Insurers have spent years investing in transformation, yet many still rely on processes and systems that make routine activity harder than it should be.
Data moves between teams through manual handoffs, reporting needs reconciling and outdated platforms continue to support critical operations. At the same time, firms are introducing AI and technology into an environment that is already complex.
Putting further emphasis on process simplification, Lloyd’s decision to move away from the original Blueprint Two programme is focused on introducing common data standards and incremental technology modernisation. Across the market, insurers are now asking: where should modernisation efforts go now?
While the answer will be different across firms, there are several areas where outdated processes and technology continue to restrict how quickly insurers can respond, how confidently they can use their data and how efficiently specialist teams can work.
Start with the data
Modernisation quickly loses value if the underlying data is difficult to access or inconsistent. Insurance functions work with large volumes of data across underwriting, claims, actuarial, finance and risk; problems emerge when these teams are working with different definitions, separate datasets, or processes that require information to be repeatedly extracted and adjusted before it can be used.
With poor data, teams will find it more difficult to understand exposure, validate assumptions, explain movements and respond quickly to senior leaders or regulators.
Recent stress-testing activity has further reinforced the importance of being able to mobilise data quickly under pressure. DyGIST required participating firms to respond to changing scenarios, reassess exposures and make decisions as events developed. When reviewing the exercise, insurers should consider how easily they can access the information.
Improving data architecture, ownership, and consistency can remove significant friction before a firm considers more sophisticated technology.
Review the processes around core systems
Replacing a platform can be a major undertaking, particularly when it supports reserving, modelling, forecasting, claims or regulatory reporting. Continuing to work with an outdated system also carries a cost. Insurers should now assess whether the processes around these systems still work effectively.
Problems can accumulate gradually: a legacy platform might require extensive manual intervention before data can move into finance; an actuarial model may still be technically sound while the surrounding validation and reporting process consumes days of specialist time; or a claims system may work as intended but make it difficult to connect operational information with wider management reporting.
When these problems arise over time, it can be easy for teams to accept them as part of business as usual operations. However, when considering their modernisation efforts, insurers should look at where their teams are adopting repeated workarounds rather than addressing the limitations of a system.
Operational resilience needs to be built into modernisation
Technology change also affects an insurer’s operational risk profile. Cloud platforms, outsourced services and specialist technology providers can improve capability quickly, but they also create dependencies that firms need to understand and manage. The PRA has continued to focus on operational and cyber resilience during 2026/27, including firms’ reliance on material third parties. New requirements covering operational incident and material third-party reporting take effect in March 2027.
When approaching modernisation projects, firms need a clear view of where critical services depend on external providers, how data moves between internal and third-party systems and how operations would continue during a disruption. Contracts and registers form part of that work, although resilience ultimately depends on whether the organisation understands the dependency well enough to manage an incident when it occurs.
Be selective about automation and AI
AI and automation are already changing actuarial, finance and operational activity, and there are clear opportunities to reduce repetitive work or analyse information more efficiently.
The strongest use cases tend to start with a defined problem, such as a time-consuming process or information that is difficult to analyse consistently. Technology can then be assessed against the particular problem. Importantly, introducing automation into an inconsistent process is unlikely to resolve the underlying weakness. The same applies to AI if data quality, ownership or review processes have not been addressed first.
Insurers also need to understand who remains accountable for automated or AI-assisted output, particularly where it feeds into modelling, reporting or decisions with financial or customer consequences.
Modernise how teams work, as well as technology
Some of the most persistent problems span functions rather than a particular system. Actuarial, finance, risk, underwriting, and operations can all work effectively within their own processes while still creating friction where information or responsibility passes between them.
Modernisation provides an opportunity to review these handoffs, clarifying who owns information, removing duplicated activity and addressing processes that have developed around old organisational structures.
However, this also raises needs for further capabilities in teams. New systems change the skills required, while automation can shift experienced people away from production activity and towards analysis, challenge and decision support. Firms need to consider that change early enough for the operating model to evolve alongside the technology.
Where should insurers start?
Most insurers will have a long list of systems and processes that could be improved, but attempting to address them all at once only creates another programme that is difficult to govern and harder to deliver.
A practical starting point is to identify where the organisation is experiencing the greatest friction today. Look at processes that repeatedly require manual intervention, information that takes too long to produce, systems that restrict change and dependencies that are poorly understood.
The priority should then reflect the risk and business value involved, rather than the age of the technology alone.
Brighter Consultancy works with insurers across finance, actuarial, risk and transformation to understand how existing processes and systems are operating, identify where modernisation will have the greatest impact and support change through implementation.
If you are reviewing your modernisation priorities, speak to us to see how we can support.
