Compliance has a lot to offer for cyber security but also some significant limitations. Since the challenge of cyber was born, the need to meet compliance standards has been a significant factor in getting cyber security into boardroom discussions. Today's standards have benefited from those discussions and are broadly mature and well-thought-out.

But the double-edged sword of standards under legislation is that a company may assume by ticking the right boxes to meet those minimum requirements that they are considered secure and invest less time and resources into the continuing and evolving job of achieving cyber stability. Security leaders concerned with achieving true operational assurance know that the goal of compliance is not simply to be compliant.

For starters, compliance doesn't always get it right. Legislation is periodic, but cyber risk is ever-present and evolving. Cyber security has always been an arena of hyper change. Expecting legislation to keep pace with attacker innovation would be foolish; tomorrow's threats are unlikely to fit neatly into categories defined by current and past threats, and the prevention, detection and response to future threats require a more flexible mindset and security program.

There are countless examples of high-impact breaches affecting companies that are entirely cyber- compliant. Last year, it came to light that the telecoms giant Synaverse suffered a five-year-long breach despite being compliant with multiple standards such as GDPR, ISO 9001, and even supply chain-tailored standards like TL9000. In the past, compliance standards such as PCI DSS only necessitated quarterly vulnerability scans.

As a result, we've seen high-profile attacks exploit known vulnerabilities that already had patches available. The targeted companies were fully compliant at the time but still suffered preventable breaches. Standards are often updated in the aftermath to encompass a more risk-based approach, but this is still reactive. The reality remains that compliance rules will always lag behind the ever-evolving world of cyber risk.

Crucially, cyber risk, by its very nature, is bespoke. Compliance controls, on the other hand, ensure a common standard - but no two organizations are the same. Therefore, building a risk profile requires deep business context and an understanding of "self" before we look at understanding our enemy.

See also: 4 P&C Mega Risks in 2022

The challenge for CISOs is prioritizing those risks and continuously hardening defenses. Of course, 100% prevention is unrealistic - but that's okay. The goal is to make it so labor- and resource-intensive for attackers that it no longer makes sense for them to continue attacking the hardened target. Cyber crime is a business and being truly proactive makes it more difficult for attackers to achieve their ROI.

Adhering to compliance rules can significantly increase an organization's ability to manage risk - which, if it's not already clear, is the core goal of cyber security - but it can only go so far. Most CISOs today would agree that the further you move away from the time a compliance box was checked, the less confidence there is that the compliance rule is still effective and still managing risk at the expected level.

Compliance might be the start of the cyber conversation, but that conversation today has moved along. In the current era of cyber-threat, it's about marrying up teams with a proactive mindset and the right technologies to know the company inside-out. Only then can we hope to preempt and prevent the many ways that an attacker could do damage.

It seems inevitable that, in the near future, an innovative health care organization – let’s call it The Platform – is going to seize the market opportunity of broader value. It will cobble together the pieces and demonstrate to organizational purchasers that it consistently delivers better health outcomes at significantly lower cost than previously has been available.

To manage risk and drive performance, The Platform will embrace the best healthcare management lessons of the past decades: risk identification through data monitoring and analytics, driving the right care, quality management, care navigation and coordination, patient engagement, shared decision-making and other mission-critical health care management approaches. It will practice care that is grounded in data and science and is accountable on outcomes.

But The Platform will also appreciate that a few specialty vendors have developed deep expertise in dealing with clinical or financial risk in high-value niches – where healthcare’s money is – like management of musculoskeletal care, chronic disease, maternity, surgeries, high-performing providers or specialty drugs. It will understand that it often makes sense to partner with experts who can prove and guarantee high performance rather than trying to learn to achieve high performance within each niche. The Platform also will realize that simplicity is a virtue and that bundling specialized services under one organizational umbrella is easier for health plan sponsors to manage and for patients to negotiate than an array of individual arrangements.

The Platform and organizations like it will spark the interest of self-insured employers and unions, because they’re at risk and likely to be persuaded by a better deal (and particularly one with guarantees). But they’ll also find reception by other organizations that carry risk or are responsible for managing care and cost: e.g., stop-loss carriers, captives, fully insured health plans, Medicare Advantage plans, Managed Medicaid plans, third party administrators and advanced primary care organizations. If The Platform demonstrates better performance than its conventional competitors, it might scale rapidly, sweeping the market. Traditional healthcare vendors might find themselves in a more competitive marketplace than they’ve experienced in past decades.

The key here is that, in the U.S., patients and those who pay for health care deeply want a better way. Most healthcare organizations pay only modest attention to quality and are holding on to pricing that reflects what the market will bear and that is unrelated to cost, though excellent care can be delivered for far less. The difference between what is and what realistically could be is large enough that an opportunity exists for business to switch to upstarts representing stronger value. What’s needed is an integration platform that facilitates an easy-to-use comprehensive framework of high-performing, best-in-class specialty services.

In the healthcare value-focused community, many organizations have demonstrated that they reliably produce better results, particularly in high-value niches. Of course, most vendor organizations are eager to be publicly recognized as “high-performance” vendors. The trick is competently identifying those that consistently deliver.

It’s reasonable to believe that a robust ecosystem of risk-reduction mechanisms can result in far better health outcomes while conservatively reducing total health spending by 25% or more. That said, to my knowledge, no one has yet brought together all these approaches within a single health management organization. Most health plans make more if healthcare costs more, so they have not yet shown an interest in offering lower-cost healthcare (without compromising quality). But value-based arrangements are finally getting traction, and purchaser interest in value is accelerating. The fact that better results are occurring in the market means that high-performing approaches will continue to evolve and succeed.

See also: Mental Health in Post-COVID Era

High-value models are already being developed by advanced primary care firms like Marathon Health and CareATC and retailers like Amazon Care and Walmart Health. These and similar efforts could hugely disrupt the current U.S. health system by moderating the excessive services and costs that the legacy healthcare industry has come to depend on. Going the next step in healthcare management by assembling and scaling the powerful capabilities of high performers is an opportunity waiting to be exploited.

The fundamental tension within U.S .healthcare is whether our health system will strive to optimize quality, cost and value or strive to optimize revenues and margins. Responses to this question determine the approaches that characterize every aspect of healthcare, whether it’s the scientific evidence that guides a protocol or the interoperability of an electronic health record, or whether patients have access to information that can help them make better care choices.

For decades, the industry’s profiteering has dominated healthcare. The question now is whether purchasers will favor high value, turning the tide and remaking our health system in ways more consistent with the welfare of healthcare’s patients and purchasers.

This article first appeared at The Health Ccare Blog.

Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in its Sixth Assessment Report that "global surface temperature will continue to increase until at least the mid-century under all emissions scenarios considered."

The more global warming we experience, the greater the changes to the climate system. These changes include increases in frequency and severity of heat waves, heavy rainfall, droughts, intense tropical cyclones and sea level rise. Many changes are now irreversible for centuries to millennia.

The effects of these changes are being felt across every region of the world and across all economic sectors, with the IPCC report revealing that approximately 3.3 billion to 3.6 billion people already live in “contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change.” In the past two decades, the U.S. alone has endured over 250 weather and climate disasters, with cumulative costs of over $1.6 trillion. 

However, impacts of climate change are not uniformly distributed across society; they disproportionately affect the poor and marginalized groups. With at least 3.3 billion people living in situations that are highly vulnerable to climate change, according to the IPCC report, designing infrastructure to ensure that it remains resilient in the face of climate change is becoming increasingly urgent.

According to the Global Infrastructure Hub, there is also a projected $15 trillion shortfall in global infrastructure investment by 2040, while an estimated 75% of the infrastructure needed worldwide by 2050 is still to be built, much of it in emerging economies.

Preparing for a changing climate

Because infrastructure assets often have a long lifetime (50 years or more), high up-front costs and limited flexibility, understanding physical climate risks (PCRs) and embedding resilience from the outset is critical to ensuring assets meet their objectives in terms of serviceability, financial return and social outcomes. 

Until now, there has not been a uniform approach to appraising infrastructure assets against climate risk. This is mainly because most asset owners lack the right tools and are unsure how to accurately quantify risk, adapt assets to risk and prioritize investment in critical infrastructure that is more resilient.

The Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment (CCRI) aims to meet this challenge head-on with the launch of market-first methodology that pulls together best practices from asset management, engineering, finance and climate resilience sectors, providing infrastructure asset developers, investors and regulators with a robust, step-by-step process that quantifies the impact of PCRs on asset performance.

Recently launched by CCRI and led by CCRI member Mott MacDonald, the Physical Climate Risk Assessment Methodology (PCRAM) allows asset managers and owners to make informed decisions - from asset design and through the whole life cycle of the project - on how best to adapt new and existing infrastructure assets to reduce the material impacts of extreme weather events.  

See also: Time to Move Climate Risk Center-Stage

Vulnerability of climate-blind assets

Infrastructure projects have always faced serious challenges in design, delivery and operation, and climate change only exacerbates the risk. When it comes to PCRs, there has been lack of a structured, forward-looking approach to risk management across all stages of the value chain and the project lifecycle. Decisions made in regard to asset delivery and management, especially in the design and procurement phases, are rarely informed by climate projections and a robust understanding of future PCRs. 

Currently, insufficient attention is paid to the potential value destruction in the long term, as well as inefficient recognition or reward of associated improvements. This should not be the case, as integrating climate risk assessment to adapt infrastructure assets from the outset, including through adjustments to operations, can lead to both significant reductions in the costs of climate adaptation measures later on and improvement in the quality of revenue streams. 

Mott MacDonald tested the methodology on five real-world infrastructure assets, including a nearshore wind farm in East Asia and a hydropower plant in Africa, with each case delivering a "resilience dividend."

Until now, the private sector has not had the right tools to make decisions that optimize costs throughout an asset life while incorporating climate risk mitigation. The cost-benefit analysis of implementing resilience measures for these assets clearly demonstrates the significant medium- to long-term benefits from investing in resilience compared with the cost of not implementing such measures. Put simply, PCRAM presents a compelling business case for resilient investment, unlocking the finance needed to protect vulnerable communities from the impacts of climate change.

The insurance sector was no exception to the past several years of overwhelming digital transformation that pushed so many industries quickly forward. However, with consolidation happening in our industry, many are wondering about the future of insurance technology. How can companies continue their growth trajectory and remain profitable?

From my perspective as president of one of the fastest-growing companies in insurtech, here are three things insurtech leaders should focus on in the next year to keep profitability consistent:

Put technology on the front lines

Our industry has fully begun to accept and integrate new technology that can bring more data and greater awareness to loss events. Insurance leaders can’t be afraid of harnessing this technology. AI tools specifically developed for front-line awareness are one way technology can effectively reduce loss events.

For example, in commercial trucking insurance, technology can monitor drivers’ safe-driving habits and overall performance. Data from in-vehicle sensors can identify which drivers are performing well and which need additional coaching, to determine more accurate risk pricing.

AI will never replace the role of human decision-making in the insurance field; it enhances our capabilities to create better outcomes.

Focus on prevention first

So much of the insurance industry is focused on indemnification, but the future of the industry will be in looking beyond the claims. Future leaders will master the skill of harnessing data-driven insights to focus on prevention first, instead of indemnification.

Imagine how much money and time could be redirected if insurance companies helped their clients think ahead and head off negative outcomes. In my practice in the trucking sector, we know that our drivers are coachable and that loss events decrease over time. The AI tools we use recognize drive patterns, identifying frequencies in potential risks like speeding, hard braking and hard turning. With drivers’ safety as a core part of our mission and offerings, we can direct coaching sessions on modifying these behaviors, thus preventing accidents.

There will always be surprises and unpredictable events; accidents happen that even advanced technology can’t foresee or prevent. But in the cases where we can intervene – on the roads, in homes and offices and on job sites – companies should bring fresh attention to preventing those loss events from happening.

See also: What Big Tech Can Do for Insurance

Remember people are at the heart of insurance

Even with new technology, in this industry teamwork is one of the most powerful tools of all. As has been proven time and time again, teams that can collaborate and communicate effectively will remain profitable. Especially now, as more teams reenter the field or traditionally in-office roles become partially or fully remote, elevating team culture should be a key mission for leaders.

Ensure diversity of talent remains a consistent goal for your organization – a range of perspectives and backgrounds will help your team take a well-rounded approach to meeting business objectives and problem-solving around potential blocks.

Remember that leadership is not a closed loop – feedback is important to keeping teams, especially in insurance and insurtech, nimble and engaged. Stay honest, communicate with candor and act with integrity. You’ll find that decision-making will happen more effectively and that pivots can happen quicker when the need arises.

It’s unclear whether continued industry consolidation or another spike of growth will lead the market over the next few years. Whatever happens, insurance companies at any stage should not be afraid to maintain people-focused leadership, embrace technology and unite these capabilities to account and solve for risk – a very human problem. Ultimately for us, it’s about safer roads, safer people and being a good partner to those who need our expertise.

While the insurance industry has years of experience providing quality customer service with tested methods, companies must leverage new technologies to eliminate manual processes, automate claims, optimize workflow and improve overall customer service, and they are having a hard time keeping pace.

AI can help insurance providers automate job scheduling and keep numerous requests organized so that downtime and unnecessary travel are eliminated. Completely customizable schedule optimization software can help organizations map to their personal key performance indicators (KPIs) and account for factors such as geography, workloads and skillsets – enabling quick determination of which adjuster is most appropriate for the job.

Furthermore, insurers can democratize scheduling and increase adjuster productivity and efficiency by empowering adjusters to leverage domain knowledge that improves job prioritization. Schedule optimization technology allows providers to create job dependencies that streamline a succession of work orders based on priority and order functionality. Therefore, companies can reduce cycle times from first notice of loss (FNOL) to investigation and increase adjuster utilization, helping their bottom line.

Optimize claims processing

Historically inefficient tasks that plague the insurance industry are the dated forms of claims processing. Field service solutions tailored to insurers can define the intelligence for automating the closed-loop claims process to create an end-to-end claims management solution. Companies can improve operational efficiency by automating claims adjudication, validation and auditing with configurable logic, enabling workers to focus on exceptions rather than contractor payments. Additionally, insurers can optimize reserves and reduce claims costs with automated solutions by leveraging warranty management adjudication logic to validate service rates, job information and manufacturing, parts and contract information to ensure only valid claims are eligible for payment.

Likewise, real-time claims validation reduces the time contractors spend waiting on claims status and payment, while simultaneously identifying fraudulent activity by checking claims against personalized business rules and flagging ineligible claims before payment. A fully integrated, configurable claim management system can be used to protect the integrity of claims processing. Those who incorporate a unified, end-to-end field service management (FSM) platform are better-equipped to combat fraud, reduce claims process friction, optimize costs and improve customer satisfaction.

See also: Good, Bad and Ugly of Going Digital

Digitize customer interactions

Due to the pandemic, 90% of insurance claims are now processed virtually. According to a J.D. Power Satisfaction Study, the way an insurer handles FNOL makes up 25% of an insurance customer’s satisfaction level. Insurtech software provides helpful tools to simplify the claims process, allowing customers to connect to company-specific consumer portals to access details regarding their claims. Portals allow clients to upload relevant information and photos of their claim and provide adjudicators with augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) tools to corroborate claims and increase accuracy and efficiency when analyzing damage off-site.

Agent-guided service and self-service customer portals allow a modern, user-friendly claims process without common complexities. Through customer portals, policyholders have the autonomy to self-select appointment times and access real-time status updates from FNOL, resulting in a 27% improvement in net promoter scores and a 30% improvement in customer satisfaction ratings. When outlining customer service protocol in insurance, companies must keep in mind that clients have likely experienced a recent loss or damage to property, and a superb, responsive and navigable customer journey should be a top priority to maintain retention and build client loyalty.

Move to modernize

Although an established industry that has reigned supreme in business for centuries, the insurance space is changing. There are an estimated 1,500 insurtech startups around the world – startups that will transform the industry by leveraging digital, AI and advanced analytic technologies to improve efficiencies and drastically cut costs, while increasing the ability to implement innovative solutions faster as market forces evolve. Today’s consumers have more choices, lower prices and greater control than ever. To meet evolving customer expectations and revive adjudication and claims processing standards, insurance companies must take advantage of field service and insurtech tools to remain competitive and profitable.

We love shortcuts. Time is valuable. Gas is expensive. I can avoid four stoplights and a school crossing if I take a left instead of a right turn at the place other people turn right. They don’t know what they are missing. I am “in the know.” I’ve timed the shortcut, and it works.

In a way, this is the secret sauce of the new insurance marketing tactics. People love shortcuts. They need them desperately in their busy lives. Insurers that understand the various needs of different market segments and affinity groups can create new avenues for business.

To do so, insurers must think three-dimensionally. With many insurers using traditional roads, innovative insurers are looking at the map and thinking, “We can get people from point A to point B faster, with less traffic, if we give them new routes,” and maybe even find other ways to simplify their lives along the way.

These are some of the issues Majesco and PIMA considered as they researched and developed their joint report, Expanding Channels for Insurance: A Spectrum From Traditional to Affinity and Embedded. The report surveyed PIMA members on their views regarding current products and channels and on their future plans. The data exposed some areas where there is a real opportunity for channel growth and product improvement across the channel spectrum. The channel spectrum is wide, but understanding it and how it affects the market and customer behavior is the key to unlocking shortcuts for the customer and large opportunities for insurer growth. (See Figure 1.) Some of the greatest opportunities for insurers lie in the embedded space — providing ancillary offerings that ride along with other products and services.

Figure 1: Distribution Channel Spectrum

We’ve already discussed improving placement for P&C products and L&AH product placement. Today, we’re uncovering the other products and services that might be bundled along the way and discussing the multi-channel approach — the shortcuts that customers are wanting today.

The Case for Value-Added Services

Other Products & Services represents one of the best opportunities for growth. Value-added products are underused by insurers and yet still wanted by customers, both individuals and businesses. Other Products & Services were offered by the fewest number of surveyed. (See Figure 2.) Some of these are striking and suggest opportunities for growth as well as meeting rising customer expectations.

Majesco’s consumer and SMB research has consistently found these value-added items have high interest. We have stated that the definition of a product has shifted beyond just the risk product to include value-added services and customer experience, which extend and enhance the customer relationship to drive more loyalty and potential revenue growth.

As an example, financial planning is an increasingly important service as “financial well-being” expectations and needs continue to grow. In particular, it is likely underused by the Gen Z/Millennial generation, providing an opportunity to establish a long-term relationship. This is a formula that Sofi is using to capture customers in the GenZ/Millennial space.

Likewise, caregiving is increasingly important and part of the “financial well-being” concept as people age, and the sandwich generation gets caught between planning for their retirement and caring for their parents. Caregiving is a vastly untouched opportunity for insurers to extend customer value, loyalty, trust and revenue. Time-pressured pre-retirees find it difficult to manage everything from doctors' appointments to prescription schedules. How can insurers step into the gap between home-based care and full-time care to ease these burdens? Where is the shortcut that gives back time and improves care?

See also; Modernizing Insurance for the Digital Era

The opportunity goes beyond shortcuts, however, because new insurance marketing philosophies are beginning to form around the idea of better meeting group needs with group packages of insurance and services. Affinity groups, which many times offer niche/community-oriented solutions, should be the first to pick up on the idea of whole-experience packaging for products and services. How can partnerships be applied to create platform or ecosystem-supplied marketing and distribution channels?

Figure 2: Other Products & Services offered by PIMA members surveyed

The Need for New Channel Growth

Consistent with the other two product groups (P&C and L&AH), the most-used channels for value-added services are Affinity Relationships (61%), Agents & Brokers (55%) and Digital (42%). Despite this similarity, the actual levels of use vary as compared with L&AH and P&C. Overall, as shown in Figure 3, Other Products & Services are 17% to 30% lower than in L&AH and compared with P&C, 17% lower for Digital and 11% lower for Affinity Relationships.

Other similar patterns in channel usage continue with the Other Products & Services group, including varying levels of channel variety for specific products. In general, simpler products are offered through more channels while more complex ones are offered through a smaller number of channels. As an example, one of the least-offered products, Caregiving (just 6% offer this product), has the highest channel variety. In comparison, three of the most-offered products (Discount Programs, Roadside Assistance and Legal Services) have lower channel variety, limiting reach.

Because Other Products & Services are not a risk product, they lend themselves to alternative channels, particularly Digital, Affinity Relationships and Embedded options. As companies seek to expand these offerings, they should consider aligning them with a broader array of channels as well as aligning them to be purchased with risk products through the channels where they are sold, increasing reach and driving growth.

Figure 3: Channels used to distribute Other Products & Services

Like the P&C products, very few of the Other Products & Services are offered through embedded options. However, Other Products & Services are using embedded options more than P&C products, with five of the six using all three options (Soft, Hard, Invisible – Figure 4) compared with only two of the 14 P&C products. Interestingly, Other Products & Services had the highest net usage, of 26%, for Invisible Embedded as compared with 20% for L&AH and 12% for P&C. Once again, this indicates an untapped product and channel market to drive customer engagement, loyalty, value and revenue.

Figure 4: Embedded options used with Other Products & Services

Analyzing the Market Opportunities for Other Products & Services

We used three dimensions to help identify market opportunities for Other Products & Services: product offering popularity (the size of each circle), channel variety (the vertical axis) and use of embedded options (the horizontal axis) as shown in Figure 5. We uncovered three potential growth options.

1. Move off Zero

Once again, four products and services have no embedded options and have lower channel variety: Risk Management, Home Healthcare, Risk Monitoring, and Money Management. Absence Management could also be considered with its low embedded use and channel variety. Even though most of these are relatively small to moderately sized in the number of companies offering them, leveraging more of the channel spectrum, especially embedded options, could lead to growth opportunities. It also opens up opportunities for those who do not provide these products and services to expand reach, value and revenue.

2. Reach New Markets With Popular Products by Leveraging the Channel Spectrum

Compared with the other products and services, Financial Planning/Wellness, Discount Programs and Legal Services are offered by a larger number of companies, yet they have lower embedded use and have not leveraged the breadth of channel variety. Growth opportunities with these popular products can be accelerated by expanding to new channels, particularly embedded options.

3. Two Ways to Grow

Not surprisingly, Roadside Assistance has a high offering rate, high channel variety and Table Stakes embedded use, given its value and inclusion for many auto products. While this could suggest a crowded market with limited growth, surprisingly only 23% of companies offer it. In Majesco’s consumer and SMB research, this offering was considered to be of great interest and value, suggesting it is an unmet market need offering a growth opportunity.

In addition, even fewer companies are offering Caregiving (only 6%). Those that do are using high channel variety and embedded options. As a point of reference on market opportunity, the American Association of Retired Persons estimates that about half of all people over 65 will need some kind of long-term care, such as in-home care, an assisted living facility, or a nursing home. Given the potential growing interest with the aging of Boomers and Gen X, future growth opens market opportunities to capitalize on.  

Figure 5: Market opportunities for Other Products & Services based on product popularity, channel variety and embedded usage

A Multi-Line Channel View

Looking at the three products separately provided a view of market opportunities within those segments. However, many companies are multi-line or have partnerships with others to offer products they do not create. More importantly, looking at a multi-line view provides a customer lens given they likely buy a range of products within those three segments. 

We combined the three product groups in Figure 6 to provide a multi-line view. Some interesting macro insights emerge:

• L&AH commands a compelling lead over P&C both in terms of most offered products, channel variety and embedded options used. 
• Other Product & Services falls behind L&AH but has some products that are ahead of or even with P&C. The one exception is Roadside Assistance, which outpaces all products in all segments.
• L&AH’s dominance in multi-channels and Affinity Relationships has provided a strong foundation to experiment and embrace embedded channels, putting them at an advantage overall. Building and retaining that advantage through other partnerships, including insurers, to provide a wider array of products, could create a business model for growth that can capture a large portion of the anticipated embedded insurance market.
• This view highlights the potential of new offerings that combine different products to create customer experiences that drive growth. For example, the combination of home, caregiving, disability insurance or long-term care insurance could provide an elderly homeowner with IoT-based home devices the ability to not only get a discount for homeowners but also the ability to provide alerts to take meds, monitor falls, provide reminders for doctor appointments and more – combining products to meet a broader need and providing value.
• In general, there is a wide-open opportunity to expand into more channels for all product segments given the mid-to-low channel variety. At the same time, some of those channels can be leveraged to accelerate embedded options. Together, this would expand the market reach for products that offer customers more options to buy when, where and how they want to buy.  
• Majesco’s consumer research highlighted strong interest in bundled products that offer a broad, holistic solution to customers’ health/wealth/wellbeing, and many combinations could be created among the three product segments. Likewise, Majesco’s SMB research found the same demand for a holistic, broad combination of products that meet new expectations.

Figure 6: Multi-line market opportunities based on product popularity, channel variety and embedded usage

With customer expectations changing rapidly, companies need to create distribution advantages that give them a unique and competitive advantage to acquire and retain customers. This advantage is rooted in leveraging a broader array of the channel spectrum, including embedded insurance that is built into the customer experience and leverages the trust of other brands.

What actions should insurers consider?

1. Establish new partnerships and channels encompassing the emerging start-up-fueled distribution, embedded and partner services landscape to extend reach before the opportunities are tied up.
2. Stake out your position by either commanding more of the total value proposition or becoming a specialist in someone else’s ecosystem.
3. Refocus to a “buying” over “selling” approach – through a multi-channel strategy that meets customers where and when they want to buy.
4. Use a blended focus on product and business needs, value-added services and channel preferences. It is crucial to consider all of them to innovate and meet different generational needs and expectations to drive growth and engagement.
5. Invest in next-gen platforms and capabilities that embrace openness by investing in talent and technology and adopting an open, API-centric, cloud, AI/ML, microservices platform.

See also: Distribution Management: A Path to Maturity

Insurance’s New Multipliers

For insurance organizations to grow, expanding market reach with broader channels and products is a necessity. The success that is found in individual products is greatly multiplied when opportunities are built around customer lives and business operations. In nearly every case, insurers need to prepare themselves and their technologies to bundle, expand, embed, partner, customize and flex to meet future market demands.

The attraction of the broader array of channel options, and in particular embedded options, is aligned to what customers want and expect. They want to buy insurance when, where and how they want --- with convenience and speed. The question is…can you meet these new expectations? Do you offer your products through multiple channels? Do you have a distribution strategy that broadens your market reach? Multi-channel, multi-line, multi-service — these are the business multipliers that will take insurers from good to great.

As you and your teams brainstorm about channel and product growth opportunities, you may wish to use findings from Expanding Channels for Insurance: A Spectrum from Traditional to Affinity and Embedded as a springboard for conversations and planning. For additional perspectives, you may wish to view our recent webinar, Finding White Spaces in the Product/Distribution Channel Landscape.

The industry is leaning into climate change much more than in the past. That's partly because events such as Hurricane Ian dramatize the risks but also because insurers are seeing ways to help clients and, more broadly, society, while also seeing business opportunities. In this month's interview, Alex Wittenberg, a partner with Oliver Wyman with over 20 years of cross-industry experience, said: "I think there's going to be an opportunity for some new products, especially around things like voluntary carbon markets, which are entirely new and will require a new suite of products. If I buy $100 of carbon credits that are going to materialize in 10 years, they need to materialize in 10 years. There's a lot that can happen between then and now, so you have to think through, well, is there a guarantee or an insurance product that someone can offer?" Making progress is especially important in the insurance world, so much so that our focus this month is resilience and sustainability. It is an ever evolving topic, but we face the challenge of keeping up in order to help society and serve our customers.

---

ITL:

I’m mostly struck by the overwhelming complexity of how insurers have to sort through issues related to resilience and complexity. How would you frame the issue?

Alex Wittenberg:

There's a lot of opportunity in the energy transition, but insurers don't want to become the R&D department of the insureds by paying losses on technology that only works under certain conditions or that doesn't scale. 
It's becoming increasingly difficult even to insure what are considered successful technologies as the size and complexity of the projects increase. Even things like offshore wind and large-scale battery storage are experiencing significant losses. The transition from carbon-intensive to green may look logical on paper, but not if you're an insurer experiencing the loss ratio. 

ESG [environmental, social and governance issues] can also present some complex issues when there is overlap between the S and E. For example, the essential energy project that is carbon-intensive and faces an issue with an indigenous population, or a carbon-intensive project that also provides electricity to an underdeveloped community. Insurers need to weigh actual technical and societal merits of the project against the reputational issues and the optics, which is very difficult to do.

ITL:

How do you then go about advising clients on how to think about underwriting first a specific risk and then assembling a portfolio of risks?

Wittenberg:

I don't think it helps anybody for insurers to simply exclude entire swaths of the energy industry, because, frankly, it’s going to be with us for a long time. Even the IEA [International Energy Agency] scenarios show gas usage growing through 2050 and oil consumption staying relatively flat [under the state policies scenario]. As demand for all forms of energy grows, someone is going to need to provide it.

Other parts of the portfolio will expand more rapidly, but carriers need to have a better understanding of the individual assets they are insuring and be able to tell the story about which subsectors will actually be growing. The energy companies can tell you how much of their current and future capital expenditures will go to renewables or alternative fuels or carbon capture, and insurers need to be able to tell a similar story about their current portfolios and the future trajectory.

ITL:

And everything has to happen while we accommodate huge increases in demand for energy and still keep everyone's lights on.

Wittenberg:

Energy security is interesting because it shines light on both sides of the equation. We need to keep our baseload power going, but green projects need to be accelerated, as well. A lot of things have to come into alignment, including technologies that aren't deployed at scale, keeping in mind that not all new technologies will work as anticipated.

There's a lot of new technology that carriers are going to be expected to underwrite. I talked to some of our banking colleagues at Oliver Wyman, who are rightly debating how these projects will be financed. I said, I think you need to figure out who's going to insure it, because the finance folks are unlikely to show up if it's uninsured.

A good example is ScotWind. Based on the blocks that have been auctioned off in Scotland, you're talking about at least $100 billion of construction of offshore wind capacity, and it could all come online in a fairly confined period. The insurance industry isn't necessarily set up to absorb $100 billion of offshore construction all at once. There's probably going to have to be some thinking around new ways to do it.

ITL:

And some of these issues get complicated by public perceptions. I mean, my dad was the chief spokesman for Westinghouse in the 1970s, so I grew up hearing about his struggles selling the idea of nuclear power.

Wittenberg:

Public reaction doesn't always necessarily lead to the best long-term response.

The other thing I would highlight from an insurance standpoint, something that Hurricane Ian highlighted, is that there will be tightening of availability of catastrophe [cat] insurance capacity in the marketplace over the next few years. It's already a challenge to get carriers to participate in the Florida insurance industry, and Ian was a significant loss, on a historical scale. Now layer in these newer projects, like a wind farm in the Atlantic or the Taiwanese Strait, that are susceptible to various cat perils and that require limits of a billion or a billion and a half dollars. You're talking about a significant cat limit, especially during construction, and in an operational setting that is not as well understood as, say, Gulf of Mexico offshore platforms.

ITL:

How quickly do you think insurers will adjust to the complexities of resilience and climate change?

Wittenberg:

There isn't much agreement on timeframe. There are carriers that believe they have until 2050. Other carriers believe they have to get this figured out in the next two to three years. So, the issue creates a lot of dislocation in insurance markets and a lot of choppiness, which in turn creates a lot of uncertainty for the insureds.

ITL:

Any final points you’d like to make?

Wittenberg:

I think there are some good things…

ITL:

I was hoping you’d say that.

Wittenberg:

I honestly believe that some of these complexities will normalize, but it's going to take time.

I think there's also going to be an opportunity for some new products, especially around things like voluntary carbon markets, which are entirely new and will require a new suite of products. If a company buys $100 of carbon credits, it is essential that they are real and that they are not reversed in the future. There's a lot that can happen between then and now, so you have to consider if there is a guarantee or an insurance product that can be created. Many of these new market mechanisms will require products that go beyond what is currently available in the insurance marketplace today.

There will also be modifications to encourage people to build back green after a catastrophe like Ian. Carriers are already making some accommodations in property policies, so an individual or firm that suffers a loss doesn’t have to rebuild with the same materials of the same quality but instead has the flexibility to make the property more resilient.

ITL:

I'll be watching closely to see how Florida rebuilds after Ian. I hope you're right that they can prepare better for the next storm, which is surely coming.

Thanks for the time and the insights.

FROM THE EDITOR  As I talked with speakers following the recent Global Insurance Forum about resilience and sustainability, I got the sense that the industry is leaning into climate change much more than in the past. That's partly because events such as Hurricane Ian dramatize the risks but also because insurers are seeing ways to help clients and, more broadly, society, while also seeing business opportunities. For instance, as you'll see in this month's interview, Alex Wittenberg, a partner with Oliver Wyman, said that forward-thinking insurers will offer modifications to policies "to encourage people to build back green after a catastrophe like Ian. Companies are already making some accommodations in property policies, so someone who suffers a loss doesn’t have to rebuild to the original conditions with the same materials of the same quality but has the flexibility to make the property more resilient." Others have talked about how the industry can use its sophisticated models to send signals that go further into the future than happens now. At the moment, insurers basically send a one-year signal about risk, through the pricing of a policy renewed annually. Those signals are certainly useful -- and huge increases in some premiums are shaping decisions now about whether and how to rebuild in Florida following the devastation from Ian -- but whatever is built now needs to have the next 20, 30 or 50 years in mind.   Ken Mungan, chairman of Milliman, had what I think is a very clever idea for how insurers (and pension funds) can use their investment portfolios to help finance climate initiatives, as I described in a recent column.  We obviously have a long way to go on resilience and sustainability, and I don't think we're moving fast enough, but we do seem to be making some progress, both in helping society, writ large, and in finding new ways to serve customers. That'll have to do for now.  Cheers, Paul The industry is leaning into climate change much more than in the past. That's partly because events such as Hurricane Ian dramatize the risks but also because insurers are seeing ways to help clients and, more broadly, society, while also seeing business opportunities. In this month's interview, Alex Wittenberg, a partner with Oliver Wyman with over 20 years of cross-industry experience, said: "I think there's going to be an opportunity for some new products, especially around things like voluntary carbon markets, which are entirely new and will require a new suite of products. If I buy $100 of carbon credits that are going to materialize in 10 years, they need to materialize in 10 years. There's a lot that can happen between then and now, so you have to think through, well, is there a guarantee or an insurance product that someone can offer?" Making progress is especially important in the insurance world, so much so that our focus this month is resilience and sustainability. It is an ever evolving topic, but we face the challenge of keeping up in order to help society and serve our customers. Read the Full Interview "...to encourage people to build back green after a catastrophe like Ian. Companies are already making some accommodations in property policies, so someone who suffers a loss doesn’t have to rebuild to the original conditions with the same materials of the same quality but has the flexibility to make the property more resilient"  —Alex Wittenberg Read the Full Interview READ MORE Running Toward Climate Risk The industry in aggregate is retreating from climate risk, at a time when society needs it to run toward the most severe risks that threaten us. It's time for the industry to step up.   Read More How to Prepare for Catastrophe Claims By improving weather modeling and assessing past catastrophes, insurers can use predictive analytics to provide better support to customers during difficult times. Read More How Open Source Can Combat Climate Change More open sources of data and common standards for models will enhance our understanding of the potential implications of climate transition decisions.   Read More Property Underwriting for Extreme Weather Insurers have massive databases from simulation models and satellites when it comes to weather and climate. The problem is figuring out how to use them to their full potential. Read More Parametric Solution for Wildfire Risk Parametric insurance products could provide immediate relief through automatic payouts to vulnerable people in affected areas. Read More Climate Change and Product Liability Climate change risk is emerging within the product liability discipline in a pattern seen previously with mass tort litigation.   Read More FEATURED THOUGHT LEADERS Charlie Sidoti Jeff Saye Matt Foote Upendra Belhe Dheeraj Pandey Pushkar Bhattacharya Peter Whalen Nigel Brook Christopher McKeon   This Month Sponsored by: Oliver Wyman Oliver Wyman is a global leader in management consulting. With offices in more than 70 cities across 30 countries, Oliver Wyman combines deep industry knowledge with specialized expertise in strategy, operations, risk management, and organization transformation. The firm has more than 5,700 professionals around the world who work with clients to optimize their business, improve their operations and risk profile, and accelerate their organizational performance to seize the most attractive opportunities. Oliver Wyman is a business of Marsh McLennan [NYSE: MMC].   For more information, visit www.oliverwyman.com. Follow Oliver Wyman on LinkedIn and Twitter @OliverWyman.

When I remodeled a house years ago, I decided that the most expensive words known to man were, "While we're at it...." Then a co-author and I spent two years having a team of researchers look at 2,500 corporate disasters and realized the most expensive words are actually, "We have to do something...." 

Those words spring to mind because several columnists in recent days have opined that, sure, Mark Zuckerberg is overspending by billions of dollars a year on a misguided vision of the metaverse, contributing to the expected layoffs of thousands of employees this week, but HE HAS TO DO SOMETHING to revive growth--and right now. Or, look at Elon Musk, who HAS TO DO SOMETHING about Twitter so quickly that he is doing and undoing initiatives almost as fast as he can tweet and is driving away users and advertisers in the process.  

Actually, rather than lunging toward the metaverse before he has it figured out, Zuckerberg could return the billions to shareholders and let them find other innovations to invest in, or he could simply keep his powder dry until he understands more about what more prudent investors, such as venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, are calling Web 3.0. Musk, after taking his initial, likely needed, cut at costs could put together an actual plan and stress test it rather than just announcing and quickly amending plans online.

The rest of us don't HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, either, even though inflation, geopolitical turmoil and a bunch of other forces are creating extreme stresses that may tempt us to do something rash with our businesses.

Instead, we should be even more careful in tough times. In addition to following our normal methods for making strategic decisions, we should add a "devil's advocate" process to make sure we understand all the ways a strategy can go wrong. A strategic bet can't just be the best available from a set of bad choices but must actually make sense analytically. 

I'll explain. 

Zuckerberg's and Musk's desperate logic is clearly tempting. These are very smart guys. But Chunka Mui and I learned the dangers when we researched 2,500 corporate disasters for our 2008 book, "Billion Dollar Lessons: What You Can Learn From the Most Inexcusable Corporate Failures of the Last 25 Years." We learned that management teams can talk themselves into all sorts of corporate strategies even when it should be obvious that the idea is a nonstarter -- we decided that 47% of the failed strategies could easily have been identified as losers ahead of time. For instance, one of the world's biggest cement companies decided that, because its cement was used in so many homes, it was really in the home products business and should start selling lawn mowers. It didn't take a genius to see that the home products strategy was a huge reach, but the company went ahead and, sure enough, filed for bankruptcy soon enough. 

The propensity for major error increases when companies are under pressure--as so many feel they are these days or expect to be in coming quarters. Management teams feel the need for quick, dramatic action and are more likely to rush to judgment. That's especially true when the CEO lines up behind an idea early, as Zuckerberg has at Meta and as Musk is doing (much more chaotically) at Twitter. The dynamic shifts from testing an idea to trying to make the CEO's idea work, no matter how improbable.

Chunka and I also learned, though, through consulting work based on the book that a management team almost always sees all the flaws in a strategy. The key is to give those people a chance to point out the flaws before the company commits to a bad idea. 

The process we recommend is to use a devil's advocate. We mostly modeled our approach on what President Kennedy did so successfully during the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK, having bungled the Bay of Pigs because he too readily accepted his advisers' assurances, appointed his brother Bobby to challenge all the claims and advice offered by political and military leaders. So, when Gen. Curtis Lemay told JFK that he could bomb Cuba without fear of prompting an attack by the Soviets, RFK spoke up, eventually got Lemay to admit that he had no evidence for his claim and maybe saved the world from nuclear holocaust. 

In a corporate environment, a CEO can anoint someone as the devil's advocate--perhaps a senior executive, perhaps a board member, perhaps an outsider, depending on the internal dynamics. That person would then be given license to identify all the potential problems, mostly through interviews with the senior team, and would present the case against a strategy. The negatives could then be weighed against the positives and a decision made, free of the pressure to do SOMETHING even if all the alternatives are bad.

Some version of Zuckerberg's metaverse may well play out. Virtual reality keeps improving, and we're clearly still in the early days of realizing the potential of digital forms of communication. Andreessen Horowitz, one of the smartest VC firms around, obviously has investment theses for each of its Web 3.0 companies that go well beyond any hype. (I'm less optimistic that Musk can figure out a magic solution at Twitter.)

But Zuckerberg, Musk and others are nonetheless adding to the very long list of corporate errors that the rest of us can learn from. 

Cheers,

Paul  

 

The insurance industry has a full plate these days – dealing with everything from economic and political instability, climate change, a hardening market and increased claims expenses, to finding skilled workers and operating in a fiercely competitive environment where digital transformation is a must. However, according to a recent survey we conducted with global IT decision-makers, C-suite executives across the industry think cybersecurity is the largest challenge of all. 65% of insurance technologists cited cyber-attacks/threats as a greater concern than inflation (45%) and retaining and hiring talent (40%), and cloud evolution/migration is a big part of the story.

The consequences of cyberattacks can be devastating to insurers that are unprepared. 63% cited operational downtime as a leading concern, while 51% percent reported concerns over intellectual property loft and theft, and smaller percentages say they are concerned about damage to brand reputation (47%) or revenue loss (33%).

See also: Cyber Trends That Will Change 2023

Good News 

There is some good news in the survey. Insurers have increased their investment in cybersecurity, and that shows no sign of changing. Despite the economic challenges brought about by the pandemic, 81% of insurers report that their cybersecurity budgets have increased over the past three years. Respondents also note that the issue receives an increasing share of board visibility. They also cite increased collaboration between the security team and the C-suite to address cyber risks. More than ever, security teams, boards and C-suite executives at insurance companies are working together to ensure risks are appropriately controlled:

• 72% note an increase in board visibility for cybersecurity over the past five years 
• 73% cite increased investment in cybersecurity due to better collaboration between the security team and members of the C-suite.

…and Some Bad News 

At the same time, carriers are moving their infrastructure away from proprietary data centers through multi-year cloud transformation initiatives. Maintaining a security posture that meets compliance challenges and addresses top risks while these structural IT changes are taking place is emerging as a challenge. With IT infrastructure spread across public and private clouds, and a significant installed base of legacy IT infrastructure still not on the cloud, holistically managing cybersecurity becomes more challenging, especially in a world where IT talent and cyber talent are at a premium.

It is not surprising that the leading targets for new cybersecurity investment among insurers are cloud native security (69%), data security (51%), consultative security services (51%) and application security (42%). According to the survey, cloud native security is the area where organizations are most likely to rely on an outside partner for expertise. 

These investments align with the top areas insurers perceive as their greatest concentration risk, led by network security (55%), closely followed by web application attacks (54%) and cloud architecture attacks (64%).

The consequence of these converging dynamics is that fewer than half (42%) of insurance IT professionals said they are “fully prepared” to respond to cybersecurity attacks and threats. In addition, a majority report being either “unprepared” or only “somewhat prepared” to respond to major threats like identifying and mitigating threats and areas of concern (50%), recovering from cyberattacks (53%) or preventing lapses and breaches (66%). 

For all the industry’s efforts to put cybersecurity at the top of the agenda and the increased spending on new technologies, there are still too few insurers adding cloud-native security functionality or third-party SaaS security tools that are built specifically for cloud-based workloads. As threat actors continue to target cloud workloads and access points, and as IT architectures grow in complexity, there will clearly be a need for carriers to use outside security assistance to identify and mitigate their threats.