2011 PIA System & Transaction Agency Research Survey

PIA STAR Survey—
What agents say about their companies’ technology
It’s called “interface” for a reason. When an insurance company presents interactive technology to its agents, this becomes the “face” they see when transacting day-to-day business. Agent-facing technology can either make people’s work life easy—or frustrate them as they try to do their job.

PIA finds that “Easy, intuitive technology” ranks among the top 10 factors by which agents judge an agency-company relationship—out of 35 different criteria PIA measured for importance to agents (Source: PIA Benchmark Survey). Comparing agents’ “top 10” needs to their companies’ real-world execution, PIA found one of the biggest gaps occurs in technology (Source: average performance scores PIA Company Performance Surveys).

Technology also comes up frequently when agents talk about individual companies’ strengths and improvement needs. It’s the third biggest topic of discussion, after pricing and products (Source: agent comments, PIA Company Performance Surveys). For every two comments where agents name some aspect of technology as a company’s “main strength,” they make three requests for some sort of improvement.

For all these reasons, PIA’s ongoing Company Performance Survey project decided to study agency-company interface, along with other related technologies that agents use, in the all-new System & Transaction Agency Research survey conducted in 2011. This report will focus on comments agents provided in the STAR survey.

For each company whose technology they rated, agents were asked to name their favorite thing—and one thing they’d like changed—about that carrier’s automated transactions. When commenting, agents had just completed a detailed scoring process for all transactions, all lines.

STAR scores rate (on a 1-to-10 scale) how well agents say their business needs are met by company-enabled transactions. The overall average score for all automated transactions, all lines, was 6.6.

PIA grouped agents’ comments into 14 subject areas. For each topic, you’ll see how often this transaction or functionality is someone’s favorite thing about a company’s automation—compared to how often someone wants it changed (Source: aggregate comment-topic tallies, PIA STAR Survey). Agents’ actual words about each topic also are quoted—pro and con. Note: where similar comments appear, no two describe the same company.

Easy, intuitive technology

Comment category	Favorite thing about company’s technology	Company should change
Ease of use	64 percent	36 percent

Often, agents’ STAR comments sum up the respondent’s total impression of the carrier’s technology. These form the “ease of use” category (18 percent of all comments; second most frequent topic). By not mentioning any specific type of transaction, these observations closely resemble agents’ “top-10” priority of “easy, intuitive technology.”

Viewing this category’s positive comments side-by-side with the ones seeking change, we see how distinct a contrast agents might experience daily, in the overall “ease” of interacting with their various companies. Starting with the positive:

There is nothing NOT to like about [company]. Awesome system that keeps getting better—unsurpassed in this agency.
All their automated transactions are easy to use and a great help.
All transactions available at [agency portal] are easy to make. A lot of information is available on the website to help manage the agency and the insured’s policies.

Comments that focus on change are apt to call for a total revamp:

I do not like the system at all. It is cumbersome, slow and not at all logical.
Need to scrap entire system and use something similar to other carriers.
Automation from the Stone Age, should be redesigned from the ground up.

Some comments explain why a company’s navigation is easy:

When you link over, you see the entire policy, billing, claims, etc. and need only pick the section you are looking for.
Once you are in the policy number, you can choose to go to billing, claims, policy inquiry or changes.

And some make specific suggestions:

When searching for a policyholder, allow for a name when searching.
User-friendly error messages so that we can resolve issues without [making a phone call] would be great.
Many, many screens. Don’t waste my time.

Differences in speed are especially obvious to users. “Favorite” comments:

Website quick and easy.
The ability to perform a task and e-mail, fax or print documents immediately for the client.

But slow sites elicit frustration:

Looking up on the [company website] takes a long time to load.
Get rid of the hourglass and speed up the system.
Slow to change screens.

Rating, quoting and issuing new business

Comment category	Favorite thing about company’s technology	Company should change
Rating/quoting new business	73 percent	27 percent
Integration with comparative raters	33 percent	67 percent
Policy issuance	73 percent	27 percent

By letting agents give prospects a definite price, rating and quoting processes keep new business flowing onto a carrier’s books. If these don’t work well, the company risks being passed over for an easier, speedier alternative—regardless of how competitive its pricing might be.

Consumers’ expectations of getting a quick quote are raised—perhaps unrealistically so—by advertising. Commercials urge a profitable chat that lasts just “15 minutes.” In a perky saleswoman’s hands, something resembling a TV remote instantly calls up comparative premiums from various big-name insurers. Fair or not, these ads set standards by which agents may be judged by.

Comments about rating and quoting new business make up the most numerous group (19 percent) of agent responses to the STAR survey. When a company’s process is good, it’s likely to be an agent’s “favorite thing.” Comments run about three-to-one on the positive side, sounding like this:

Quoting—very clear, easy and fast.
Rating—quotes always accurate, fast and easy.
Great layout . . . easy to flow right through the quote.
New rating system is nice—very clear and it now gives the billing options.

But overall, agents find that rate-quote systems meet their business needs less well than any other carrier technology. Automated rate-quote transactions scored only 5.8 on the 10-point STAR scale, compared to 6.6 for all types of agency-company transaction, combined (and 7.5 for third-party personal lines premium-comparison systems).

Rate-quote automation for personal auto and homeowners scores somewhat better than the 5.8 average, both at 6.3. But some other lines (commercial property, CGL and personal umbrella) receive the lowest technology scores recorded on the STAR survey (5.4). Here are some changes agents call for:

Quoting should not take 45 minutes!
Homeowner quoting process needs to be easier—less info required.
Easier access and flow to the rating system—too many steps.
Very cumbersome to quote homeowners because for every quote the agent has to call underwriting to get clearance to sell.
Too much back and forth, info does not flow in the system so you need to enter autos and licenses and birthdays over and over.

Premium-comparison systems. It’s a small wonder agents say multi-company rating systems meet their business needs (with a STAR score of 7.5 for personal lines). These products let agents use the same basic set of data (not duplicate entry) to solicit rates from multiple companies simultaneously. Over half (57 percent) of agents taking part in the STAR survey use premium-comparison systems—up from 44 percent three years ago. (Source: 2008 PIA Technology Survey, where 69 percent of users said they’re “much more likely” to rate and quote insurers whose rates are available via a comparison system.)

Agents like how fast these products can return a company’s quote and transfer policyholder data to the successful carrier:

Rates quick through [vendor brand name] comparative rater.
The carry-over from [vendor name] to [company name] works well.

Most changes that agents request say the company should work (or work better) with a vendor:

Carrier needs rating capability through raters.
Terrible integration with [vendor name] rating; holds up entire process by several minutes each quote.
Get on [vendor name] and fix [personal auto] rating that gets MVR after the policy is issued. A major problem [because] premium changes and some insureds decline the policy and [it] needs to be cancelled.
Would like to be brought directly into my quote from the [rating system name] as opposed to having to log in and find my quote.

Quote-to-issue. Ideally, a quote turns into new business and a policy is issued. Here are some more “favorites” describing what agents like to see:

Ability to quote with easy online access to underwriting guidelines.
Quoting and receiving a full proposal to send to the insured.
Option to quote multiple deductibles on one quote proposal.
Love that you don’t have to re-enter everything for a package quote.
Quote/activate policy. There is one system for both. When you are done with the quote, you can issue the policy if the insured accepts the offer.
[We’re] able to issue policy right away.
Policy issuance. And, the quote screens are excellent.
Being able to issue policy on line.

Policy changes, renewals and activity alerts

Comment category	Favorite thing about company’s technology	Company should change
Endorsements, changes	56 percent	44 percent
Renewal process	89 percent	11 percent
Carrier activity alerts	50 percent	50 percent

Policies (as every agent knows) undergo an ongoing series of changes.

Sometimes, clients ask about hypothetical changes or choices even before they decide to purchase the policy; frequently, mid-term changes are needed to keep policy information and coverage needs up to date; and sometimes customers want changes at renewal. Here’s the type of functionality agents like:

Adding a vehicle—immediate rating.

Being able to quote changes is very helpful.
Endorsements are good, [we] can do a “what if” for rating.
Checking on endorsement requests. The way the transactions are listed is very good and easy.
Being able to make changes to the policy ourselves.
All changes are easy to process.
I love [company name] auto transactions. I get the premium right there and I know it’s been done. I don’t have to wait months before receiving an endorsement.
Every change or policy payment automatically prints off a receipt of that transaction. This has eliminated any errors or misunderstandings.

Historically, endorsements sometimes have lagged rating on carriers’ priority list. So, it’s great to see that endorsement automation actually out-scores that of rate-quote (6.3 vs. 5.8). Endorsements exhibit a boost in functionality for personal auto (6.9) and homeowners (6.7) over other lines (as does rate-quote). Still, some carriers appear lacking in this technology:

[Should be] able to process homeowners and commercial changes on line.
Add endorsements and changes to site.

They really need to increase the number of changes that can be done online. They are way behind the other companies.

Renewals. In general, renewals seem to flow smoothly. Agents like:

Issuing endorsements. The ability to click one button that “applies changes to the renewal term” is a great feature.

Access to copy of actual renewal decs.

Alerts. What with customer self-service options, company service centers, and even multiple staff members helping clients in their own office, agents sometimes fear they’ll miss something. Some companies have adopted a proactive approach that agents seem to like (although it’s not a transaction that was scored in the STAR survey). Comments either single out a company’s activity alerts as the agent’s favorite technology—or ask a carrier to institute them: Some “favorites”:

Transaction notifications.

The daily [company name] alerts screen that pops up each morning on the screen advises us of all transactions for all clients.

They send claims info by e-mail. You don’t have to go search for it on their website.

Real Time/download (and upload)

Comment category	Favorite thing about company’s technology	Company should change
Real Time functionality	40 percent	60 percent
Download	33 percent	67 percent

Real Time usage is up, with 68 percent of STAR survey respondents saying they use Real Time. Usage has grown by three percent a year since 2007, when PIA first asked this question (Source: PIA Technology Surveys).

Moreover, Real Time is becoming the primary personal lines workflow in offices that use it. Over half (53 percent) of agencies with Real Time say they begin 40 percent or more of their personal-lines interactions with carriers from their own management system (or rating system)—the definition of a Real Time transaction.

Significantly, this 53 percent (the most consistent Real Time users) say their carriers’ technology meets their business needs better (a STAR score of 7.3) than agents who start the bulk of their personal lines transactions by going to carrier websites (a STAR score of 6.8).

Comments show exactly how Real Time helps save time and eliminate duplicate entry:

Real time rating—data transfers seamlessly into [company name] system.
The fact that you can do the endorsement from within [name of management system] by “Real Time” and complete the activity on the exit.
New business Real Time rating—once and done, ease of doing business, fast!
Real Time billing inquiry works and link to make payment is fast.

Lack of Real Time functionality, especially to consistent users, can seem like an imposition:

None of the important transactions—payments and endorsements—are truly automated. You must go out to THEIR website to initiate and cannot use your Real Time.
You cannot do endorsements. You must go to [carrier’s] site. Waste of time.
[Want] the ability to pick the type of transaction—endorsement, payment, policy inquiry before leaving [agency management system name] via “Real Time.”

Some agents say the one thing they want a company to fix is to add Real Time:

No Real Time available to us.
Participate in [management system vendor’s] “Real Time” transactions.
Two words: [vendor brand name] “Real Time.”

Real Time still is used far more consistently in personal lines than commercial lines. Only 23 percent of Real Time users say they start 40 percent or more of their commercial-lines transactions using Real Time (compared to 53 percent who do so for personal lines). Some agents call for more and better commercial-lines functionality:

Improve commercial rating—it still does not allow you to complete a quote entirely in Real Time, most times.
[Want] ability to pull all vehicles from our system instead of having to input to rate.
[Want] Real Time endorsement processing for commercial lines.

Download. The all-industry Get Real Time campaign, which PIA supports, considers Real Time and download as complementary parts of the ideal “round trip” that data makes, as it flows from agency to carrier and back into the agency’s management system. Both types of transactions need to work well for agencies’ business needs to be ideally met. Download earned an overall STAR score of 6.1, compared to 6.6 for all carrier transactions combined.

Agents appreciate the value of successful download because it meets their business needs by saving time and effort:

[Personal lines] download—saves a lot of input.
Policy inquiry—we download so it makes it easy to pull a copy of the dec page when needed.
I strongly like their direct-bill commission download.

And they want more download for commercial lines:

Have liability policies download into the agency management system.

One unusually lengthy comment vents general frustration at the fact that carriers don’t always fully enable the efficiencies that today’s technology permits:

“Most of us [agents] have management systems capable of uploading and downloading. Companies are using it for downloads and started to use it for uploads until they discovered the company website and the “cheap labor pool” ... [i.e.] the agent’s staff and [required] that the agent use the company website to make changes, etc. This is a short-sighted savings because it adds to the agency expense and reduces the time we can spend on marketing.”

Inquiries, claims and billing/payment technology

Comment category	Favorite thing about company’s technology	Company should change
Policy detail inquiries	73 percent	27 percent
Claims status/loss reports	43 percent	57 percent
Billing/payments	53 percent	47 percent

Technology that lets agents retrieve information, often for immediate customer-service purposes, meets their business needs better than some other types of carrier transactions. Keeping in mind that carriers’ transactions earn an overall STAR score of 6.6, note that billing inquiries rate 7.3, policy detail inquiries 7.0 and claims inquiries 6.7.

Quick and robust access to information can be an agent’s favorite thing:

Being able to answer customer’s questions right away with their system.
Easy access to policy decs, home inspections and policy details.
Being able to access actual declarations page so quickly and efficiently makes [company name] a pleasure to work with.

Claims/loss runs. A surprising number of agent comments involve automation in the claims area. First, what agents like:

Their claims look-up is easy and well-organized.
Reporting claim online—easy and [we] still can take care of it on behalf of the insured.
Claim history—great detail.

Agents also have a number of specific requests:

[Want] new loss reporting via Real Time.
More information in the claims look-up.
More info on claims in notes.
Reports ... on any given claim are confusing [and] do not follow any particular order. What agents and customers need is a claim history report which would include the bills submitted, the date submitted and what the company paid towards each bill.
[Want company] to provide better claims experience information. They have not been able to provide detailed claims runs for our program.
Claims history only goes back one year.... We need to look back three to five years for surcharge and rating questions.

Billing/payments. As noted above, transactions that help keep premiums flowing in rate relatively high with agents. Besides billing inquiries (7.3), agents also scored “make-payment” transactions (6.9) above the overall transaction average of 6.6.

Some suggested changes:

Billing is a little hard to follow.
It would be nice to look up the billing page, then click a button and have a new window open and just submit a payment from there.
When making a payment, it would be nice for the system to take you directly to the insured’s payment screen without the need of a policy number from within “Real Time.”
[Want to] be able to search by name for billing info on the home page.
Enable agent to note file of policyholder payment received, to prevent cancellation.
Billing is not always reliable ... and we can’t process credit card payments online.
Online billing inquiry needs to be updated. I wasn’t able to find out when the next payment is due or when the last bill was sent out.
[Want] ability to see future installments due.
Billing look-up is terrible, hard to read and frequently inaccurate.

STAR gets agents’ message out. What you’ve seen here is just a small sampling of all the comments agents made. Input from their own agents will be available to every company included in the STAR survey.

This year’s STAR results have been compiled and reported as part of PIA’s ongoing Company Performance Survey project. Project goals include: gather and publish information on agent-company trends, provide carriers feedback from their agents, inform PIA members about company performance and recognize excellence in meeting agent’s business needs.

Back to 2011 STAR Survey index