managing-insurtech-evaluations

# Managing Insurtech Evaluations

## When To Use

- Evaluating a new insurtech vendor or platform for underwriting, claims, distribution, or policy administration
- Comparing multiple technology solutions against carrier or MGA operational requirements
- Building a business case for adopting or replacing an insurance technology system
- Assessing digital insurance platform readiness for integration with legacy core systems
- Reviewing insurtech partnerships or investment opportunities from an operational fitness standpoint

## Inputs To Gather

- **Solution profile**: Vendor name, product category (e.g., claims automation, parametric platform, digital MGA infrastructure, telematics, embedded insurance API), current version, and deployment model (SaaS, on-prem, hybrid)
- **Carrier/MGA requirements**: Lines of business affected, policy volume, premium throughput, geographic scope, and regulatory jurisdictions [VERIFY]
- **Current-state architecture**: Existing core systems (policy admin, billing, claims), data warehouse setup, API capabilities, and known pain points
- **Evaluation criteria and weighting**: Stakeholder-defined priorities (e.g., speed-to-market vs. actuarial flexibility vs. compliance automation)
- **Financial parameters**: Budget envelope, expected ROI timeline, licensing model preferences (per-policy, per-seat, revenue share)
- **Compliance constraints**: State/province filing requirements, data residency rules, NAIC model law considerations [VERIFY]

## Workflow

1. **Define evaluation scope**
   - Confirm which insurance function the solution targets (underwriting, claims, distribution, reinsurance cession, etc.)
   - Identify stakeholders: actuarial, IT, compliance, operations, finance
   - Set evaluation timeline and decision milestones

2. **Map functional requirements**
   - Document must-have vs. nice-to-have capabilities against the target function
   - Include insurance-specific requirements: rating engine flexibility, form/endorsement management, bureau interface (ISO, AAIS), bordereaux reporting, treaty/facultative cession support
   - Note actuarial data needs: loss triangle export, exposure data granularity, experience rating compatibility

3. **Assess technical architecture**
   - Evaluate API-first design, real-time vs. batch integration, and data model compatibility with existing core systems
   - Review data security posture: SOC 2 Type II status, encryption standards, multi-tenancy isolation [VERIFY]
   - Check scalability benchmarks against projected policy/claims volume
   - Assess disaster recovery and uptime SLAs relative to carrier operational requirements

4. **Build financial business case**
   - Calculate total cost of ownership: license fees, implementation, integration development, ongoing support, and internal resource allocation
   - Model ROI against measurable outcomes: loss ratio improvement, expense ratio reduction, submission-to-bind cycle time, claims cycle time, or distribution reach expansion
   - Compare build vs. buy vs. partner economics
   - Factor in switching costs and contract lock-in terms

5. **Evaluate vendor viability and market position**
   - Review funding history, customer base (carrier vs. MGA vs. broker), retention rates, and financial stability
   - Assess regulatory track record: any state enforcement actions, DOI complaints, or compliance gaps [VERIFY]
   - Check reference accounts in comparable lines of business and premium scale

6. **Score and recommend**
   - Apply weighted scoring matrix across functional fit, technical architecture, financial impact, vendor viability, and compliance readiness
   - Identify implementation risks and mitigation strategies
   - Provide a clear recommendation with phased adoption roadmap if applicable

## Output

The evaluation report should include:

- **Executive summary**: One-page recommendation with rationale, projected financial impact, and key risks
- **Functional fit matrix**: Requirements mapped against solution capabilities with gap analysis
- **Technical assessment**: Architecture compatibility findings, integration complexity rating (low/medium/high), and data migration considerations
- **Financial model**: TCO over 3–5 years, ROI projections with sensitivity analysis, and breakeven timeline
- **Vendor profile**: Viability score, reference check summary, and competitive positioning
- **Risk register**: Implementation risks ranked by likelihood and impact, with proposed mitigations
- **Recommendation and roadmap**: Go/no-go decision, phased implementation plan, and success metrics

## Quality Checks

- Confirm all functional requirements trace back to documented stakeholder needs — no invented criteria
- Validate financial projections use carrier-provided volume and cost data, not vendor marketing claims
- Ensure regulatory and compliance items are tagged [VERIFY] where jurisdiction-specific rules apply
- Check that actuarial data requirements (loss triangles, exposure coding, rating algorithm transparency) are explicitly addressed
- Verify vendor claims against independent references, not solely vendor-supplied case studies
- Confirm scoring weights were agreed upon by stakeholders before applying them to avoid post-hoc bias
- Flag any solution gaps that would require custom development or third-party middleware