The process of making artificial intelligence (AI) systems interact more like humans makes some people uncomfortable, but AI is not about replacing humans. In reality, it is much more about removing the robot from humans. A big part of AI’s value lies in automating manual processes and analyzing vast amounts of data quickly so that humans are free to accomplish higher-order tasks that require reason and judgment. To get to this point, however, AI systems must be able to communicate with users and analyze natural forms of data (aka unstructured data) — all of the free-flowing stuff that is unable to be packaged in a neat way, things like voice, images and text. Unstructured data is vital to the development of an AI system. The better an AI system communicates with users, the more it can learn on its own and, therefore, the more efficient it will be. This is important because if an AI system requires a user to interact only in a structured format, its components are dramatically limited. For AI to be successful, it has to make sense out of messy information. In this context, let’s dive deeper into how unstructured data comes into play. The Challenges of Unstructured Data In the human world, you and I do not speak by protocol when we carry on a conversation. We say whatever pops into our heads, in some configuration that may or may not follow convention. We use slang, incorporate sarcasm and crack jokes. It is not natural for us to organize our everyday language and the information we wish to convey into neat columns and rows. Speech is natively unstructured. If you’ve ever interacted with Amazon’s Alexa, you know that, while the Echo system has generally become quite proficient at understanding free-form commands, the lack of a defined protocol can sometimes cause problems — or at least humorous responses when Alexa attempts to answer queries that don’t fit the mold. Amazon has poured massive resources and millions of dollars into creating and perpetually refining the algorithms that enable this humanlike voice to respond to commands, but, as adept as Echo has become at deciphering free-flowing language, Alexa still has flaws. See also: 5 Key Effects From AI and Data Science   The Alexa example highlights the complexity of one type of unstructured data. An AI system’s ability to process and create a numerical equivalent to text is also a tall order, especially when you consider nuance and the importance of context. And imagine a machine trying to “understand” what is happening in that picture from your family vacation or an image in an art history textbook covering Impressionism. The complications associated with processing unstructured data are perhaps the biggest obstacles for AI in the enterprise. Yet, they are not insurmountable. The Importance of Expertise Unstructured data is inherently noisy. As such, it requires substantial expertise to cut through and tease out patterns, then develop models that recognize those patterns. Data scientists are pushing aggressively to improve AI systems, and the biggest successes underscore that human instinct and experience are required. This usually happens when a team is focused on a very narrow application of AI. Let’s look at the workers’ compensation claims process as an example. Teams of data scientists with a deep knowledge of claims can create predictive models based on key indicators they spot. They incorporate unstructured data such as diagnostics, drug information and claim notes. In doing so, the AI system assesses early indicators and determines that a certain claim might be denied. It can then provide an alert to users. A claims representative can figure out how to intervene and give a particular claim more care to prevent the claimant’s attorney from getting involved (typically, denied claims wind up involving an attorney, which gets very expensive and takes a long time to resolve). In this case, it is easy to see how the AI system provides assistance to its users, and there is also a tremendous boost in accuracy when that unstructured data is incorporated versus relying on structural data alone. There is a gold mine of information and insight in the unstructured data (e.g., information about comorbidities) that just doesn’t find its way into structured data consistently. With each additional piece of information, the AI system gets smarter, and results improve. This translates to greater efficiency and lower claims costs. This is just one example of one benefit from incorporating unstructured data into an enterprise AI system. It takes time and diligence to crack the code, but the payoff is gaining a level of insight that has never been possible before — and getting it in a matter of minutes or hours compared with days or weeks. Unstructured Data Is the Key Every AI system needs to interact with users in a natural way. Organizations must have a sharp focus on this. In fact, there is a huge gap in a company’s offering if unstructured data analysis is not part of the road map. See also: Next Step: Merging Big Data and AI   While unstructured data is challenging, Amazon, Google, Apple and others have opened a lot of opportunities for AI applications. We can take these advances and apply them to enterprise applications where they have an enormous impact. By taking the time to apply expertise and sound data science, we can make breakthroughs. We will not only improve accuracy in data analysis through unstructured data but also achieve fundamentally new ways of thinking, communicating and utilizing information in the future. As first published in The Innovation Enterprise.

Digital transformation initiatives have become an imperative for businesses in the modern age, but many organizations struggle to reach their objectives. Based on a survey of 200 respondents (the majority in the financial services field) conducted by IDG Research Services, more than half of organizations have been forced to pause or completely abandon digital transformation projects. Where the insurance industry is concerned, the struggle is real. Friss, a risk assessment and detection services provider, discovered that only 69% of insurers offer some form of online distribution. On the surface, it appears that the industry is moving in the right direction, with more than half of insurers on the digital track. However, this number has risen only 4% since 2016, even though as many as 80% of consumers use digital channels during the purchasing process, according to some research. Survey findings indicate a strong disconnect between insurer expectations and objectives. In 2016, 25% of insurers that had not introduced online distribution expected to do so within a year. Had they been successful, the current number of online insurers would now be around 75%. Currently, only 69% of insurers report offering some form of digital distribution. Through its research, IDG discovered that organizations stall or fall short because they have failed to lay the groundwork for successful transitions. Sixty-two percent have not documented or communicated their plans across the organization, and 64% have no plan for dealing with outdated or legacy technology. To put the insurance industry on a contemporary path toward digital prominence, insurers need to plan for the obstacles they face and implement a strategy that ties legacy systems into future-proof distribution designed to reduce internal costs and meet the needs of consumers. Understanding Digital Transformation Opportunities and Challenges According to Forrester, implementing digital technology “dramatically alters the balance of power between customers and companies.” Customers gain the upper hand with better information and choice, but insurers succeed by lowering the cost of doing business. Digital leaders find it a factor of 10 cheaper and faster to engage customers and provide them with an experience that meets their rising expectations than those relying on traditional practices. Considering the benefits, digital transformation tops the agendas of many executives, but businesses across the board find it difficult and costly to modernize their operations. In IDG’s research, 64% of companies cited legacy technology as a top transformational impediment, followed closely by technology silos (59%) and cost (50%). At least half don’t know where to start. It’s interesting to note that businesses in general experience many of the same top challenges as insurers when it comes to digital transformations. Often, policy administration is handled in silos operating on outdated technology stacks. With so much data at stake, it’s difficult to create a plan of attack for uniting back-end systems. However, it’s a situation where the effort is worth the price. Bain prioritized 30 fundamental values that, when in place, can elevate the customer experience and push insurance products above the commodity status. Values were divided into four categories: social impact, life-changing, emotional and functional. Each category is defined by consumer needs, such as “saves time,” “reduces anxiety” and “avoids hassles.” Insurers that rank high in more elements of value achieve higher Net Promoter scores and realize above-average growth, according to Bain. To excel in these categories, however, insurers need to establish relationships with customers. According to Bain, staying in frequent contact, digitizing purchasing and servicing and offering ancillary services are the primary components of an insurer’s relationship-building strategy. However, legacy technology and product silos impede insurers’ ability to swiftly react to customer inquiries and issues. Accessing the necessary information is often limited or time-consuming, and, when it comes to offering additional products or services, insurers are unable to extract the necessary insights quickly enough to make real-time product recommendations a reality. Beyond technology considerations, 62% of organizations have failed to lay a solid foundation for transformation by establishing a plan and effectively communicating it to relevant stakeholders. Planning and communication become necessary in light of the impact digitization has on the organization, particularly where resource management is concerned. As insurers engage in digital transformations, processes within the organization change, affecting job functions and the people who perform them. McKinsey says that up to 25% of current business processes could be automated, resulting in the consolidation or elimination of up to 25% of full-time positions. See also: Culture Side of Digital Transformation   Technology and automation also open doors to new roles and occupations. McKinsey points out that 25 years ago jobs in areas such as IT development, hardware manufacturing and app creation did not exist. Just as new employment opportunities arose out of the technology revolution, automation will generate demands for new skills, creating job roles in insurance that we can’t imagine today. Part of a successful transition is understanding what processes will change and how those changes will affect existing roles across the organization. Envisioning new roles at the beginning allows insurers to identify existing talent that can be upskilled or reskilled to fill new vacancies. Making for Successful Digital Transformations At the heart of successful digital transformations is a focus on the customer. Digital leaders understand this, with 92% reporting that customer experience is central to their strategy. Digital leaders, such as Amazon, become industry giants because they can tie revenue outcomes to specific measures of customer satisfaction and tweak or completely revolutionize their business approach accordingly. According to Forrester, digital leaders succeed by adhering to four basic principles: A customer focus during digital transformations ensures that outcomes meet the intended objectives. Insurers can plan from the outset to build the necessary speed and efficiency into digital channels while ensuring cross-functional capabilities. A recent consumer study conducted by Facebook and comScore revealed that the typical insurance-buying journey is short. Thirty percent of consumers made a decision within a day, while the same number took less than a week to select their insurer. That gives insurers a short window of opportunity to engage with consumers and secure their business. According to J.D. Power, a preference for digital interactions is on the rise. In their surveys, over 60% of consumers use online channels when researching insurers, but only 42% use these channels to purchase. Pitted against consumer expectations shaped by the Amazon experience, too many insurers fail in speed, efficiency and convenience, J.D. Power says, forcing consumers to seek out more digitally proficient insurers or to switch to other channels when purchasing coverage. Filling the Gap with Digital Transformations When it comes to improving the customer experience, insurers are filling the gap between expectations and reality by ramping up their digital capabilities. In a recent survey of industry executives conducted by SAP, 85% were prioritizing the development of digital and mobile channels. Findings like these indicate that insurers understand the need for digital engagement. However, there is no indication that insurers have conquered the impediments to creating an efficient omni-channel environment. To do so, they need to unite back-end systems to obtain a complete view of the customer, including every policy on record, as well as consumer data and related insights. With legacy technology and siloed systems at the top of executive concerns, it’s no wonder that business leaders are partnering when it comes to gaining digital capabilities. Respondents to the IDG study expect more than 1/3 of their transformation initiatives to be handled by a third party. This approach is particularly applicable to the insurance industry where overhauling systems is risky and problematic. “In a time of disruption, the smartest insurers recognize they can’t do everything on their own. They’re teaming up with insurtechs and other companies to modernize their operations, from distribution to claims processing,” said Dr. Henrik Naujoks, head of Bain & Co.’s financial services practice in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Integrating third-party solutions with existing technology puts insurers on the digital fast track without the worry of disrupting data held in traditional systems. According to Rick Huckstep, chairman, Digital Insurer, the insurer’s existing system becomes the system of record, while digital distribution platforms supply the digital front end. In the process, back-end systems are connected through a single point of access, providing clear visibility across policies to all channels. This capability is necessary to ensure an efficient omni-channel experience for the customer. By connecting all policy silos, agents and customers are able to quote, issue and bind multiple policies from a single application. Through automation, the process is completed in minutes, ensuring that insurers capture customer purchasing intentions at the moment they are ready to buy. See also: Future of Digital Transformation   Digital distribution platforms also simplify the approach to ecosystem environments, providing insurers with a ready platform for connecting with ancillary service providers or other insurers. Bain’s in-depth consumer research reveals that digital leaders are excelling with three main capabilities. These core components of a leading digital strategy are all easily addressed with the application of a digital distribution platform: Core Business High-quality products are delivered at competitive prices. Customer experiences are simple and digital. How a Digital Distribution Platform Helps: Automating much of the quote-to-issue lifecycle reduces insurer costs and provides an ecosystem environment where insurers can connect with other insurance companies. By using products from other insurers to meet price points or when there is no appetite for the risk, insurers can always fulfill the needs of their customers. Going Beyond Insurance Insurers foster engagement and a sense of affiliation by offering ecosystem services from third-party providers. How a Digital Distribution Platform Helps: Outside vendors can be connected to digital distribution platforms, allowing customers to move freely from the insurer’s website to third-party applications. Customers can simply and easily take advantage of ancillary services right from the insurer’s website. Prioritize Innovation Insurers understand the urgency behind digital initiatives and push for speedy digital transformations. How a Digital Distribution Platform Helps: Digital distribution platforms provide insurers with a complete digital environment, from online storefront through back-end integration, in a matter of weeks. Connecting with digital distribution platforms drastically improves the odds of transformation success. Aside from implementation simplicity, insurers gain the benefit of expertise. Platform providers are well-versed in the impacts that transforming to digital distribution have across the organization and are equipped to lead insurers through the process. They advise on staff changes and have resources on hand to fill talent gaps, thereby increasing the odds of success.

What might a future world look like where all transportation is via autonomous vehicles? Although we might be decades away from this vision, there are useful insights to be gained for today’s strategies in thinking through the possibilities. While I don’t personally own a crystal ball, this blog floats some ideas regarding what the future may hold. In the meantime, SMA’s recent research report, Connected Vehicles and Insurance: Ten Strategic Considerations, provides some practical advice for insurance strategists today by identifying the potential value levers in the evolving connected vehicle area and exploring 10 strategic questions. See also: Rapid Evolution of Autonomous Vehicles   With that as background, here are 10 predictions for the future of transportation:

1. Vehicle ownership by individuals will be so rare that people will need to visit theme parks for the “experience” of driving a car.
2. People will be able to summon autonomous vehicles on demand for travel anywhere on the planet.
3. Autonomous vehicles will be everywhere on land, on sea, in the air and underground – none will require drivers or operators. (For example, drone taxis will fill the skies.)
4. Travel times will be significantly reduced as speed limits increase and high-speed transportation dominates. Very high-speed travel will be common via Hyperloop, supersonic aircraft or high-speed rail.
5. The physical infrastructure for travel will be substantially different: no signs, no traffic controls and no fuel stations. The whole system of roadways will be transformed, with no need for median strips, lane markers, etc.
6. All land-based vehicles will be powered by electricity and recharged directly from the road surface.
7. The urban/suburban balance will change once again, with a concentration of individuals in mega-smart cities combined with new forms of living spaces and communities in rural/satellite areas. (Think about what could be done with all the garage space in residences when individuals do not own cars.)
8. Vehicles of all types will be real-time, information-rich machines with augmented reality, virtual reality and instant access to information/entertainment content.
9. Vehicular accidents will be virtually eliminated, but, when accidents do occur, they will be mega-accidents. (Imagine a software glitch or a freeway hack that causes pileups of hundreds of vehicles.)
10. The variety of vehicles for transporting both people and goods will be astonishing, ranging from individual travel pods to gigantic vehicles transporting thousands of people at a time.

See also: Driverless Vehicles: Brace for Impact   Also not to be forgotten is the complete reshaping of the industries that build vehicles, sell and service them and, of course, insure them. The journey to this future (or something like it) is highly uncertain in terms of timing and eventual outcomes; however, there is little debate that we are in the beginning of monumental transformation.

Indemnity, through the use of insurance, has a long pedigree. However, insurance as we know it today did not really start until the end of the 17th century. It was at that point that insurance companies started to be formed to combat one of the oldest enemies of civilization: untamed fire. Moreover, fire insurance companies understood their enemy well and worked swiftly to combat it; those efforts ultimately gave rise to our present day in which millions of people around the world live largely free from the threat of a fire destroying a neighborhood or city. That pedigree sired all the forms of insurance that we know today, whether it be general liability or cyber liability. However, the landscape, as it relates to cyber liability and technology E&O, does not show the responsible insurance traits that such thorough breeding would be expected to produce, and we need to review three prominent examples of where cyber liability and technology E&O insurers are not only giving their enemy, hackers, the upper hand but are also endangering their own existence. Perhaps one of the most recent blatant examples of how insurers are failing their lineal forebearers occurred toward the end of 2018 when an insurer created a partnership with one of the world’s largest e-commerce merchants to provide physical cyber tools to policyholders to help “protect” homes. All the available evidence suggests that the cyber tools were championed by the insurer without the organization having done considerable research on, and testing, the physical devices to ensure that they were highly resistant to being hacked. None of the products the insurer recommended were rated as “secure” by any respected independent testing lab. In fact, none of the products were rated “secure” on the manufacturer’s website. For a cyber liability insurer that also offers homeowners and renters insurance, the championing of such products directly undermined the insurer’s cybersecurity credibility and sullied its pedigree, all for marginally increasing its bottom line. See also: Breaking Down Silos on Cyber Risk   Another timely and alarming example of an unfortunate mistake of cyber liability insurers is the recent creation of the Global Cyber Alliance and the Cybersecurity Tech Accord. The effort of both is to create a cooperative atmosphere in the private sector to combat cybersecurity threats while also working to provide responsible cyber products. There are many respectable companies that belong to each organization, but not one cyber liability or technology E&O insurer can be found among the members of either organization. When we read in the news that company ABC suffered a $40 million data breach, that means, assuming the organization had a cyber liability policy, that millions of dollars are being lost by the cyber liability insurer. Due to the current and highly competitive cyber market, the premiums of cyber liability policies are not typically commensurate with the amount of risk and financial loss to appropriately offset the millions of dollars the insurers pay out in such a breach. Thus, insurers mistakenly are not advocating or supporting the very organizations, like the Cyber Tech Accord, that are indirectly trying to help them reduce their losses and those of their clients. Illustrative of a mistake by cyber liability insurers in this matter is something that insurers say. It is not uncommon to read in a cyber liability brochure that the insurer is not going to restore a client to a better state than the one the policyholder had prior to a cyber breach. On its face, the logic is reasonable and even is in the pedigree of fire insurance companies. After all, fire insurance companies would not build a person a five-bedroom, four-bath home with a four-car garage when a person’s two-bedroom, one-bath home with no garage burned down. However, fire insurance also followed the principle of indemnity, and that principle clearly states that an insured is to be restored to her original condition after a fire. Cyber liability insurance policies DO NOT FOLLOW the principle of indemnity, and that distinction matters considerably. There is no reasonable way to calculate how much a cyber liability breach will cost an insured or her cyber liability insurer. After all, laws across the U.S., let alone the world, vary in their intent and letter as to what needs to be done after a cyber breach. Not only that, but the size of a company, how a company was breached, when it was breached, what was stolen, if anything, what was done with what was stolen and a number of other important factors inextricably but subjectively determine the impact a breach will have on a client. That those factors are subjective in their cost means that all insurers have no accurate way of determining the cost of a breach. When a $500,000 home burned down, an insurer could reasonably expect the cost of replacing that home to be within a certain percentage of $500,000. When a major retailer suffered a cyber breach in 2013, the annual report the following year specifically stated that it did not know what the true cost of the breach would be, but it was expecting the cost to increase beyond the initial amount. If such a policyholder was unable to determine the true cost of the breach, then how could the insurers of its cyber liability policy know, either? One of the major tools that fire insurance companies used in the past to combat fires was to understand how susceptible a building material was to being damaged by fires. However, to this date cyber liability insurers have not founded an institute funded by themselves and created for the express purpose of determining the quality of products that have a direct impact on policyholders' ability to resist attack. This in turn creates an inextricable link to a policyholder’s sense of cyber security safety. Cyber liability organizations sometimes use the services of a cybersecurity firm to determine, prior to underwriting a policy, if an applicant’s network exhibits any signs of unusual network activity that could be suggestive of a cyber breach. However, that is an inadequate way of providing a policyholder with any meaningful comfort, let alone allowing an insurer to have a solid basis to believe a risk is worth underwriting. In fact, the closest organizations that exist for the express purpose of determining a product’s cybersecurity strength is Cyber ITL (Independent Testing Lab) and the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). However, neither of those firms was created by insurance companies, and neither has the vested interest that insurers have in protecting their policyholders and guaranteeing cyber liability remains profitable to underwrite. Therefore, it is time for all cyber liability insurers to either join with an organization like Cyber ITL or to create their own like-kind organization. The browser application, the version number of a browser application, what operating system is used, what kind of router a computer is connected to, what kind of firewall is in place and numerous other factors all play a part in increasing or decreasing the strength of users’ cybersecurity. However, until cyber liability insurers measure and rate everything that pertains to cybersecurity, they and a vast majority of their clients will be allowing hackers to gain an undeserved advantage. Beyond the need for an independent testing lab there are other measures that insurers need to take, and these measures have been previously proposed. However, it is extremely unfortunate that insurers have yet to rally to the cause of their clientele by implementing the following strategies. In the April 2016 edition of the PLUS Journal, it was argued that insurers need to work with other companies involved in technology, marketing, lending and other parts of the private sector to create an international competition. This competition would give students a creative outlet to display their skills, whether they be in coding, design or writing. By establishing such a competition and working with educators, worldwide insurers and other companies can give pre-college students the ability to demonstrate, on a world stage, the ingenuity and adaptive reasoning that bright young people often possess. However, the benefit of the competition is not only for the students; it absolutely benefits the corporate sponsors of the international competition. For insurers, it allows them to persuade students that the insurance realm is a viable and worthwhile place in which to work. It also allows insurers to gain the opportunity to create a list of candidates from which to recruit when the winners of the international competition graduate from university. The same list of students that insurers create can also be used for their clients when they need to hire a software engineer or a laureate. If insurers have some of the brightest and most talented young people working for them, they can create more efficient internal systems and more advanced lines of insurance coverage, and they can also provide better methods for ensuring that their policyholders have the right tools with which to mitigate cybersecurity risk. Additionally, it is not profitable or reasonable to believe that cyber liability follows the principle of indemnity, because believing that hurts the insurer and, to a greater extent, the insured. If an insured uses the same computer, router, browser and other items after a breach has been fixed that were used prior to the breach, then there is nothing to stop another breach from occurring. In the near term, to reduce the number of clients suffering recurring breaches, an insurer should pay for one year of monitoring by a respectable cybersecurity firm. It would also be useful to conduct an on-site visit by an auditor three to six months after the original breach has been fixed to see what steps the insured has taken to prevent future ones. In time, if an independent testing lab is established, an insurer could even offer a policyholder an improved router and firewall to further protect the client. The less susceptible any client is to an attack, the less likely a claim will arise, and fewer claims means more underwriting profit. See also: How Insurtech Boosts Cyber Risk   However, technology E&O insurers also bear a responsibility for helping to prevent cyber breaches. After all, how well a software engineer or an electrical engineer professional writes software code or builds physical products is the basic element that will later determine, to a high degree, whether a breach occurs or not. Technology E&O insurers need to work with universities to establish teaching standards that are uniform across the globe and engineering standards in the work place that establish the highest minimum standard possible. In the January 2016 edition of the PLUS Journal, it was also demonstrated that technology E&O policies can be written to encourage more responsible software engineering practices to further minimize claims. If the above practices are put into place, then perhaps lives lost to faulty software, like those in the recent two plane crashes of a U.S.-based commercial jet manufacturer, need not happen in the future. The closest fire insurance companies had to a dynamic enemy were arsonists who were few and far between. Despite the general absence of an active enemy, those organizations spent about 200 years directly influencing the development of urban landscapes whether through building codes or the layout of a city. Today, their efforts have largely paid off because they acknowledged the challenges they faced and met them with courage and creativity. They did not accept that they could do nothing to make their clients safe or secure their profitability. However, today beyond a few web portals that insurers or third parties have created that can provide minor tools to a policyholder, and beyond creating semi-close relationships with some members of the cybersecurity community, cyber liability and technology E&O insurers have spent a significant part of the 21st century accepting losses, writing checks and never acknowledging that hackers and poorly crafted technology products are their mortal enemies. Hackers are costing the global economy tens of billions of dollars, if not more, every year, and businesses are closing or suffering severe financial loss because of cyber breaches. How many more people must die and how much insecurity must exist in this world before insurers acknowledge that the war is here, and the enemy is at the doors of organized civilized societies? When will insurers take the prudent course and glean from history and their forebearers all the lessons they offer, and in so doing prove that they are worthy of their trust?

The advance of automation in the auto insurance industry could have come at the expense of the personal touch that consumers expect. But recent research shows that auto insurance carriers are succeeding in striking a balance. A 2018 survey of 24 of the top senior-level auto insurance executives combined with 1,755 auto insurance customers by LexisNexis Risk Solutions found that carriers are increasingly using automation to be more efficient, reduce costs and improve their competitive edge through better customer service. Consumers are enjoying the gains of automation, as well. They now expect the carriers they do business with to offer easy digital access to products and services, but while also providing a personal touch, including being empathetic. Much innovation is taking place across the claims automation continuum – from traditional to touchless handling. For example, the research found that carriers are:

• Continuing to embrace virtual claims options with 95% of respondents using or considering virtual claims processes.
• Touchless claims is growing in popularity as well, with 79% of carriers surveyed saying they are considering or are open to the idea.
• And carriers already using claims automation are reporting a reduction in touches, faster cycle times, increased employee productivity, lower loss adjustment expense (LAE) and higher customer satisfaction.

On the consumer side:

• 57% of consumers indicate they are fairly or very comfortable with automated processes.
• Customers with prior claim experience quickly become dissatisfied when they have to talk with more than one person.
• One in five consumers prefers claim self-service options, mostly driven by the younger generations, but complain that the self-service first notice of loss (FNOL) process asks too many questions.
• Customers prefer fewer touches and expect fast cycle times, as they have become accustomed to the speed of digital service in other industries.
• Even the consumers who are the most supportive of automated processes still want a personal touch when they need it (for example, first-time claimants).

See also: 21st Century Claims: Boosting Efficiency   These findings suggest that carriers need to carefully align their automation strategies with customers’ needs. Automation adoption can be accelerated by matching data and technology solutions to consumer needs and sharing information with consumers. Done correctly, carriers can extend automation for greater mutual benefit ― as long as they maintain an empathic, personal touch with their customers through the communication method of their customers’ choosing. Yet, while many carriers said their automated processes have increased significantly over the past three to five years, that doesn’t mean they’re using a broader array of automation. Rather, it’s most common to see automation in the form of rules-based logic and software-driven photo estimation for non-complex claims at specific parts of the claims process. For example, some carriers are employing automation to simplify and accelerate documentation gathering, enabling customers to upload digital documents and photos via an app, text or website and using automated tools to pull other relevant external documents like police reports. Similarly, automation is being used by some carriers to improve the customer experience to quickly automate claims payments based on a rules-based system (such as those with low dollar value or who use a direct repair program shop). The Need to Simplify Self-Service The study also found that as carriers make small advances toward virtual claims handling, they are also becoming more receptive to touchless claims handling in the quest to fully automate claims. This includes deploying automation solutions such as data prefill to make self-service options easier for customers. However, they need to keep in mind that full automation doesn’t suit everyone. The demand from consumers for self-service options is growing but overall still low and tied mostly to millennials and the younger generations. Until these generations compose a larger portion of the customer base, cost reduction and improving the customer experience will likely remain the key drivers behind further automation. The findings also suggest that low customer demand for self-service is related to customer dissatisfaction with the vast number of questions asked at FNOL and carriers’ failure to fully integrate data upfront in the claims process to simplify self-service for customers. Carriers need to rectify these issues before investing too deeply in touchless claims handling. Though consumers are receptive about increased automation, they still want support in the form of a real person ― particularly if they’ve never filed a claim before and are uncertain about the process. Even millennials don’t want self-service for every situation; they also want human interaction easily available when they need it. It’s critical that customers still get the human touch they want at the relevant parts of the claims process. Remaining Challenges As carriers adopt greater automation capabilities, they’re finding that integrating more data earlier in the claims process leads to more efficient handling. Carriers need to integrate more data prefill solutions that leverage external data sources into the claims process so that self-service options are as easy and painless as possible for customers. The study found that carriers that use a data prefill solution at FNOL experienced a 14% improvement in days-to-pay for bodily injury claims, a 10% reduction in severity as compared with the industry and a 15% improvement in their shopping-rate ratio as compared with the industry. Additionally, while automation progresses in the industry, the research uncovered reluctance to automate. This reluctance is driven by the concern that it will introduce more error and a higher risk of fraud into the non-complex claims process. Carriers are not fully confident that systems are mature enough to counterbalance these types of situations. It is a concern shared by consumers, as well. Consumers’ reluctance ranges from the fear of making a mistake to potential glitches or technology issues that could hurt their claim. These concerns are significantly higher among those who have not had a claim than respondents who have recently filed a claim. Perhaps there is an opportunity for carriers to share more testimonials of customers who have had a positive experience with automated claims processing. See also: Claims Technology: One Size Won’t Fit All   Final Thoughts: Balancing Automation With Empathy The research shows carriers and consumers are largely in sync when it comes to automated claims processing. Even though improving the customer experience may not have been the first or top motivation for embracing automation, the good news is that they’ve achieved it anyway. To retain those customers, they will need to employ a soft variable ― empathy. While consumers, especially younger consumers, increasingly demand self-service and digital access, there are times their biggest desire is a human touch. In summary, automation can help carriers deliver this human touch by freeing representatives to be available when a customer needs personal attention. Carriers must also find ways to customize how they integrate the human touch into the claims experience. Tailoring the claims approach with a blend of automation and human touch to meet the customers’ preference will help carriers do a better job of personalizing the claims process. While the human element of treating others with empathy may be more difficult to improve upon than adding more automation, data and analytics can be deeply incorporated into the claims process to improve accuracy and efficiency. Those factors affect how customers feel about their claims experience.

The voice of the customer has never been so important to business; a growing number of customers now rely on the reviews and experiences of others to help guide their purchasing decisions, and this trend will only increase as millennials make up a greater portion of insurance carriers’ customer bases. This should be viewed as a positive development. Customers, after all, vote with their wallets, and a scenario where carriers provide what customers want (rather than what is best for the carriers) can only drive standards higher. The claims process is where the customer experience can be best affected, so it is no surprise that it is currently in sharp focus. Customers want choice in how and when they engage, as well as the information they receive, but, during a claim, when a distressing loss may have occurred, the importance of human empathy cannot be understated. To deliver these aspects requires a digital, yet humanized, claims experience. In an intensely competitive environment, how can carriers identify quick wins to maximize the impact on customer experience and efficiency for minimum output and disruption? See also: Key Technology Trends for Insurers in 2019   Insurance Nexus held a webinar with claims experts from five companies focusing on improving the claims process with digital technologies: Bea Rolbiecki (AVP senior experience, USAA), Patrick Klas (associate, American Family Ventures), Daniel Regan (vice president, financial services, SAP Ariba), Allan Robinson (EVP field operations and sales and chief claims officer, Horace Mann Insurance) and John Langowski (EVP, chief claims officer, Swyfft). Listen to the webinar recordings today Throughout the webinar, the most striking consistency was the importance all panelists place on the customer. “Put customers first when building your digital experience” Bea Rolbiecki says. This means understanding the customer journey, what they need to do and how they feel at each stage of the journey. By identifying where bottlenecks and pain points are, investment can then be prioritized to deliver the maximum impact on the customer experience. This is a significant departure from past practice, when investments, technological or otherwise, were usually made with profits and board member dividends in mind. Instead, the inverse is now advised. Swyfft’s John Langowski asks of any proposed change, “What would a panel of policy-holders think of this?” It can be easy to be attracted to the new and unknown, but “don’t just grab the next best thing out there,” he warns; investment must be targeted to specific customer needs. Our discussion also highlighted the importance of the relationships between carriers and claims service providers; there is a “definitely a fear of start-ups,” American Family Ventures’ Patrick Klas says. Understandably, carriers might be hesitant to devolve responsibility of their claims processing to a third party who does not have the experience or reputation of a legacy insurer. Rather than see newcomers as “attackers,” however, Klas opines that companies such as Lemonade and Hippo have succeeded in raising industry standards. Customers prefer, and now expect, digital, personalized and seamless experiences, and it is up to carriers to ensure they meet these standards. A final point may reassure those who fear job losses due to the "rise of the machines"; according to Rolbiecki, the whole aim of digitizing the claims process is to deliver a “sympathetic and connected claims experience.” While AI can do much that humans cannot, providing a sympathetic ear after a distressing loss is not one of them. Horace Mann’s Allan Robinson goes further, claiming that “from a claims adjusters’ perspective, the idea we won’t need adjusters is wrong.” Incorporating aspects of AI, intelligent automation and robotics will allow for straight-through processing of less complex claims, meaning adjusters and investigators can focus on more complicated and, ultimately, more interesting claims. This will actually make insurance, particularly claims, a “more interesting…and more fulfilling role.” See also: Using Technology to Enhance Your Agency   This webinar was run in conjunction with Insurance Nexus’ coming Third Annual Connected Claims USA Summit 2019, taking place June 5-6, at the Marriott Marquis Chicago Hotel. Welcoming over 750 senior attendees, Connected Claims USA is the world’s largest gathering for claims executives striving for efficient, customer-centric claims processing. 

They sit in a hazy nether region between brokers and insurers. Outside of insurance, most people will never hear of them. Even those who know of their existence are often only vaguely aware of the role they play. Yet MGAs (managing general agents) offer one of the best ways for new, and established, companies to enter into insurance and benefit from an existing large customer base or to take advantage of the best emerging technology. Want to generate underwriting income without raising massive amounts of capital or waiting a year or more to get regulated? Setting up an MGA may be the answer. A number of the headline popping insurtechs start-ups (BoughtbyMany, Slice, Hippo, Trov, Ladder, Lakka, for example) have chosen the MGA model, often finding insurers or reinsurance partners willing to provide capacity and investment. The concept may not be well understood, but it's no surprise that many emerging companies are curious about how to set up as an MGA. On April 2, our monthly InsTech London evening event focused on MGAs. The room was packed with close to 300 attendees. We had 13 companies on stage, and everyone of them was different. So what’s going on? Brokers to the left of you, insurers to the right… There are five common ways for insurers to connect with their clients: 1) go directly to the consumer 2) use a comparison website, 3) work with a lead generation company (mostly U.S.), 4) work through a broker and 5) use an MGA. Like a broker, an MGA doesn’t retain any capital. Unlike a traditional broker, an MGA is able to "bind" or underwrite risks using third party capital. The MGA gets access to capital and fulfills its regulatory requirement by reaching an agreement with one or more insurers that are prepared to “delegate” their underwriting authority to the MGA. The concept is not new, but it is evolving. Traditionally, most MGAs were happy enough occupying a specialist niche, operating as a class of wholesale broker. This enabled insurers to access unusual (“specialty”) lines of business that they found expensive or hard to source on their own or through a traditional broker network. See also: 3 Steps to Succeed at Open Innovation   In recent years, a new type of MGA has emerged. There are increasing examples of this "delegated underwriting" model being adopted as a stepping stone for companies that want to act like, or become, a full insurer. The MGA still needs to get regulatory approval but has a choice of options for getting up and running more quickly. Underwriting capital is provided by one or more insurers or reinsurers, but the MGA usually retains responsibility for managing the client and its brand. To the uninitiated, the MGA looks no different than an underwriter, offering much of the benefits with limited downside. This is already a big market. Over 300 MGAs underwrite in excess of 10% of the UK’s £47 billion general insurance market. MGAs have traditionally been a major source of incoming business for Lloyd's, representing over one third of its £32 billion capacity. In excess of 4,000 MGAs (also known as “coverholders") from around the world are backed by Lloyd's syndicates. Insurance is provided for property, airlines, motor, livestock and much more. The role of Lloyd’s as the “insurer of last resort” is particularly suited to complex or non-standard business sourced through MGAs. This has made London one of the major underwriters of the U.S. excess and surplus market, covering risks that the major carriers don’t want to take on (for example, beachfront homes in Florida). John Rowlands, formerly at reinsurance broker Guy Carpenter, explained the appeal of the MGA for insurers: “It’s difficult for insurance companies to grow premiums organically. Insurers value MGAs’ specialist product and geographic expertise and distribution, which gives the MGA the ability to underwrite opportunistically and take advantage of market conditions. Insurers are able to strategically grow and diversify with lower execution risk and costs.” John has since joined an MGA himself. Now it's no longer only about insurers looking for help with distribution. The new breed of MGAs are pushing the boundaries beyond the original model. They want to be calling the shots, and in some cases are looking for no more than a "fronting insurer" to provide capacity but with less influence in how the business is run. For a transaction-focused insurtech, MGAs not only offer a quick route to market but are also starting to make the insurtechs attractive to VCs. In the slow-moving world of insurance, MGAs may provide one of the best opportunities to build up a business that can be sold in 10 years or less (timelines that are appealing to VCs). Insurance carriers, brokers and private equity firms have also been getting more active buying into MGAs. Valuation multiples (of EBITDA) are moving beyond the historic range of eight to 12 times up to the high teens. Perhaps not as sparky as the household names in the mainstream tech world, where multiples of 20 or 30 are common, and some in excess of 100 (Amazon, Netflix). There are few (maybe none) analytics or tech companies in insurance with a similar ability to scale exponentially year after year to justify such multiples. MGAs offer a safer, if lower, return. Who will underwrite my MGA? London may be providing capacity for thousands of MGAs, but when it comes to supporting the more recently formed insurtech style MGAs, Munich Re is, by a long way, the most active, and adventurous, provider of capital. Ingenie, Wrisk, BoughtByMany, WeFox, Zego, Trov, Slice, Next, Nimbla, Jetty, Drover, Blink, Simplesurance and So-Sure have all received backing from the reinsurance giant. None of these will make any noticeable impact on Munich Re’s results in the next few years, but unlike most other reinsurers or insurers Munich Re can afford to think long-term. It clearly sees the MGA model as a significant way to access new markets and new technology. Furthermore, the company isn't afraid to double down on its partnerships by also offering investment capital and a trading infrastructure for MGAs. Other insurers, including Lloyd’s syndicates, are offering capacity to the newcomers. Few can match the financial strength or have the willingness to take risks of one of the world's biggest reinsurers, but we're starting to see some intriguing new approaches by insurers and investors willing to get more actively involved in the MGA space. I’ll be back in the future with coverage of other capacity and infrastructure providers in this space that we have got to know well through Instech London such as Insurtech Gateway, Beazley, Hiscox, SCOR, MSAmlin, Evari and Xceedance. Death by data The growth of MGAs may have provided an efficient way for insurers to access niche markets, but it’s also been something of a free-for-all when it comes to sharing information about the risks. This has resulted in a horrible mish-mash of data formats and means of sharing data that even seemed outdated 25 years ago. Digital may be replacing paper, but pdf files and spreadsheets, exchanged via email, proliferate and create major inefficiencies and potential for errors. Everyone knows the situation needs to change. There is a flourishing community of both start-ups and mature businesses developing solutions to standardize formats, centralize processes and cut through the noise. Some are going directly to source, hoping to link up the information provided by the original policy holder directly with the capital provider and cut out the noise in the middle. At some point, the market will figure it out. In the meantime, any MGA that can suck data in from its clients and deliver essential analytics to the capital provider without the need to re-key anything is worth keeping an eye on. Technology: Boon or burden? Not surprisingly, many of the new MGAs have been set up – and received investment – on the premise of using new technology to improve risk selection and gain efficiencies. In established markets, such as property, tools may be provided by and even paid for by insurers. In areas such as emerging risks, most notably cyber, companies such as Zeguro and Envelop Risk offer their proprietary technology as part of the benefit they claim to offer to insurance partners and clients. The value of their IP is built into their proposition (and their valuation). More traditional MGAs are increasingly being required to use new technology to improve underwriting risk selection and data transfer. This can create more costs and complexity, particularly if they are dealing with more than one capital provider and multiple systems requiring specialist skills. There is still a lot of inertia, particularly among smaller companies. MGAs that can continue to acquire and retain clients, and keep losses below an acceptable level, can still call the shots. Few insurance carriers are willing to risk losing profitable MGAs by imposing new technology on them. See also: AI and Results-Driven Innovation   Stuck in the middle with who? What does the rise of MGAs tell us about the future of insurance? Evolution in most markets tends to squeeze out the people in the middle. Friction and thus cost is removed, the fewer people there are in the chain. Those that possess the capital or own the customer are usually the winners. The continuing rise of MGAs suggests that we may be seeing the shift moving in the other direction. Is the middle going to squeeze out those on the edges? On the one side, the placing broker is under threat of getting replaced by direct-to-consumer offerings powered by detailed data and advanced analytics. On the other side, traditional providers of insurance capacity are increasingly having to compete on price and strength of security with the more highly diversified global capital markets that can access analytics that once only existed in-house at insurers. Meanwhile, the agile MGA, with multimillion dollars of investment, is able sniff out the best markets and the cheapest capital. MGAs are growing more powerful, but they are probably not going to become the dominant force in insurance. More likely is that MGAs will continue to evolve as an efficient way to build and launch new and enhanced insurance propositions, tightly linked to excellent analytics and richer sources of data. We may say see the emergence of some mega-MGAs, with income similar to the larger insurers. A few will grow up and decide to become fully fledged insurers. A couple could morph into becoming the analytics platforms of choice for the industry (it still needs one, by the way). Some will fail. But most will cash out, and be folded into their bigger, older, more traditional insurance and broking cousins. It's only been possible to dabble lightly in this topic. Whatever the future is for MGAs they are definitely one way of accelerating the impact of innovation. This fascinating and slightly mysterious area of the insurance market deserves more in-depth assessment. Please feel free to comment below with any areas to explore next, and, of course, all additional insights are welcome.

Artificial intelligence has become a key factor in the digitization of today’s leading customer-facing industries. While banks and telecoms are among the most visible sectors currently implementing conversational AI in the customer experience, the insurance industry is reportedly outspending both (and many others) when it comes to this technology. Revolving, as it does, around data analysis and processing, the insurance sector has long been beholden to a cost structure that disproportionately relies on manual processes. Even a small shift away from human capital and toward automation will result is significant savings of time and  money. In fact, AI is already being used in front-line claims processing, some uniform underwriting and with first-response customer interactions. Tata Consultancy Services reports that the insurance sector invests, on average, $124 million per company in artificial intelligence, compared with a cross-industry average of $70 million. In the U.S. alone, four of the top 10 insurance carriers have deployed some form of machine learning, and Accenture recently revealed that more than two-thirds (68%) of insurance companies now use AI-powered virtual agents at some level in the organization to engender better customer interactions. So, what exactly is driving a traditionally conservative industry to adopt the latest advances in conversational AI? The results at Storebrand, one of Europe’s largest insurance companies, can shed some light on the question. Since implementing a digital insurance agent powered by conversational AI, Storebrand experienced an increase of 162% in customer interactions through chat in just the first four months, with 70% of conversations successfully handled without the need of any human support. For human agents, these figures are both encouraging and startling. Cognitive automation and virtual advisers are poised to replace traditional first-response customer service personnel with more direct access to insurance information, products and support. See also: And the Winner Is…Artificial Intelligence!   Adoption of artificial intelligence is gaining momentum with other applications in insurance, as well. Applying AI algorithms to accurately predict conversational outcomes, Storebrand’s virtual agents can improve customer service by cross-promoting products, and recommending the most appropriate coverage, before a customer is handed over to a human consultant to complete enrollment. Insurance company brings AI to life It’s common to hear customers complaining of having to navigate mountains of complex jargon and legalese to file claims or simply find answers to their questions. The last thing anyone wants to do in a time of crisis is wade helplessly through confusing website forms or sit on hold. But how do these same customers feel about virtual agents? Nearly three out of four insurance customers say they are willing to receive computer-generated advice about their coverage. The digital insurance agent is doing the equivalent work of eight full-time human employees and is able to respond intelligently to questions on more than 1,900 topics. This translates to an impressive 2,111 calls per week, leading to that 162% increase in customers interacting with conversational AI. Personality is injected by human AI trainers into the automated service itself. Made up of experienced customer service staff, these upskilled employees establish the brand’s unique tone of voice through a machine. This helps customers feel comfortable chatting about insurance, while ensuring that conversations remain meaningful, helpful and consistent. A new face for the customer experience Customer response to Storebrand’s digital insurance agent has been overwhelmingly positive. The agent has interacted with more than 250,000 customers and is now successfully answering 70% of all incoming customer interactions, effectively deflecting these inquiries from human operators. The remaining 30% of customer interactions, those that do require human intervention, are immediately and seamlessly routed to customer service representatives within the same screen for resolution. By combining Storebrand’s own expertise in customer service with advanced conversational AI, the insurer has managed to not only strengthen brand loyalty among its customers but also provide instant, 24/7 support without putting undue strain on its customer center -- all within a short time. See also: 3 Steps to Demystify Artificial Intelligence   Explaining complex products and automating first-response functions, conversational AI is about more than just replacing live agents with less expensive alternatives. It is also about boosting productivity by allowing insurance company employees to focus on more complex tasks and activities. As Storebrand has demonstrated, successful integration of conversational AI requires a commitment to continuous investment, evaluation and adjustment to achieve results. In the final analysis, not only can conversational AI adapt the customer experience to each individual and evolve that experience to advance organizational objectives, but it offers real and lasting competitive differentiation in the marketplace.

Back in 2016, Microsoft reported that more than one billion people used its Office suite of applications, which includes the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Roughly one in every six people on Earth uses it, Microsoft said. There is no doubt that, when Microsoft first developed this application, the company was on to something important, and Excel still has its place within the Office suite for many users. Of course, Microsoft is not the only company that has produced and promoted spreadsheet programs; there are literally hundreds of similar programs, typically sold as single-seat, stand-alone applications not tied to any common database. For some companies, spreadsheet programs are chosen for their lower cost, ease-of-use and routine reporting. In fact, over the years, employees have become so familiar with spreadsheet applications that they simply don’t want to work any other way. Some call this phenomenon “spreadsheet paralysis,” which refers to the insurer’s common argument that it’s always been done this way, so why change? Reliance on spreadsheets seems especially common with smaller insurers, self-insured groups, public risk pools and their agents, all of which use spreadsheets to calculate and process data. The reason these insurers hesitate to phase out spreadsheets as a primary way to process data is because this dated technology works for what it was designed to do. When technology budgets are formulated, the typical question becomes: Why should we change if it works? It’s easier to simply continue; no extra training is required, and no changes are required in how workflow is managed. See also: How Agencies Can Use Data Far Better   Or are they? What happens when a spreadsheet error is found that affects an entire book of business and puts routine financial and regulatory reporting in a state of instant jeopardy? How long does it take to backtrack, examine the various versions of the spreadsheet’s values, calculations, source data and file history, and correct the error? Or, consider what happens when the policyholder demands something that spreadsheets can’t produce. These demands can arise within customer service, claims or billing, and we know these demands are increasing, leaving many smaller insurers in a scramble to shorten steps, access more information and respond in real time to customer requests. Let’s look further at billing. The complexity of this functional business unit requires access to data points on all things related to customers, their demographic information, policy history, premium, invoice amount and payment. When working in a common spreadsheet application, only one person at a time can access and edit this data, making real-time collaboration with other members of the billing department—much less the other pertinent business units that also touch the customer—impossible. If the application resides within the insurer's intranet, the data being manipulated by the last individual to touch the file most often represents data that was generated by multiple other sources and users, making accurate reporting difficult and delayed. For public entities and other self-insured groups, this problem could play forward to an audit disaster. Even if reporting is 100% accurate, the spreadsheet approach does not take into account the critical importance of secure storage or backups of the data, which, as part of the organization’s core business applications, are typically kept onsite, putting the entire system in harm’s way should a natural disaster occur. Like larger insurers, smaller carriers, self-insured and public entity groups have an opportunity to process data collaboratively, respond faster to customer and auditor demands and operate in a secure environment where data is controlled, available and safe from compromise. Because this method takes into account the importance of software as a service over a hosted cloud platform, data encryption (in transit and at rest) is employed to ensure comprehensive compliance and quality assurance. This method also gives users greater control over calculations and provides audit trails to document every aspect of data access manipulation. The result is an immediate reduction in formula error, improved ability to perform all the routine tasks that a spreadsheet once did and the ability to perform sophisticated risk analysis based on accurate, real-time information. And because it’s a hosted application, output of the right information to the right audience is guaranteed when and where they need it. See also: Understanding New Generations of Data   Yes, there will be some hesitancy among users who are comfortable with the spreadsheet status quo. But the reality is that spreadsheets were never intended to be used to run the business, only support it. New technology enables insurers to do exactly what they had been doing with spreadsheets… and more. From the insurers’ point of view, having modern technologies is a great enticement to the hiring of new technology workers who are looking for the latest solutions to competently do their jobs. At a time when smaller insurers, self-insured and public risk pools are feeling the pressure to become “digitally transformed,” the move away from stand-alone spreadsheets to a collaborative, cloud-based enterprise solution is a great first step.

The insurtech movement spawned what some have called a cottage industry, others a revival, of insurance-focused conferences. While there is now an abundance of choice, not all events are created equal: Some may be strong in networking opportunities but light on valuable content, and others may have great topics but constrain the time, or load panels with so many speakers it is impossible to explore topics in depth. It can be a balancing act to get the right mix of networking and education that delivers the best experience for participants, and not all events succeed. One event that gets it right, which is why I'm happy to serve as emcee, is InsurTech North. When insurtech conferences began to spread, about five years ago, participant numbers were fairly low, and speakers often shared information that left audiences feeling like they were hearing about tech possibilities in some distant future, far beyond the reach of most insurance industry companies. The cultural divide between early-stage companies making big claims about the promise of technology and incumbent insurance carriers hearing these forecasts was so great that many underlying messages benefiting both entrepreneurs and insurers often got lost in translation. For example, many insurers downplayed the potential impact of entrepreneurs, who obviously needed more insurance experience. Likewise, the numerous warning signs to that first generation of insurtechs could not have been brighter or clearer with respect to the need to build new capabilities for an industry that generally was change-resistant, risk-averse or both. The explosion, and subsequent washout, among the first generation of telematics start-ups, for example, yielded multiple lessons for entrepreneurial teams who were tuned in to how to work with the insurance market. As the number of insurtech firms grew exponentially, so did the number of conferences one could choose from to learn about this sector. At this point, if you wanted to attend a conference a week, and sometimes two, you could easily be occupied for at least two years without repetition. See also: Insurtech’s Lowest Common Denominator As with any growth market, the more that firms raced to provide solutions, the less differentiated they became from each other. Such is also the nature of the insurance conferences related to innovation and technologies, with their increase in volume watering down meaningful insights and impact. So, what makes a conference like InsurTech North stand out among the crowd and rise above the noise and familiar formulas? Let’s start with the speakers. It’s not the standard “pay-to-play” model. Sponsorships are not the primary source from which panelists and moderators are chosen. The best events select speakers based on their subject matter expertise. Where sponsors are tapped to moderate a panel, they are carefully paired with the expertise and experiences needed for a session. More valuable events also limit the number of panelists per session to allow more time for meaningful information and dialogue with the audience. A common feature at many insurtech events is the “pitch-fest” competition. Conference organizers who wish to energize and inform their participants often organize some form of showcase or competition for early-stage ventures to make their case to the insurance market. These are typically exciting and informative agenda sessions. The organizers of InsurTech North have taken this concept and made a meaningful enhancement by reaching out to a select group of respected accelerators and venture capitalists to nominate one early-stage company from within their portfolios. This approach provides an opportunity for participants to hear from entrepreneurs with solid concepts and a high propensity for success. At the inaugural InsurTech North event, in 2018, attendees literally witnessed history in the making when data and analytics start-up QuantumSense, nominated by Holt Fintech Accelerator, made its first pitch during ITN’s “Wolf Pack Competition.” Here was a pitch from a live start-up built on a working quantum computer platform. This was a genuine leading-edge capability, with a team who then remained at the conference to field questions and seek support. It’s worth noting that the competition was so fierce that another startup, Maple, representing the MaRS Investment Accelerator Fund, won the judges’ vote and JAUNTIN', from the Global Insurance Accelerator, won the audience vote, showing the depth and quality of companies on the stage. See also: Predicting the Future of Insurtech   The most compelling events offer an informative and actionable agenda, designed for the benefit of the audience, speakers and sponsors. The dialogue in the sessions is candid while balancing strategy and theory with sound tactics. The events provide time for networking and deal making. Last but not least, the event is warm, welcoming, genuine and just plain fun. InsurTech North embodies these qualities and is worth attending. I hope to see you there. InsurTech North’s 2019 conference takes place May 23-24 in Toronto. Sign up using code “ITLten” to receive 10% off your registration fee. To learn more and register, visit https://insurtechnorth.com/