Each insurer has its own unique needs, processes, markets andproducts that require flexibility in today's policy-administrationsystem. The constant changes in the P&C insurance industry, inparticular, demand that administration systems be agile andadaptable. 

In response, most policy-administration solution providers nowhighlight the “configurability” of their software. Common claimsinclude speed to market with new products in days versus months,and configuration so easy even a business user can do it. But oneneeds to ask: Could configuration in the hands of business users betoo much of a good thing?

There is no denying that an insurer's business personnel—theunderwriters, product managers and their supporting cast—have theclosest connection to market opportunities. These people are askedto drive profitable growth and provide insight into how that growthwill be achieved.

Then there's IT. Even with a new policy system in place, many ITgroups continue to be charged with managing a tangled mix ofenterprise systems, using most of their time just to maintainthem—with little remaining bandwidth to implement newfunctionality, let alone make nimble adjustments for marketchanges.

Many of today's new breed of policy solutions promise toalleviate the frustration of both the business and IT organizationsby placing configuration tools in the hands of business users foreasy modification and adaptability. It sounds like the idealoption: to enable business users to control their own destiny,respond to opportunities and stay one step ahead of thecompetition. However, before an insurer makes business usersresponsible for system changes, it may want to perform a little duediligence.

First, what is a business user's real objective? Is it directcontrol of the policy system and its product definitions? Or is ita desire for a much more responsive environment that enables theuser to achieve business-driven objectives? How deeply should theuser know (or care) about the intricate details of what needs to bedone within the system and its product definitions to attain thisgoal?

Configurable solutions are still enterprise systems—andflexibility often means more complexity. Recognizing an opportunityand being able to act on it is business agility, while maintainingarchitectural and data integrity are just part of the foundationthat make this agility sustainable and reliable.

The reality is that, for most insurers, the former is the forteof the business group and the latter the domain of IT. Should anyone side dominate in its control, the challenges can stifleresults. Consider empowering both sides to work collaborativelyacross their respective areas of strength to achieve the bestresults.

So, who should do what? The business group knows the market andunderstands the product nuances and adjustments required to takeadvantage of opportunities. IT understands the systems and the needfor rigor and integrity.

When faced with an opportunity for change, the business side isthe best suited to describe it, while IT is the best suited toimplement it (not necessarily news to anyone, since this is how thegroups are aligned today). However, the difference a modern policysystem brings is that product configuration now enables change tobe much more accessible and transparent across these disparategroups.

Perhaps the biggest area of benefit from this transparency isthe significantly reduced “translation” gap. By enabling businessusers to see and understand products in the policy system, IT isnow better able to interpret their intent and validate changes. Nomore time lost to misinterpretation! 

The answer to “who should do what” in a modern policy-systemenvironment varies by insurer based on available skill sets.

Business or system analysts can now be empowered to make some ofthe needed product-definition changes using the system'sproduct-configuration tools without feeling dependent on theircolleagues in IT. However, they will still need (and shouldactually want) IT involvement when the nature of the change impactsinteractions with the company's other systems, thereby ensuringthat the integrity of the data generated by policy transactions isproperly managed across all core systems.

Regardless of who physically makes the change in the system,validation and quality assurance for it becomes the responsibilityof both groups, making change a collaborative effort betweenbusiness and IT.

While the configuration capability offered with modern systemsenables the organization to be responsive, configurability doesn'tnecessarily transform the organization itself. Configurabilitydoes, however, provide the prospect of optimizing business and ITefforts to achieve organizational goals. And product configurationwithin modern policy systems can effectively remove the barriersbetween these two groups—for the benefit of all.