Straight-through processing starts with the exceptions
A practical way to examine quoting, placement, binding and servicing before automating the insurance workflow.
A connected workflow needs a clear route for the cases that cannot proceed automatically. Start by defining those exceptions, their owners and the evidence required to resolve them.
Where does the transaction stop?
Follow one piece of business from the initial quote request through placement, binding and servicing. At each handoff, ask what the next team must know, which system holds that information, and what happens when it is missing. A fast screen does not create a fast process if somebody still has to copy the result into another system.
Keep the first review narrow. Choose one product and one route to market, then follow completed cases and delayed cases through the same steps. Separate time spent making a decision from time spent waiting for information. That distinction tells you whether the next improvement belongs in the rules, the data exchange or the operating model.
Define the happy path and the exception path together
For each step, document the minimum data required, the checks performed, the decision owner and the system that records the result. Then give each common exception a destination. Missing information should return to the person who can supply it. A case outside agreed authority should go to the appropriate reviewer. A delivery failure should enter a technical recovery queue, rather than appearing to the user as a completed transaction.
An exception needs a reason, an owner and a next action. A queue that only says pending transfers the investigation to whoever opens it next. Capture what failed, which source record was used and what would allow the case to move forward.
Make a retry safe
Connected systems can receive delayed responses, duplicate messages or a second request after a user clicks again. Include these scenarios in the design review. Agree how each transaction is identified, how a receiving system recognises a repeat request and how teams reconcile different statuses across systems.
Ask for a demonstration in which a connection is interrupted after a decision has been recorded but before the response reaches the sender. The important question is whether the workflow can recover without creating a second transaction or losing the original outcome.
Measure completion, not just activity
Report the share of eligible transactions completed without manual intervention, alongside the share of all transactions that were eligible. Otherwise, narrowing eligibility can make the automation rate look better without improving the overall operation.
Track exception volume by reason, time waiting at each handoff, repeat data entry and the age of unresolved cases. Compare the same product and transaction type over time. These measures explain where work is improving and where it is simply moving to a different team.
A useful first workshop
Bring a broker operations lead, an insurer or underwriting representative, and the people responsible for the connected systems. Select a small set of real, appropriately protected cases. Draw the route each one took and identify the first point at which someone had to leave the workflow to finish the job.
The output should be a short list of changes with named owners and a definition of success. Resolve one recurrent handoff, measure what changed, and use that result to choose the next one. That creates a stronger basis for expanding automation than starting with a target percentage alone.