Insurance brokers rely on specialised software solutions to streamline operations, manage submissions, facilitate placements, and ensure compliance. Insurance brokerage software solutions offer significant efficiencies, but they also come with challenges that can hinder operations.
Current challenges
1. Fragmented and siloed systems
Challenge: many platforms are not seamlessly integrated, forcing manual data re-entry.
Impact: increased errors, slower submissions, and inefficiencies in tracking risks across systems.
2. Limited carrier connectivity
Challenge: while they improve market access, not all carriers are digitally connected.
Impact: brokers still rely on emails and phone calls for niche markets, delaying placements.
3. Surplus lines compliance complexity
Challenge: each state has different regulations, and tools may not cover all edge cases.
Impact: manual corrections are often necessary, which can lead to non-compliance and fines.
4. Outdated User Interfaces (UI)
Challenge: older systems (e.g., legacy MGA platforms) have clunky, non-intuitive interfaces.
Impact: steep learning curves and reduced productivity, especially for newer employees.
5. Lack of real-time data synchronisation
Challenge: systems may not sync in real-time with carrier rating engines or submission portals.
Impact: quotes become stale, leading to rework and potential coverage gaps.
6. High costs and vendor lock-in
Challenge: customising platforms (e.g., Salesforce for broker workflows) is expensive, and switching costs are prohibitive.
Impact: brokers tolerate suboptimal systems to avoid disruption.
7. Weak analytics and reporting
Challenge: most tools focus on transactional workflows, not predictive analytics (e.g., which submissions will bind).
Impact: brokers miss trends in carrier appetites or submission success rates.
8. Cybersecurity and data privacy risks
Challenge: storing sensitive submission data across multiple systems increases exposure to breaches.
Impact: MGAs/brokers face growing regulatory scrutiny (e.g., NYDFS cybersecurity rules).
9. Scalability issues for high-volume brokers
Challenge: systems may struggle with large submission volumes during peak seasons.
Impact: performance lags, crashes, and delayed responses to retail agents.
10. Resistance to adoption
Challenge: veteran brokers often prefer manual processes (e.g., spreadsheets, emails).
Impact: inconsistent use of software reduces ROI on tech investments.
Emerging challenges
- AI/ML limitations: tools rely on historical data, which may not adapt quickly to hard market shifts.
- Blockchain hype: promised smart contract efficiencies remain experimental in insurance brokerage.
- Carrier-specific portals: some carriers force brokers to use proprietary portals, adding workflow friction.
The future of distribution
Insurance brokers face operational inefficiencies due to gaps in current software solutions. Here are the most-wanted features that existing systems lack or fail to deliver:
1. Unified submission-to-binding workflow
Current gap: submissions jump between emails, spreadsheets, and multiple platforms.
Desired feature: end-to-end digital submission tracking, from retail agent intake to carrier placement, in a single interface. Auto-population of submission data into quoting/binding tools.
2. AI-powered carrier matching and predictive analytics
Current gap: brokers manually match risks to markets based on outdated appetites.
Desired feature: real-time carrier appetite scoring (e.g., “This market binds 80% of similar hospitality risks”). AI-driven suggestions for alternative markets if primary declinations occur. Predictive binding likelihood (e.g., “This submission has a 70% chance of placement with these edits”).
3. Real-time market connectivity
Current gap: limited APIs mean brokers often re-key data into carrier portals.
Desired feature: live, bindable quotes from carriers directly in the broker’s platform. Two-way API integrations with Lloyd’s and other E&S carriers.
4. Intelligent Document Processing (IDP)
Current gap: brokers manually extract data from PDFs/emails (e.g., loss runs, applications).
Desired feature: AI-powered document ingestion that auto-fills submission templates. Cross-checking for missing data (e.g., “No COI attached – request from retail agent?”).
5. Enhanced collaboration tools
Current gap: communication with retail agents/carriers happens over email/phone, creating blind spots.
Desired feature: in-platform messaging with audit trails. Shared visibility for retail agents (e.g., “Your submission is with 3 markets; 2 have declined”).
6. Customisable dashboards and broker-specific analytics
Current gap: most reporting is transactional (e.g., “bound vs. declined”), not strategic.
Desired feature: broker-specific KPIs (e.g., “Your hospitality submissions bind 20% faster than average”). Market trend alerts (e.g., “Carrier X just tightened terms on contractor GL”).
7. Automated follow-ups and task management
Current gap: brokers track follow-ups manually (e.g., “Chase Carrier Y for quote”).
Desired feature: AI-driven reminders (e.g., “Market Z typically responds in 48hrs – escalate now”). Workflow automation (e.g., auto-request missing underwriting docs after declination).
A “dream platform” would combine a carrier’s appetite AI, real-time binding, and collaboration tools. Building this would require a massive investment. But things are changing.
A phased transition to distribution ecosystem
A practical roadmap for brokers to assemble a “best-of-breed” tech stack by bridging gaps between existing tools, while preparing for future integrations, would look as follows:
Phase 1: core foundation (6-12 Months)
Goal: digitise submissions and improve market connectivity.
Submission hub: connect for retail agent submissions and auto-populate submissions from emails/PDFs.
AI-powered market matching: prioritise markets with the highest binding rates and feed data as a “preferred markets” overlay.
Phase 2: workflow efficiency (12-18 Months)
Goal: reduce manual tasks, improve collaboration, and add analytics.
Document AI and data extraction: auto-fill submission templates from ingested PDFs/emails.
Collaboration and task tracking: internal chats/collaboration and submission tracking.
Basic analytics: custom dashboard to track “days to bind” by line of business and carrier.
Phase 3: advanced automation (18-24 Months)
Goal: near-real-time quoting and predictive insights.
Real-time market access: connect with career rating sheets for real-time quotes.
Predictive AI and alerts: custom LLM plugin trained on declination data. Alerts like, “Carrier Y just tightened terms on cyber–adjust submissions”.
Phase 4: Future-Proofing (24+ Months)
Goal: prepare for next-gen platforms and insurtech disruptions.
AI copilots: deploy an internal LLM trained on submission data to answer underwriting questions.
Key ROI drivers
- Faster Submissions: Save 5–10 hrs/week per broker (US$25K–US$50K/year per FTE).
- Higher Bind Rates: 5–15% more placements (e.g., US$500K book → US$25K–US$75K revenue lift).
- Avoided Fines: Surplus lines errors can cost US$5K–US$50K/year in penalties.
- Carrier Access: Real-time quoting can win 10% more competitive bids.
When to invest?
- < US$5M GWP: Stick with Phase 1–2 (ROI covers costs).
- US$5M–US$20M GWP: Add Phase 3 (scaling efficiency).
- US$20M+ GWP: Go all-in (AI/APIs become revenue multipliers).
Read the original article here.
