How long should it take to implement an underwriting change? The answer depends on what the change is and what the carrier’s system allows its team to do. Some updates that once required a developer can now be handled directly by authorized business users. For carriers looking to respond faster as risk changes, that can open up room to improve a familiar process.
The short version
- West Point Technologies’ Self-Service lets authorized users make routine underwriting changes without waiting for a developer.
- Changes that require development can move sooner when technical dependencies are identified early.
- Faster implementation can reduce manual workarounds and the time spent writing under outdated rules.
- Testing and client approval remain part of the process, whether the carrier or West Point makes the change.
Which underwriting changes require development?
Eligibility questions, referral rules and authority levels are examples of underwriting controls that a configurable platform can let business users manage. The exact capabilities depend on the platform. With West Point’s Self-Service, authorized client users can adjust those settings through an interface and test the revised product before approving and deploying it. Routine edits can move ahead without waiting for a developer to become available.
Storm shutdown is a good example. When a storm is approaching, a carrier may need to stop binding in a particular area right away. Within our system, an end user can select the product and geography, turn off binding and save the change. Quoting can remain open, but new policies cannot be bound in the affected area. That decision can be put into effect in seconds.
Rates follow a separate process through the carrier’s rating workbook. The client sends us its changes, and we move the revised rate through testing and client approval before deployment. I have received a rate change in the morning and had it in production that night without involving a developer. That was one specific request, but it illustrates why vendor involvement does not necessarily mean a lengthy implementation.
A new data connection requires more work. A carrier may identify a better source of CAT risk exposure data, but if that provider is not integrated with the platform, the connection has to be built before an underwriting rule can use the information. Whether the change needs configuration or development also affects how long the carrier may need a temporary process for the affected business.
The cost of waiting for an underwriting change
A carrier can act on revised guidance before the software is updated, but it may need temporary manual controls. That could mean running a report each morning to identify the previous day’s transactions that need attention, then having staff take action on those items. For as long as that process continues, the business is paying for review and follow-up that an updated system control might have prevented.
Sometimes the carrier continues writing the affected business until the change is made. If underwriting has decided it no longer wants a particular exposure, that delay has a financial consequence.
Updating real-time underwriting controls reduces that dependence on temporary instructions and manual handling. The time saved includes the work needed to manage the business while the change is pending.
Preparing implementation while approvals are pending
Even when a change cannot go live yet, some of the implementation work can move ahead. If the carrier is waiting for regulatory or internal approval, its technology partner may already have enough information to identify dependencies and prepare the work.
We talk with clients regularly about the work they have coming, including changes that are not ready for production. If a planned change will require a new integration, we can identify that dependency and begin mapping the work before the carrier reaches its target date. If the request only requires configuration, we can establish who will make it and what needs to be tested.
Those conversations also reveal requirements beyond the rule itself, such as effects on reporting or notice to agency-facing teams. Otherwise, the carrier may be planning around an approval date while its technology partner is unaware that work will be needed.
Testing and approval within a faster process
Those planning conversations should also establish who will test the underwriting behavior and approve the release. With Self-Service, the client controls configuration, testing, approval and deployment through its authorized users. When West Point makes the change, the client still approves it before production. Establishing those responsibilities early prevents a completed configuration from sitting while someone decides who should review it.
We have had to help correct client changes where the environment was functioning but the underwriting edits allowed outcomes the client had not intended. A technical check would not have caught that. Someone who understands the underwriting requirement has to confirm the behavior before release, whether the configuration was done by the client or by us. Otherwise, time saved during implementation can be lost investigating and correcting the change afterward.
Where is implementation time being spent?
Carrier leadership should have a clear view of where implementation time is spent. Tracing a recent underwriting change separates the time spent doing the work from the time spent waiting and gives leadership something specific to discuss with its technology team or vendor.
Did the change require new code? Who could make it, and how long did it wait for that person? Was there a dependency that could have been identified sooner? These questions help distinguish a limitation of the platform from a delay in planning or ownership.
Implementation turnaround should match how often the business needs to change. If the carrier needs an adjustment every month and the system takes three months to deliver one, the technology is setting the pace. The same concern applies when a label change, a question edit or a new eligibility threshold requires a vendor request.
A carrier that makes few changes may be comfortable with its current system. For one that needs frequent adjustments, a prospective technology partner should be able to demonstrate how those actual changes would be handled. The carrier should know who will do the work and what must happen before release, beyond a general promise of flexibility.
Matching the timeline to the change
The goal is not to make every underwriting change instantaneous. It is to make sure the timeline fits the work involved. With our Self-Service capabilities, authorized client users can manage, test, approve and deploy routine changes themselves. When a change requires rates, integrations or development, our role is to identify dependencies early, keep the work moving and give the carrier a clear path to approval. That combination of control, planning and support helps carriers keep their underwriting rules aligned with the business without trading accuracy for speed.
Ready to Gain More Control Over Insurance Product Changes?
West Point helps small and mid-sized carriers and startups launch products faster, expand into new states, and modernize at a pace that fits their business. Whether you’re bringing a new product to market or transitioning away from a legacy platform, we’re here to help.
