Process Parity is the Bedrock of Reinsurance Automation & I’m Going to Show You Why
So the good news about automation in reinsurance is that companies seem very much, in some way or another, to be coming out of pilot mode. Programmes are being okayed, and leaders are getting a sense of what’s to come. Fantastic! Next thing’s next. But what is that going to be?
According to the Swiss Re Institute’s sigma 01/2026 report, while AI and automation are reshaping the risk landscape, the true differentiator for firms is now operational resilience. As the report notes, the industry is moving toward "human workforce augmentation" rather than full replacement, meaning our digital tools must finally learn to speak the same language as our people. It will be no good to anyone if manual and digital processes are different. They must operate in the exact same way. Let me explain further.
The Manual Mirror
I always find it very interesting when leaders talk to me about their manual operations as some kind of legacy embarrassment to be paved over as quickly as possible. I blame the LinkedIn tech gurus, with all their modernisation jargon! In reality, and this might shock you, your manual workflow is actually your gold standard. Before any kind of automation is implemented, the logic of a claim, from notification to settlement, must be airtight. If a senior claims adjuster can’t explain the decision-making tree on paper, an algorithm certainly shouldn't be making the call.
If your automated STP engine flags a claim as valid using one set of parameters while your manual team rejects it using another, your audit trail evaporates. Hence, the manual mirror. Do not let there be a divergence here. Sort your process, manual or otherwise, and then look at automating it.
Also, Remember That Automation and ‘Digitisation’ are not the Same
These terms are often used interchangeably despite dealing with fairly different avenues. ‘Digitisation’, that is, turning your physical data digital, is the groundwork. Whereas automation uses the structured data to trigger actions. It automates, for want of a better description.
And so what I’m getting at here is that to truly ensure your processes are clear, you must understand that neither digitisation nor automation should replace the human logic required for complex treaty claims. They are simply there to give your experts freedom to apply judgment where it actually matters. With the regular process kept at the centre, you ensure that the technology supports the claim rather than the claim existing purely to serve the technology.
Ah, The ROI of Consistency
Essentially, I know the biggest priorities for many leaders revolve around finances, and there’s nothing wrong with that. We’re all looking out for our businesses, and that’s why I push process parity so hard. According to PwC’s 29th Global CEO Survey (2026), despite massive investment, only 12% of insurance CEOs have seen AI deliver both cost and revenue benefits. Those who see deliverances are the ones who realise that meaningful returns only come when technology is anchored to a standardised, scalable workflow.
And so, if you were to ask me what I’d do to help your company bridge the gap between your manual gold standard and your digital prospects, I’d start by assessing these things:
Identify where adjusters use personal spreadsheets or undocumented workarounds. If it’s not in the official manual process, it shouldn’t be in the code.
Treat your claims process as a series of modular decisions. Whether a human or an AI performs the "Limit Check," the rule must be identical.
Prioritise data fluidity by focusing efforts on making data "machine-ready" at the point of entry (FNOL).
I’ve been supporting companies with their digital challenges for over 27 years now. If you’d like to know more about process parity in line with your own business requirements, do get in touch, and we can have a chat about it.
Sources:
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/press-releases/2026/pwc-2026-global-ceo-survey.html