Digitizing Life Insurance New Business with Technology and Tools

Digitizing Life Insurance New Business with Technology and Tools

In February Celent published its second report using data from a 2016 New Business Benchmarking Survey. The first report compared data based on the average face value of products sold by the participating insurers. The second report presented the same benchmarking data but considered technology as the main focus. It compared the overall averages for a set of key metrics with the averages for high and low technology users throughout the new business process. The findings from the report were not surprising; except for the fact that we had to acknowledge that technology in the new business is still slow to take hold.

We found that electronic application use is on the rise. Just less than one half of all applications by the participating insurers were submitted electronically. The insurers that sold moderate face value policies were more apt to use electronic applications than insurers that sell high face value policies. That makes complete sense since most insurers begin their eApplication journey with less complex products like term or whole life. Celent believes that all insurers can achieve benefits from eApplications. Less than half the insurers in the study Insurer reported having an eApplication, and those with captive insurers submitted a larger percent of their new business via eApps. Direct to consumer as a channel was reported by four of the insurers and they received 20% of their applications from e-apps targeted to consumers.

Data quality is a critical issue that strongly impacts unit costs. As a group, the insurers that participated in this study estimated that 69% of all paper applications received were not in good order (NIGO). For those that implemented eApps and have a technology heavy new business process the NIGO rate fell to 5%.

We also found that imaging systems were ubiquitous. Ninety-eight percent of paper applications were imaged. Imaging was also used for the underwriting requirements that are received in paper. Workflow systems were also very common. But as the process moved closer the underwriting evaluation the level of automation began to drop off. Seventy percent of the participating insurers could automatically order and receive underwriting requirements; however, this happened for less than a quarter of the applications. Since most third party providers of underwriting evidence can provide data in digital formats, this Celent recommends this as an area for future investment by insurers. Further down the line shows that technology is not king in the underwriting departments yet. Automated application evaluation, underwriting/case management workbenches, and electronic signatures were used by over half of the insurers in the study; however, less than 40% of all applications were managed on a workbench. Even fewer were processed by an underwriting system, and only 12% included electronic signatures. Electronic policy delivery, new in the 2016 survey, occurred for 4% of all applications.

When an insurer is fully automated in the NBUW process, benefits can be seen in cost and time metrics. For insurers that implemented technology throughout their new business process the unit cost per application dropped from US$312 to US$237, and unit cost per policy issued fell from US$440 to US$329. The average cycle time fell from 38 days to 17 days for the insurers that implemented a full suite of new business and underwriting technology into their process.

The highest-level conclusion that can be drawn from this new business benchmarking data is that even among top-tier insurers, there are significant differences in new business performance, particularly when technology is considered. Creating performance measures such as unit cost, percentage of new submissions “in good order,” and cycle time is essential. Monitoring those measures against a peer group will be an eye-opening experience for insurers that do not do it today. While direct comparisons between insurers are difficult due to product and channel differences, this study and our previous one suggest there is a strong relationship between face amount and unit cost. It also suggests that technology can have an impact on costs and cycle times when it is implemented across the process or even in just parts. Insurers are urged to analyze their own performance, starting with metrics such as unit cost per application received, unit cost per policy issued, and percentage of cases received not in good order.

The notion that life insurance underwriting is more art than science (and thus exempt from automation) is misleading at best. It is true that the subtleties in underwriting present unique challenges for technology. But underwriting is a process like many others in that it requires certain data as input, and there are rules that govern both the process flow and the decisions that result from it. Following basic principles of getting clean data and automating wherever possible will help insurers do their jobs more cheaply and more effectively.

Process improvement strategies should focus on implementing electronic applications, automating the receipt of third party underwriting evidence, and automating underwriting decisions. The order depends on the distribution strategy and change management processes in place to maximize the benefit. Few insurers have maximized the potential value of new business automation, but the findings in this report show the time savings and cost reduction potential of implementing technology across the new business process flow.

Back to the Future

Back to the Future

A long time ago, before joining Celent, I was part of the insurance industry from the insurer side and my work was to look for ways to improve the company’s processes and innovate. I really liked the job because you had to come up with ideas and accept that you had restrictions, and sometimes you had to face the sad truth that the technology supporting your ideas wasn't available.

Now at Celent, I’ve witnessed a whole new world of possibilities because, as part of Celent, we are exposed to many, many successful cases implementing technology in insurance through research and events, especially in events like our Innovation & Insight day (I&I day). This year our I&I day takes place in Boston, Massachusetts on April 4, and Celent will award the best Information Technology (IT) initiatives in insurance.

That day, Celent will be presenting winners in 5 categories.

  • Digital and Omnichannel
  • Legacy and Ecosystem Transformation
  • Innovation and Emerging Technologies
  • Operational Excellence
  • Data Analytics

The Model Insurer Award is recognition of an insurer’s effective use of technology in a certain area or theme, not necessarily a statement that the insurer is absolutely best in class (although some may be). Model Insurer success highlights the insurer’s ability to improve performance and meet market demands when tackling issues that face all insurers today.

For instance, do the below examples sound familiar to you?

  • Under new management, the business had to transform itself rapidly and replace 20-year old technology. This insurer had a major license renewal date two years out and would have been locked in by the vendor to a prohibitively expensive contract.
  • An insurance company needed to create a digital process to meet customer expectations of doing business, automate underwriting, reduce cycle time and minimize human touch.
  • Another insurer utilized digital connectivity and ratings engine cloud-based platform to achieve a faster process and empower various actors across the organization.

I’m sure the examples above are the types of projects you’d like to implement at your company, but these are just a sample of the case studies we received. This year we received around 60 case studies applying for our Model Insurer Award. Of those, fifteen will be awarded Model Insurer and one will be the Model Insurer of the Year.

Personally, this year has been different. This year, I was amazed about the quality of cases we received and methodology that insurers are using to implement their projects, which made very difficult to deliberate. I’m not saying this is bad thing, on the contrary; it is a sign that the industry is on the move and it is using the best technology available.

I wish I had a time machine like in “Back to the Future” to go back to the days I worked for insurance companies, and tell my younger self: “you cannot miss this event; it will help you with your project.”

So, this is my advice. If you are part of the insurance industry and you are working in IT projects, this is the type of events you may want to attend to benchmark and learn about initiatives around the world that would help you define yours.

Lost in Innovation?

Lost in Innovation?

So, how do you avoid getting lost in innovation? The simple (and maybe glib) answer might be to buy a map, a compass and start to plan your route. However, what do you do when there is no map, no obvious path to take and no-one to follow?

The last 24 months have seen an incredible amount of activity across the sector in experimenting with novel proposition concepts fuelled by emerging technologies in the internet of things, distributed ledgers and bot-driven artificial intelligence. Although each new concept shows promise, we are yet to experience a clear and obvious pattern for winning new clients or delivering a superior shareholder return using them. Many of the most exciting novel ideas (and many are genuinely exciting) are yet to see any real business volume behind them (see my earlier blog for additional context of what insurtech has to offer in defining the ‘dominant design’ for new tech-enabled propositions).

So, as an insurer faced with having to balance how much it should invest in these new concepts versus furthering the existing business in what is probably a highly successful and scalable model, two of the big questions we often hear from clients are: “Which of these nascent concepts are most likely to deliver real business value the fastest?” and “How much effort should I be devoting to exploring them today?” These are the questions that we looked to address at our latest event in London that we called ‘Lost in Innovation’, attended by just over 70 inquiring insurance decision makers.

Faced with uncertainty, we followed an agenda that focused on the things that an insurer can control, such as the innovation-led partnerships they enter, the skills they develop internally, the criteria used for measuring value, and the potential challenges ahead that they need to plan for.

Celent analyst Craig Beattie presenting on emerged software development approaches

Alongside presenting some of our latest research on the topic, we were joined on-stage by:

  • Matt Poll from NEOS (the UK’s first connected home proposition in partnership with Hiscox) shared his experience on the criteria for a successful partnership.
     
  • Jennyfer Yeung-Williams from Munich Re and Polly James from Berwin, Leighton, Paisner Law shared their experience and views on some of the challenges in the way of further adoption, including the attitude of the regulator and potential legal challenges presented by using personal data in propositions.
     
  • Dan Feihn, Group CTO from Markerstudy, presented his view of the future and how they are creating just enough space internally to experiment with some radical concepts – demonstrating that you don’t always need big budget project to try out some novel applications of new technologies.

So, what was the conclusion from the day? How do you avoid getting lost in innovation? Simply speaking, when concepts are so new that the direction of travel is unclear, a more explorative approach is required – testing each new path, collecting data and then regrouping to create the tools needed to unveil new paths further ahead until the goal is reached. Scaling concepts too early in their development (and before they are ready) may be akin to buying a 4×4 to plough through the scrub ‘on a hunch’ only to find quicksand on the other side.

Some tips shared to help feel out the way:

  • Partnerships will remain a strong feature of most insurer’s innovation activity over the next 12-24 months. Most struggle to create the space to try out new concepts. Also, realistically, many neither have the skills or the time to experiment (given that their existing capabilities are optimised for the existing business). Consequently, partnerships create a way to experiment without “upsetting the applecart”.
     
  • Hiring staff from outside of the industry can be a great way to change the culture internally and bring-in fresh new ideas…however, unless there is an environment in place to keep them enthused, there remains a risk of them turning ‘blue’ and adopting the existing culture instead of helping to change it.
     
  • There are several ways to measure value created by an initiative. The traditional approach is a classic ‘Return on Investment’ (RoI). However, RoI can be hard to calculate when uncertainty is high. To encourage experimentation, other approaches may be better suited, such as rapid low-cost releases to test concepts and gather data to feel the way. Framing these in terms of an ‘affordable loss’ may be another way to approach it – i.e. “What’s the maximum amount that I’m willing to spend to test this out?” – accepting that there may not be an RoI for the initial step. Although no responsible insurer should be ‘betting the house’ on wacky new concepts, reframing the question and containing exposure can sometimes be all that’s required to create the licence to explore.
     
  • There’s still an imbalance between the promise of technology and the reality of just how far end-customers and insurers are willing to go in pursuit of value. The geeks (or ‘path finders’) have rushed in first – but will the majority follows? Regardless, to avoid getting lost in the ‘shiny new stuff’, a focus on customer value, fairness and transparency around how data is being used need to be at the heart of each proposition – plus, recognising that the regulator will not be far behind.
     

In summary, the journey ahead needs to be less about the ‘what’ (with all of its bells, whistles and shiny parts) and more about the ‘how’ (deep in the culture of the firm and its willingness to experiment – even in small ways) – at least while the map to future value is being still being drawn.

Celent continues to research all of these topics, including assessing the different technologies and techniques that insurers can use. Feel free to get in touch to discuss how Celent could assist your organisation further.

Celent clients will be able to access the presentations from the event via their Celent Account Manager.

The new customer experience – or how so many carriers are getting journey mapping wrong

The new customer experience – or how so many carriers are getting journey mapping wrong

Journey mapping, the process of defining the customer experience, is an activity that has been gaining in popularity over the last two years.  Carriers are using this technique to document the existing customer experience in order to identify areas to improve.  The underlying assumption is that a superior customer experience will drive retention and perhaps improve new business.  Which makes sense.  After all, it’s pretty evident that customers are demanding a different relationship model from their insurers.  They are looking for more transparency and simplicity. They are increasingly self-directed and financially literate.  And they are demanding increasing participation. 

Their expectations are increasingly driven by experience in non-insurance categories.   I can see where my uber car is real-time – why can’t I tell if my claim check has been issued.   I can custom assemble a new pc online with instant knowledge of all the options available and the price associated with them – why can’t I tell what additional insurance options are available and what they cost.   I can get recommendations from Amazon on what I might like and what others like me are purchasing – why can’t I get  good recommendation from a carrier to help me compile the best package of coverages, terms and conditions to suit my profile. 

While efforts have been made to drive effectiveness for insurance processes from an internal perspective, there are still many areas where improvements are possible from a customer perspective. So carriers are working to define an extraordinary experience for customers. They’re defining personas, mapping the new business acquisition process, the billing process, claims, complaint handling, customer inquiries, and all the major processes that occur when customers interact with carriers. 

But that’s the problem. Carriers are focusing on optimizing all those places where the customer and the carrier interact.  Now don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with this.  Carriers should make sure that interactions are optimized.  Focusing on automating decisions, automating correspondence, and using workflow to assure tasks are completed in a timely manner can have a dramatic effect on delivering a consistently good experience.  Omni channel, real time, digitization – all those trendy words – are very relevant here. But it’s not enough.

If you really want to build loyalty, think about the customer experience when they aren’t interacting with you. Let me give you an example. 

Allstate has a target market of motorcycle riders, and has a mobile app for them called GoodRide.  The app is available for both Allstate customers and non Allstate customers.  It helps riders keep track of all repairs and maintenance.  They can plan a ride –  checking weather, locate gas, and even find others to ride with as it is integrated to social media. They can track their ride by adding notes, adding photos and tracking miles ridden. There’s even a gamification element that awards badges.   And by the way, they can report a claim, check proof of insurance and pay their bill.  So this application really looks at what motorcycle riders are looking to do outside of the insurance interaction and embeds the insurance interactions within the full context of the customer’s life and where insurance itself plays a role rather than simply looking at the interactions discreetly.

In the commercial lines world, a similar application could be industry based and provide tailored risk management materials, an “Ask an Expert” corner where customers can check in with risk management consultants,   create a Facebook-like collaboration mechanism for customers to talk to each other,  arrange discounts on products relevant to the industry.  and of course, access their policy online, pay a bill, pull a loss run or handle other interactions. 

Expanding the customer experience beyond the pure insurance interactions makes a carrier more relevant to a customer by engaging in their everyday lives and looking for ways of adding value within context.  And it creates a way to have an ongoing conversation with a customer – building personal loyalty. 

So – is customer journey mapping a good idea?  Of course.  Are carriers thinking big enough? That is a different question.

What I will say, is exactly what I told a carrier earlier today –  The secret to organic growth?  Deliver a customer experience that your competitors can’t match. 

How Insurity’s Acquisition of Valen Could Create a Virtuous Analytics Circle

How Insurity’s Acquisition of Valen Could Create a Virtuous Analytics Circle
It’s open season on insurance technology acquisitions in general, and for Insurity in particular. Today’s announcement of Insurity’s acquisition of Valen Analytics is now Insurity’s fourth acquisition in a multi-year string: Oceanwide, Tropics, and in rapid succession Systema and Valen.   The potential for crossing selling among the five customer bases is obvious.   Less obvious, but of potentially even greater value, is Insurity’s ability to invite all of its insurer and other customers to use its Enterprise Data Solutions IEV solution as the gateway to Valen’s contributory database and Valen’s InsureRight analytic platform.   Insurity now has the scale and the means to create a virtuous analytics circle: individual customers contributing a lot of data through IEV to Valens and receiving back analytic insights to feed into their pricing, underwriting, and claims operations.   Good move.

Conversation systems and insurance — one experience

Conversation systems and insurance — one experience

To start with full disclosure, I am a huge fan of the Amazon Echo. We have them throughout the house, and have automated our home so Alexa can control most light switches, ceiling fans and more. We play music through them, ask for the weather, schedule appointments, and more.

All my kids are believers from our 5 year-olds on up. It’s fun to hear one of my five year-olds ask Alexa to play the song YMCA and then burst into full song, including the dance. My one personal recommendation. If you have an Echo and children, turn off voice purchases. I found out the hard way.

So I thought I would check out how Alexa does with insurance. My plan is to try all the skills and leverage them into a report. I may even have to purchase one of Google’s new Google Home devices just to compare them in this use case.

So I spent considerable time this morning trying to get an auto quote. Let’s just say the outcome was that I gave up. I won’t name the insurer, as I am sure that their Alexa skill works well in other areas such as information sharing and likely works for others to get a quote, but it sure did not for me. I do want to give credit to the insurer, as they are out on the bleeding edge doing these quotes.

First it asked me my birth year. It heard 1916. That’s not when I was born, but that’s what it heard. I tried to correct it, using the instructions it had provided, but no dice. I gave up and started over, only to be born in 1916 again. This time it was so stuck I had to unplug the Echo. I was surprised, as Alexa’s voice recognition amazes me.

I’m old, but I’m not 101 years old.

I finally made it through on the third try with very careful enunciation. Made it through my wife’s birth year and the fact we’re both married (apparently being married to each other wasn’t important).

Got to the question on what body style. I tried convertible, since, well, it is a convertible. That wasn’t an option. Since the app had prompted 2 door car as an example, I tried it. Um, no. That’s not supported. That seemed odd, but I tried car. Apparently car is OK.

Made it through miles driven a year.

Go to age of the car. My car is a little older, but no antique. However, apparently 12 years old is fatal, as the app crashed with “Sorry I am having trouble accessing your skill right now”.

OK, odd, but wireless sometimes blips, so no problem. Started over for the fourth time.

Worked my way through all the questions, enunciating very, very carefully and got to age of my car.

Yep. Crashed again.

At that point, I gave up and decided to write a blog instead.

Or I could have played a game of Jeopardy with Alexa.

Data in insurance is not only about technology

Data in insurance is not only about technology
In October 2015, I explained that insurers had to hire more data experts if they wanted to better leverage all sorts of data sources they can access nowadays. As I raised this point, I shared the result of a survey we launched in 2015 to identify whether insurance companies were hiring new types of profiles to complement their teams looking at data. For more on this, read the following post: Why the insurance industry needs more data scientists. In March last year, I explained that insurers attempt to hire more data expert had become a clear trend: Insurers are investing in data scientists. With the growing importance of data in insurance and taking into consideration all the activities currently happening around data notably supported by InsurTech companies, we identify that not only insurers are hiring highly qualified data experts but also that these people are getting more and more influential within their organization. Indeed when asked about the level of influence on key business decisions these experts (internal or external consultants) have in their organization it seems that data scientists are gaining more power ​(in % of insurance respondents; n=135): Actually, two categories of experts are gaining influence in insurance: data scientists and user experience specialists. We are not surprised by this result. Insurers deal with a greater amount of data and more sophisticated technologies, therefore they need to hire highly educated experts in order to valuably leverage this data and these technologies. In addition, insurers consider customer interaction to be a key element of their digitization efforts and this is the reason why they are giving more responsibilities to user experience specialists. We will soon publish a report detailing the result of an insurance survey on the use of consumer data and smart technologies. I recommend you take some time to read our report to better understand what insurers are doing around this topic.

Looking at insurance through a different lens

Looking at insurance through a different lens

This year at Celent we ran a few scenario analysis sessions with different audiences, covering all lines of business. Some interesting findings came out from those scenarios related to changes in product . These scenarios covered different situations where basically products become more transparent, more flexible and more service oriented. Celent's latest report on the subject: "Redefining Insurance: A Scenario-Based Analysis" is already available.

workshop-auto-summit

In the scenario analysis sessions, participants were asked to evaluate each scenario against multiple considerations: market size, customer relationship, required skills, and the competitive landscape. They were also asked to give their opinion as to the urgency of the scenario.

What's extremely interesting of this analysis is that results have a great difference depending on the lenses you are using. For example the main reflection, of audiences with interests in the Latin American insurance market, is that a new approach in product will mean a larger primary insurance market. This is mostly attributed to the low insurance penetration in the region. New products, for example moving away from indemnity to preventive propositions and PAYD/PHYD type of products, will make the size of the pie bigger and not just shrink the market (premiums) as we see it's the forecast in mature markets when we run these same scenarios.

We heard things like:

  • "Today customers put value on insurance when they have a claim. If this [change in product] helps them reduce risk, then they are going to put more value on the product and buy more"
  • "I think this is about to change from a risk taking business model to a service business model. This is very different. We need to figure out how we are going to make money from a service business model"

Latin America has an extremely low insurance penetration. This is not new; it has been like this since I can remember. And the gap continues to grow between Latin American countries and countries such as UK and the US. This gap means people and companies without insurance, which being more widespread would allow greater financial inclusion and collaborate in the growth of economies.

Decades of trying has not given us any tangible improvements in this area, so maybe it's time to try a different approach. Working on designing smart distribution models, innovative and flexible products that consider changing lifestyles and behaviors of risks, and that also provide a benefit beyond indemnity; this may be the way to achieve higher insurance penetration ratios. Technology and consumer habits are changing in this direction, so I say it’s worth trying. What is there to lose? A couple of decades more with low insurance adoption ratios?

Under the lenses of insurance penetration there's optimism about higher insurance adoption through innovative products. Insurance professionals agree that a change to the product is underway and that action is required to expand the product offering; be this a defensive strategy or a strategy to increase insurance adoption the call to action is now.

insurance-penetration

 

 

 

In search of a new ‘dominant design’ for the industry. What does insurtech have to offer?

In search of a new ‘dominant design’ for the industry. What does insurtech have to offer?

There is little in the world of insurtech happening today that insurers couldn’t arguably choose to do for themselves if they were motivated to do it. They have the capital to invest. They have resources and could hire to fill gaps in any new capabilities required. They importantly understand the market and know how to move with the trends. And yet, despite having all of these things, they readily engage with the start-up community to do the things that arguably they could do for themselves.  So, why is that?   

In Making the Most of the Innovation Ecosystem, Mike Fitzgerald’s observes the main cultural differences between insurers and the start-ups they court. These cultural differences give us a strong clue as to why insurers engage with start-ups, even though on paper they do not and should not need them.

Alongside these deep cultural differences, I believe that there is another angle worth exploring to help answer the question, and that’s the market’s maturity stage and, with it, the strategies required to succeed.

One model that helps explain this relates to the work of Abernathy and Utterback on dynamic innovation and the concept of the ‘dominant design’. To be relevant to this discussion, you first need to believe that we’re on the cusp of a shift from an old world view of the industry based upon a well-understood and stable design towards one where substantial parts of the insurance proposition and value network are up for grabs. You also need to believe that, for a period at least, these two (or more) worlds will co-exist.

So, here’s a quick overview of the model (in case you’re not familiar with it)…

Settling on a “Dominant Design”

First introduced way back in the mid-1970s and based upon empirical research (famously using conformance towards the QWERTY keyboard as an example), Abernathy and Utterback observed that when a market (or specifically a technology within a market) is new, there first exists a period of fluidity where creativity and product innovation flourishes. During this period, huge variation in approaches and product designs can co-exist as different players in the market experiment with what works and what does not.

In this early fluid stage, a market is typically small, and dominated by enthusiasts and early adopters. Over time, a dominant design begins to emerge as concepts become better understood and demand for a certain style of product proves to be more successful than others. Here, within an insurance context, you'd expect to see high levels of change and a preference for self-build IT systems in order to control and lower the cost of experimentation.

Once the dominant design has been established, competition increases and market activity switches from product innovation to process innovation – as each firm scrambles to find higher quality and more efficient ways to scale in order to capture a greater market share. This is the transitionary stage. 

Finally, at the specific stage, competitive rivalry intensifies spurred on by new entrants emulating the dominant design, incremental innovation takes hold and a successful growth (or survival) strategy switches to one that either follows a niche or low-cost commodity path. Within an insurance context, outsourcing and standardisation on enterprise systems are likely to dominate discussions.

Applying the ‘dominant design’ concept to the world of insurance and insurtech

Building upon the co-existence assumption made earlier, within the world of insurtech today, there are broadly (and crudely) two types of firm: (1) those focused on a complete proposition rethink (such as Trov, Slice and Lemonade); and (2) those focused on B2B enablement (such as Everledger, Quantemplate and RightIndem). The former reside in ‘Fluid’ stage (where the new ‘dominant design’ for the industry has not yet been set and still may fail) and the latter in the ‘Transitionary’ stage (where the dominant design is known, but there are just better ways to do it).

Figure: Innovation, Insurance and the 'Dominant Design'

picture4

(Source: Celent – Adapted from Abernathy and Utterback (1975)

Outside of insurtech, within the 'Specific' stage, there is the traditional world of insurance (where nearly all of the world’s insurance premiums still sit by the way) that is dominated by incumbent insurers, incumbent distribution firms, incumbent technology vendors, and incumbent service providers.

So what? 

What I like about this model is that it starts to make better sense of what I believe we’re seeing in the world around us. It also helps us to better classify different initiatives and partnership opportunities, and encourages us to identify specific tactics for each stage – the key lesson being "not to apply a ‘one-size fits’ all strategy to the firm".

Finally, and more importantly, it moves the debate on from being one about engaging insurtech start-ups purely to catalyze cultural change (i.e. to effect the things that the incumbent firms cannot easily do for themselves) towards one begging more strategic and structural questions to be asked, such as will a new ‘dominant design’ for the industry really emerge?, what will be its time-frame to scale?, and what specific actions are required to respond (i.e. to lead or to observe and then fast-follow).

Going back to my original question “What does insurtech have to offer?”. Insurers can do nearly all of what is taking place within insurtech as it exists today by themselves…but, as stated at the start of this blog, if, and only if, they are motivated to do so.

And there’s the rub. Many incumbents have been operating very successfully for so long in the ‘specific’ stage optimizing their solutions that making the shift required to emulate a ‘fluid’ stage is a major undertaking – why take the risk?. However, this is not the only issue that is holding them back. For me, the bigger question remains one of whether there is enough evidence to show the existence of an emerging new ‘dominant design’ for the industry in the ‘fluid’ stage that will scale to a size that threatens the status quo. Consequently, in the meantime, partnering and placing strategic investments with insurtech firms capable of working in a more ‘fluid’ way may offer a smarter more efficient bet in the meantime.

In a way, what we’re seeing today happening between insurers and insurtech firms  is the equivalent of checking out the race horses in the paddock prior to a race.  Let the race begin!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where is the innovation in Individual life and annuity?

Where is the innovation in Individual life and annuity?

I had the pleasure of attending an amazing event last week in Las Vegas. The InsureTech Connect event drew over 1,500 people, from insurers to vendor to investors. Given the unprecedented size of an inaugural event, I was very impressed with how well the event worked. The sessions were good, but for me, the opportunity to have individual meetings with key industry players was even better. Our own Oliver Wyman was the primary sponsor of the event.

As I cover individual and group products, plus health and have an experience in P&C, I personally got a lot out of the event. I did have one major observation which I think speaks of the individual life and annuity industry. While I did not do a scientific study, I would estimate that over 50% of the content was focused on P&C insurance. This is not particularly surprising as they have all the cool technology like drones. My estimate was that the group insurers and health insurers were about 45% of the content, with an emphasis on topics like wellness programs and direct to consumer exchanges.

If you did the math, this only leaves 5% of the content for individual life and annuity products and that may very well have been a stretch. There was one session on eliminating the health data gathering for underwriting, which was well done and well attended, but past that, not so much.

Some insurers are diversifying, into Group or Wealth management, but I would not characterize that as innovation.

So what is holding us back as an industry? There are many things, from risk aversion, to length of the application to the sheer amount of data required for underwriting. I could write pages and pages on the topic, which explains why the next blog post you read from me is likely going to discuss the report I am finishing on this exact topic.

The potential for disruption in the space is huge and the coveted Millennial buyer is looking for just such innovation. Let’s make it happen.