’s policy holders.

For more information, see John Hancock’s press release. We will be watching this development closely as it takes off.

Insights from the trenches – west coast CIO roundtable

Insights from the trenches – west coast CIO roundtable
On March 22 and 23, Celent hosted a CIO roundtable in San Francisco that brought together CIOs from a variety of Property Casualty carriers. Sessions included presentations by CIOs and discussions on innovation, core systems in the cloud, transforming the customer experience, digital strategies, dealing with millennials and gender balance in the workplace, and optimizing the agent experience to drive growth. Some of Celent’s recent research was presented to stimulate discussion as well. The discussion highlighted the similar challenges that carriers face, regardless of size, lines of business, or geography, as they look at transformation.   Innovation Celent research shows that the population of highly digital individuals is growing and that a firm’s ability to innovate has a high impact on a highly digital agent or consumer’s willingness to work with them. Yet there are often barriers to progress as not all leaders within an organization are seen as supporting a company’s innovation efforts. While carriers see that innovation is critical to meeting customer expectations, innovation is not always seen as important to a firm’s strategy.   Carriers discussed the distinction between driving innovation processes and culture within an organization, and implementing specific innovation ideas. It was noted that employee engagement is key to innovation.   One carrier presented the program they initiated to drive innovation within their own organization with the results of improving employee engagement, driving improved financial results, and improving the speed to market of idea deployment. The CIOs discussed a variety of best practices for stimulating new ideas, capturing and triaging these ideas and rewarding employees for their contribution while moving towards implementation.   Core systems in the Cloud Activity in core system replacement continues to occur at record levels with well over half of the carriers in the industry either currently engaged in system replacement projects, or planning a future project. But these projects often take years to complete and deploy. As vendors look for ways to speed up these deployments, one option is a cloud deployment. Software vendors clearly recognize the importance of the cloud to drive their businesses forward – 50% of policy admin vendors surveyed in Celent’s recent report on cloud capabilities tell us that cloud is mission critical, and 50% tell us they offer a cloud solution.   But carrier take-up has been relatively nascent with few carriers choosing to make the leap. Almost 60% are waiting and watching while 20% are sure it’s not for them Typical concerns include data security lack of visibility into the infrastructure, concerns about difficulty moving data off the cloud, and how a cloud deployment will change the IT organization. One carrier spoke about their journey of replacing their core suite with a full cloud deployment. Specific issues the carrier faced were echoed by other carriers as core system replacements are often accompanied by a process redesign and often include a greater use of analytics to improve decisions and streamline processes.   The cultural issues can be significant and change management is key to a successful implementation. Moving solutions to the cloud also raises new terms and condition in the contract with the vendor that carriers need to understand and think through carefully before signing. But a cloud deployment can potentially result in a faster implementation and can allow a carrier to deploy their scarce IT resources on the aspects of maintenance that are strategic to the insurance business rather than using staff on infrastructure management.   A changing workforce 2015 was the year that millennials became the majority in the US workforce and millennials have very different expectations of their career and the role they can and will play. But there is a perception disconnect between what managers and millennials view as the most important factors that indicate career success. Millennials are most interested in meaningful work, flexible working hours and high pay. Managing millennials can require a shift in a leader’s traditional practices. Gender diversity is also a gap in the industry with few women in executive level roles in the financial service industry. Men and women have different views of the opportunities available to them.   CIOs exchanged a number of ways they’ve been successful at attracting and motivating millennials including gamification efforts and opportunities to reward and recognize millennials for their contributions while providing them with expanding learning opportunities. Various sources of unconscious gender bias were discussed and ways of helping women become better at networking and building relationships within an organization were seen as tools to help women progress in an organization   Going Digital Digital is a buzzword in the industry and CIO’s don’t all have a common set of terminology or definition for what digital really is. Some define digital as automation of work processes and some define it as automation of decisions. Celent described four digital goals that are typically the results of a carrier’s digital strategy – getting leaner by reducing expenses or increasing productivity; getting smarter by making better decisions and getting the right content to the policyholder at the right time; getting faster with shorter cycle times for policy issuance claims and product changes; and making the experience better for a customer.   One carrier described their journey towards digital and transforming the customer experience. When every business unit owns the customer experience, it’s difficult to provide a consistent customer experience across the entire relationship without a true owner of customer experience. A discussion of who is the customer resulted with most carriers recognizing the role that the agent plays and the need to optimize the agent experience.   CIOs then discussed some of the cultural issues faced as long-term employees work to absorb the change. It was clear that implementing the technology was not the roadblock to moving forward –but that finding staff that are skilled in understanding the business and also understand the ways to digitize is hard. Combine that with the cultural challenges of massive changes in how the work is being done creates barriers to moving forward quickly. All agreed that aligning their digital initiatives with the company strategy is key to finding the right projects. An interesting question arose around is there a place where it’s too much? How do you know when to stop? CIO’s agreed that this is a constantly evolving world and processes need to be in place to regularly assess, screen and prioritize new initiatives.   Optimizing the agent experience Celent presented some recent primary research around agent needs and drivers when it comes to placing business. Agents clearly state that they place business with carriers that make it easy to do so. While a carrier must have a good product, a solid price, and excellent claims, in a tie, the agent with the easiest process for placing and servicing business wins the deal. CSRs have significant influence in the placement decision and the CSR community, like other roles in the industry is in the process of undergoing a generational shift with older CSRs looking at retirement and younger millennials entering. This generational shift means that carriers are looking at how to provide additional tools and support such as gamifying the training process, providing additional help text and supplying more documentation as transactions occur.   CIOs described their own efforts in prioritizing connectivity with the agency management solutions and discussed the high priority that portals take when it comes to making IT investments.   Overall This event gave CIOs an opportunity to share ideas with their peers and the mix of research and the CIO discussion of the practical applications was seen as extremely valuable by the participants. Additional events will occur over the summer in the Midwest and in the fall in the Northeast.

Well sir, we’re not Amazon: online support lessons for insurers

Well sir, we’re not Amazon: online support lessons for insurers
I just got off the phone from a 40 minute phone call with an insurer that provides benefits to my family. I won’t name the company, as that is not the point of this blog post, but I thought I would share my experience. I am certainly hopeful that this could not happen at any of the companies for which our readers work. The same insurer handles my Group life and Dental coverages. It is a well-known company. I had previously registered for their website, so I logged on to print my new dental card, so I could get all seven of us to the dentist. When I logged on, it only showed my Life coverage, but not dental. Nothing on the site let me add it, so I resorted to the next best thing. I called. The wait was about what I expect – about 10 minutes – before they actually connected me to a person. After providing my entire life history (or at least it felt that way), to validate I am who I am, the customer service rep banged away at her keyboard for a solid 5 minutes before declaring that she could not send me id cards – that my account did not allow it. Getting beyond the fact that this is simply silly, she transferred me to web support. Back in the queue for another 10 minute wait, I finally spoke to a helpful gentleman who could set me up to access my dental account. Except he couldn’t. First, he explained that I had to have a second web account to view Dental. Apparently the siloed nature of their organization spilled over to their customers (Strike one). Then after being on hold for another 5 minutes, he came back to let me know that he could not set me up because my employer did not allow us to have an online account. Even when assured that my colleague DID have allow web accounts, he stuck with his guns. I tried, repeatedly, to convince him that my company would not have made that decision (Strike two). I finally gave up, ended the call and emailed our internal benefits coordinator. She responded that all I had to do was register for the site again, using a second email address. Naturally, this worked, contrary to what the insurer repeatedly told me (Strike three). Now, why did I title the blog as I did? Because my experiences with my insurer are not unique. I recently had trouble returning an online order from a major big box home improvement store. They wanted everything short of my first born to allow me to return a defective product. I had to jump through many hoops and take the product back to their local store. To make it worse, they wouldn’t be able to replace it. I’d have to order it again, and, by the way, the price went up $120. During that call, I commented that their service was complicated and poor and paled in comparison to Amazon. To which he replied: “Well sir, we’re not Amazon.” No, no you’re not. And I haven’t ordered anything else from them either, but Amazon gets my business regularly. The moral of the story? Oh there are so many:
  • Don’t show your organizational weaknesses to the customer. You may be siloed, but that shouldn’t make it difficult for the customer.
  • Make sure your support people actually know what they’re doing. The solution set should not include “making something up so the customer will go away.”
  • Customers expect your service to equal those of other providers. Admitting that you’re not Amazon just reinforces this notion.
I could go on and on, but it is a lesson the insurance industry needs to learn. We lag behind virtually every other industry in online support. Now I don’t want to leave on a negative note, because there are insurers in our industry that excel at online support. My auto insurer is wonderful. What’s a bit ironic is that once I got setup on the two almost identical websites for this insurer, the web experience is wonderful.