An Ideal State of Transactional Efficiency

‘Once-and-done’ is a catchphrase commonly used and frequently misunderstood. It suggests an ideal state of transactional efficiency between brokers and carriers, yet it provides little indication about how to achieve it. Although there are some slight nuances to its accepted definition, the concept advocates the ability for a broker to work almost exclusively within his or her respective broker management system (BMS) when transacting business with one of his or her markets.

This may sound simple and straightforward, but the industry’s slow adoption of solutions resembling once-and-done has frustrated brokers and led to a general skepticism regarding the ability for carriers and brokers to interact in a truly ‘single-entry’ medium. The true impact, however, is being felt on the premium side.

As broker-based companies continue to lose market share, direct writers are growing their books and servicing a significant portion of the market with considerably fewer staff members compared to the broker channel. This is a direct challenge to the broker community (pun intended) and is a true measure of broker-carrier efficiency.  

In an attempt to mitigate the losses, the industry over the past two years has focused more substantially on improving broker efficiencies within the industry. Associations such as the Organization of Real Time Brokers Implementing Technology (ORBiT) and the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada (IBAC) have raised the awareness of the need for more once-and-done solutions. These groups and others like them (realtime.org) lobby insurers and vendors to support the once-and-done mentality when developing systems responsible for broker-carrier communication. Their voice is clear: traditional web portals, which are cumbersome and time-consuming, will not provide the transactional efficiency required to remain competitive. In many instances, traditional portals require partial or complete re-keying of policy information. That’s 100% inefficient.

Carriers are realizing, some faster than others, that one key differentiator used to compete for broker business is the ‘ease of doing business.’ Or, to put it another way, a key selling point includes the processes and technologies a carrier offers to streamline a broker’s workflow and, ultimately, the broker-carrier communication.  Solutions increasing efficiency are no longer ‘nice to have.’ They are now ‘need to have.’

This is where once-and-done comes into play. Think of once-and-done as a combination of a golfer’s equipment, skill-level and knowledge of the game. The more refined each of these areas is, the higher degree of efficiency golfers will demonstrate when trying to get their ball to the pin. Likewise, if you focus on once-and-done-based systems and processes, brokers and carriers will begin to see the efficiencies and the resultant increase in premium volume over time.

Once-and-done solutions

At Brovada, we have partnered with some of the largest (and smallest) companies to bring once-and-done solutions to market. We’ve learned that once-and-done is not a single defined workflow to which every company must adhere. Rather, it is an approach companies can interpret and adapt to their specific business and technical goals.  

So what constitutes a good once-and-done approach?

A good approach

A good once-and-done model should provide the following elements in order to be most effective for brokers/carriers striving for efficiency.

•  Little to no re-keying of information when submitting a quote, new business or policy change transaction to the insurer. Traditional portals that have upload functionality from a BMS frequently do not accept all of the available data, forcing the broker to re-key it unnecessarily. A lot of the incomplete upload problems are introduced by vendor systems, which repurpose their old, less complete EDI interfaces, or by insurers that build their input with a quoting solution provider. The threshold of data required to perform a quote is significantly less than the data housed in the BMS. Beyond having a few company-specific questions, brokers should not have to re-key information found within their BMS.
•    Very few input screens. Traditional portals mimic the screens of the BMS. Because of that approach, they are not very efficient at presenting information in comparison to the streamlined screens available using web development techniques. As a guideline, the ideal number of enterable screens required to maximize efficiency and usage of a company upload solution should be between one and three.
•    Minimal navigation to complete the upload of a record. Extensive navigation is one of the biggest problems of traditional portals. More screens to navigate almost always results in more screens into which data must be entered.  Also, screen navigation adds substantial confusion and effort, specifically for newer brokers.
•    Summarized errors and underwriting rules. As with data entry, brokers should not have to ‘search’ for errors or omissions. Missing and/or error data should be presented in an easy and simple manner so that the broker can quickly correct or complete the entry.
•    Abstraction of the policy administration system. Brokers should not have to concern themselves with the specifics of the policy admin system (other than meeting the data completeness requirements of the company). This is also an advantage to the company, since it allows for minimal broker disruption when changing or replacing policy admin systems.

A poor approach

So what constitutes a poor once-and-done approach?

Obviously any solution that doesn’t take into account the above concepts will not produce the efficiencies for which companies are looking when they approve the IT spend to implement a broker-connectivity solution.

In addition, here are some key points to be considered:
•     Poor response time. Whether it’s the ability to generate a timely (and accurate) quote, or to add or change a current policy efficiently, policyholders are expecting real-time responses and will struggle with brokers who cannot provide them with the appropriate turnaround.  
•     Too many systems. Brokers have systems, carriers have systems and numerous vendors provide interfacing and peripheral systems. If a broker has to think about which system he or she will use next, the efficiency is gone.

Competition

So why can’t the industry come together and build a single solution based on these concepts and attain complete adoption? Because insurers compete; and this is a good thing. Competition amongst insurers will drive better solutions and ultimately better adoption than a single solution. Insurers invest in their solutions and infrastructure to obtain a competitive advantage. As long as their shareholders are looking for increased return on investment, the shared system approach, while appealing in theory, will not receive the support or adoption required to succeed.

Only by measuring a solution compared to its competition, based on the concepts outlined above, and sharing that information with the industry at large can we accurately assess the efficiency of the system and ensure the maximum adoption of once-and-done.  

We are all driving towards the same goal to minimize data re-entry. Like golfers, who start the day with different equipment, skill-levels and knowledge, we will all finish the round. It just depends on the number of strokes it took to get there. Eventually, by focusing on the right concepts, we will hit the proverbial ‘hole in one’ and achieve the true once-and-done model.