Why do Carriers feel the need to turn to Analysts for key decisions such as PAS replacement?

I have been pondering this more and more – I mean the sell prop seems so good at the onset. An Analyst firm is agnostic, so we are lead to believe, they spend every waking moment researching the exact topic, they do countless rfps and they promise to be right by your side all the way to….that’s the nub isn’t it, to the end of the selection. So let’s not even think about the fact they do not have to live with the decision let us really focus on the value prop.

So we look to an analyst because all they do is research topics like PAS replacement or legacy moderization, and that seems to me to be yet another problem — if you never actually go through the whole process how can you truly have a full understanding? I am not talking about asking carriers and CIOs about lessons learned; I am talking about learning them for yourself and having the key knowledge to really know how the “theory” reacts in the “real world”.Let’s take a fun example – if you decided one morning to reenact William Tell with modern weapons, who would you want to take the shot……shall we review the candidates?

Candidate 1) A man that analyzes weapons every second of every day, he knows every single moving part, the exact interactions, the kick, the muzzle velocities, heck he even talks to sharp shooters about the guns longevity, it’s reliability and confidence….seems to be the perfect candidate – he knows everything with the one exception of ever actually aiming and pulling a trigger.

Candidate 2) A US Army Ranger sharp shooter, he knows all he needs to know about the weapon, he may not know the exact rifling pattern but he does not need to he has something different; he knows exactly how the weapon reacts, the wind, the elevation and air pressure, the distance and drop of flight – he knows where the bullet will end up in the real world, not on paper.

So forget the original question – let’s have a new one – you are an Insurance CIO with an apple on your head and a lot to lose, who takes the shot at the apple? Who do you choose? Interesting thought…….

The ISO Rating Service

Where have I been?  It’s been a long time since my last blog posting and people think I’ve died or gone back to the carrier side.  Actually I’ve been submerged in the world of carrier policy system administration upgrade.  Over the last two and a half years, I’ve been working with many carriers to upgrade their systems to help them increase their market share.  This is not unusual, and in fact policy admin replacement has become quite the rage.  It may even have its own Facebook page.  But these changes have been a little different than the normal selection process, RFP, out with old – in with the new vendor system.  These changes have been modernizing the existing “legacy” system with new web front ends, and expanding the carrier’s product offerings by implementing the ISO Rating Service.

By leveraging the automated ISO Rating Service, carriers are able to quickly come to market with new products to enhance their offerings and become the one stop shop they would like to provide their customers.  Depending upon the carrier’s deviations and the systems they have in place, by building upon the already set rates and algorithms, carriers can be issuing new policies in a matter of weeks, increasing their market share and better serving their customer’s needs. 

Speed to market and the flexibility to modify rating are the two keys to success in the insurance marketplace today.  Carriers typically have a particular market they are trying to reach, such as small service businesses like plumbers, landscapers, or construction, and they want to be able to offer these markets all their insurance needs such as BOP, Commercial Auto, and Workers Comp.  If they already offer Workers Comp, they can expand their offerings into BOP and Commercial Auto by introducing the ISO Rating Service to their existing systems.  Typically, the complexities involved in the integration to the existing environment present the greatest hurdles, but once a solid design is developed and established, the rest is smooth sailing.  The service is updated by ISO and can be easily maintained by carriers without the need for large development efforts when new coverages are offered or rates are modified.

With market share increased, and maintenance efforts reduced, carriers can then go back to doing the fun work – focusing on keeping their Facebook page up to date.

He said, She Said” – An excellent Dating game perhaps but not a strategy for Policy Admin Replacement

Yes I realize it may actually not be the best dating game concept; while it does provide some hilarious moments the last thing we need is a repeat of some 70’s concept that shows us how some couples know so little about each other. However, all too often it seems that the “relationship” between Carrier and Vendor can fall quickly into this mold.

More than any other question, I am asked:

“Why have so many of these complex projects have failed, and what are the main reasons to plan against?”

Most people have the industry standard answers but let’s cut through that and get to the nub of it – relationship.

Now do not get me wrong, fabulous planning and clear well defined requirements are a must but without a doubt, in a multi-year project it is the relationship that buys us more value.

So, what does that make me right about now? I guess I could be the “Hitch” of the Insurance world; just here to try and assist in the art of keeping a relationship healthy – okay so we may not see wedding bells but we will see success stories abound with future reference clients and projects coming in on time.

Let’s talk frankly about what I mean; it is about expectations and reactions to the bumps in the road that inevitably WILL occur. There is no way to avoid them and anyone saying they have a proven turn-key solution should be shown the door. For some reason most vendors refuse to discuss the reality of the situation – my take, let’s set out with the knowledge we will hit issues and work out how we will manage them, not just via a Change Control process or clear management but through good communication channels and openness.

Communication is so critical and both Carrier and Vendor are guilty of “hiding” the truths – for example, Vendors behind on delivery seem to wait until the last second when there is no mitigation approach to raise the hand to the issue. Why would anyone think that is the right approach? It is because over the years we have all shot the messenger. The reaction to such a delay or issue should be one of resolution and joint effort, asking the question “Can we find a way to not increase costs and timeline? Is there a creative solution?” Putting the shoe on the other foot we so often see Carriers resources get pulled in several directions, with current production issues or indeed new product development that trumps the project but more often than not, the resource constraints are not adequately communicated to the vendor. This can cause the vendor to hit hold ups and delivery constraints which circle back around to the first point until there is the cataclysmic “He said, She Said” blame game.

Every issue has a resolution, and if raised early we can normally find a creative method of shifting work phases, re-prioritizing deliverable or targeting additional resource allocation in the short-term – whatever it may be there are ways to solve most of the hurdles we will face if we do not stand there throwing the wedding china around.

Just like any relationship it is all about give and take; everyone has to be willing to bend and “eat a little” – when an issue arises, do not shoot the messenger, work together and find the best way to resolve it. No one and I mean no one wins the war, if you try to “win” the battle.

So next time you hit that point, instead of wondering how to bury it or how to find an “out”, think what “hitch” would advise you to do……and communicate.