Customer journey mapping for a CIO

Customer journey mapping for a CIO

If you’re like most CIOs, your firm has embarked on the latest craze – customer journey mapping.  I’ve blogged about this before.  It’s a terrific exercise – intended to identify how customers engage with your firm through every type of interaction – personal, machine, or paper.  Most are focused on optimizing the interactions between the policyholder and the insurer; some include optimization of the agent experience, and some are starting to look at expanding the experience to look at how to embed the insurance experience in non-insurance aspects of an insureds life.  (See FIGO for a great example).

Some firms have hired third party consultants to help with this exercise; some have even put a new position in place – a Customer Experience Officer – someone who looks across the traditional siloes of underwriting, claims and finance to craft a holistic experience. 

As carriers go through this exercise, demands are being placed on the IT team. Here’s a few ways you may be asked to participate:

  • Data and reporting– Part of understanding the customer journey is tracking it.  Understanding where the biggest interaction points are, and where the biggest pain points are is the first step in improving the experience. You may be asked to install tracking software on the website (if it’s not already there).  Third party data and AI may play into new segmentation schemes as teams are looking at new ways of doing dynamic segmentation (See my report on this topic)  You may be asked to add new reporting or analytics tools as the team looks at using predictive modeling to identify next best action. And you’ll be asked to measure the progress of the new journeys through new reports and new metrics such as a customer friction factor.
  • Workflow and Task Automation – Much of customer journey mapping is figuring out how to operationalize the new journey.  Once the customer experience has been defined, the hard part is to deliver on it.  If you are reliant on people to deliver a consistent experience, you leave yourself open to error.  Your team may need to spend much more time defining business rules and implementing workflows to deliver the experience. If you are one of the insurers that has not yet automated this, you may need to consider adding some additional technology.  (This has actually been one of the major drivers of core system replacement).
  • Customer Communication – Insurers are looking at eliminating the jargon and simplifying the message. This may mean redoing forms or creating new forms.  That’s not a huge deal.  But where we see more effort is finding new ways of communicating with customers.  Text, mobile applications and video are all growing ways of communication.   Here’s a great example of automated video communication to deliver a personal touch with no people involved.  Push communications, text or phone messages letting the claimant know their check has been issued, for example, can reduce calls to the call center while improving customer satisfaction
  • Omni-channel access – Smartphones are on track to bypass desktop computers as the number one way to access websites.   You’ll need to make the website mobile-friendly.  But you also may need to put in a call center – especially for those insurers who are looking at adding a direct or semi-direct channel. 
  • Cool stuff – As insurers start going down this path and get more comfortable being creative, they often look to add more ‘cool stuff’.  Gamification is one of the newer areas – using game techniques to drive engagement and to drive behaviors.  Drones are reducing the need for scheduling inspections.  Video chat for first notice of loss can reduce fraud and improve satisfaction.  There are many tools – and many InsureTech startups playing in this space. One last area that can be kind of cool – the user interface.  If you don’t have formal skills in this area, definitely use an outside consulting firm to help with this. UI design is fairly complex and makes a huge difference in the customer experience.  All of this cool stuff requires integration. One note, while the partners out there likely all have open APIs,  your team may end up spending more time than anticipated making sure your own systems can integrate and send data and service calls back and forth.
  • An agile organization –  As insurers become more skilled at understanding how to tweak and enhance the customer journey, speed becomes even more important.  Creating an innovative, agile organization  is a critical aspect of delivering quickly.  If you haven’t chatted with Mike Fitzgerald on innovation, or Colleen Risk on shifting to an agile development process, now might be the time.

In a highly fragmented industry with excess capital and declining rates, insurers are looking to building a solid customer experience to drive growth and retention.  Journey mapping is one of the tools being used.  Time to step into the fray and get involved. 

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.

Insurtech 2016=Hype; Insurtech 2017=Value

Insurtech 2016=Hype; Insurtech 2017=Value

As I look back on insurance innovation in 2016 and forward to 2017, the insurtech phenomenon looms large. But, the sight in my rearview mirror is very different from the road before me through my windshield.

Behind I see great excitement, new patterns of interactions, and intriguing applications of technology. I also note unwarranted claims of massive industry disruption and extensive business model revolution. The last few months have brought some more measured discussion, especially around new partnerships. (For research data on incumbent-startup partnerships, see the Celent reports Accelerating Insurance Transformation: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Innovation Relationships (Jan 2016) and Insurer-Startup Partnerships: How to Maximize Insurtech Investments (June 2016).)

It may take until the middle of 2017, but I expect to see a move away from hype and to value. In some cases this will be positive value; in others, it will be learning or failure (in other words, negative value). Several levers are in motion:

  • There are more players, and thus a greater chance of success (or failure).
  • More time will have passed for propositions which are currently online to produce results.
  • More efforts will come to production in the next few months; and for other initiatives, the time (read money) to prove their hypothesis will run out.
  • There will be increased recognition of the importance of partnerships as the tedious work of integration proceeds.
  • From a macroeconomic standpoint, interest rates in the US will rise, increasing the attraction of alternative investments and making the competition for investment more fierce.
  • Finally, Brexit and a new US political administration will result in increased uncertainty, which will change risk attitudes.

These challenges will be good for insurtech as they will prove that the easiest thing to do in innovation is to “write a check.” The majority of the difficult work of making insurtech part of a comprehensive insurance innovation approach is in front of us, and 2017 will be the pivotal year when the winners make this happen.

You Must Be Present to Win: Reflections on InsureTech Connect and the Conference Season

You Must Be Present to Win: Reflections on InsureTech Connect and the Conference Season

October is a busy month for insurance technology conferences. I am fortunate in my job to be able to attend these events, and I always come into the end of the year with a refreshed gauge on the major challenges and opportunities facing our industry.

Having attended six events in the last five weeks, I can report that the interest in innovation is at an all-time high. In multiple presentations, speakers outlined how changing consumer preferences, improved technical capabilities, and powerful market forces are reshaping our industry. “Digital,” “digitization,” and “digitizing” seemed the most frequently used words, followed closely by “innovation.” However, despite all the talk and attention about change, I observed a problem — there were not many insurance leaders attending. Given the need to gain perspectives on how to move the industry forward through the forces that are under way, this is a red flag.

As a data point, consider InsureTech Connect. (Full disclosure: Oliver Wyman, the parent company of Celent was the main sponsor of the conference.) The inaugural event crushed its attendance goals, attracting more than 1,500 professionals. It brought together groups of people that traditionally do not attend the same show: – insurers and reinsurers, technology startups, venture capitalists, and private equity firms. An analysis of a random sample of more than 700 attendees shows that there were equal numbers from startups and from insurers. I would hope that the 2,700 US insurers would be better represented.  

Of the insurers that were there, most were from the firms which have stated publically that they are aggressively pursuing innovation in their business models. Undoubtedly, these folks were taking the pulse of their competition and looking for opportunities. However, the numbers demonstrate that the vast majority of carriers were not there. In addition to the small number, I noticed that, of those attending, most had titles which were at the execution level, not the decision-making level. There were some some senior leaders, but not as many as I would hope.

At the other, more traditional conferences, there was great interest, and some concern, in new technology, emerging business models, and the Insuretech market. Many of the questions dealt with “What are our competitors doing?” “How do we learn more or get more involved?” “What are the real opportunities and threats?” There clearly is a desire to know and understand what is under way.

My headline from the conference season is: “you must be present to win”. As insurers finalize their plans for 2017, I encourage them to broaden the number and type of conferences for the coming year and include a mix of both “traditional” and “emerging” gatherings, Particular emphasis should be placed on attendance by senior leaders with decision-making responsibility.

Such adjustments will be a welcome indication that our industry is moving beyond words and into action.

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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rethinking the role of the intercap

Rethinking  the role of the intercap
The trend-naming fashion of capital letters in the middle of words continues. I believe those “InterCaps”—also known as “BumpyCaps” and “CamelCaps”—are mostly a marketing trick intended to make terms sound important. I find them annoying. The hot example of late is FinTech. Plus its close cousins, BankTech, InsurTech, and RegTech. They’re popping up everywhere, including within the hallowed halls of Celent. We are all guilty of putting a new veneer on something that has been around for ages. What does that capital T in Tech imply, and why do the terms get such rapt attention? Is applying technology to the business of financial services new, and more worthy of our attention today than it was years ago? Is how we manage new technology fundamentally changed? I don’t think so. Maybe the point is to let us collectively off the hook for pursuing technology change so casually (was that it?) for the last 50 years. I can imagine the bank or insurance CIO, late in his/her career, saying, “Hey, if we had FinTech 30 years ago, this place might look a damn sight different by now!” Right, that’s what we were missing: Technology startups! Youngsters in hoodies! The truth behind technology and the financial services industry requires no such defense. Changing the world through application of technology didn’t depend on the arrival of startling new tools, or dorm room genius, as helpful as those might be in today’s world. It required a risk/reward shift. As an industry, we didn’t change because we didn’t have to. Our existence was not threatened by new consumer behaviors. Our livelihoods were not at risk from upstart competitors. We took a hard look at the costs and benefits of new technology, and behaved accordingly. Which meant…changing…slowly. But something is certainly different today. I believe that existential threats are emerging for our industry. We are now at risk. I’m firmly convinced that relationships between consumers and their financial providers are changing, with the industry’s participation or without it. There is a new dynamism, and it is clear that the entire ecosystem is feeling the impact. Instead of looking at FinTech and all the other Techs with an annoyed editor’s eye, maybe I should embrace the way intercaps communicate something important. They’re a stylistic irritation. But they’re also a visual cue that helps us rethink technology. And that is sorely needed in these times of powerful disruption.