Insurance has always relied heavily on manual processes. Strict regulation, fragmented systems and legacy technology have traditionally made automation difficult, allowing operational work to accumulate across submissions, servicing, claims, reporting and other core functions.
AI has changed what is possible. Workflows that were previously too document-heavy, inconsistent or complex to automate can now be handled reliably across multiple systems. At the same time, increasingly accessible AI models, workflow platforms and low-code tools have made it easier for insurance organizations to experiment and build automation internally.
This accessibility creates an important decision: which automation should an organization build itself, and which should it buy from a specialist provider?
The answer should not be based on whether an internal build is technically possible. It should be based on where ownership creates strategic value, how quickly the business needs results, and where limited technical resources will have the greatest impact.
Build selectively to move faster
Most insurance organizations have far more automation opportunities than they have the capacity to deliver.
Internal technology teams are already balancing core system upgrades, regulatory requirements, security work, transformation programmes and day-to-day business priorities. Every decision to build one automation internally is therefore also a decision to delay something else.
Trying to build every automation opportunity in-house can slow the entire program down. Organizations need to distinguish between the capabilities that genuinely require internal ownership and those where the priority should simply be getting a reliable outcome into production.
Being selective about what to build allows the business to automate more quickly while preserving internal capacity for the technology that matters most strategically.
Speed is now a competitive advantage
Insurance organizations are under growing pressure to reduce operating costs, improve service and respond more quickly to customers and distribution partners.
Manual processes make all three more difficult. They create backlogs, extend turnaround times, increase the risk of errors and force experienced professionals to spend valuable time on administrative work.
Organizations that automate effectively can process more business, respond faster and grow without increasing headcount at the same rate. They can also give underwriters, brokers, claims professionals and operations teams more time to focus on work that requires expertise and judgement.
Those that take years to move automation projects through internal roadmaps risk falling behind competitors that are able to deploy sooner and improve continuously.
Delaying automation has a measurable cost
The cost of delay can be estimated by multiplying the monthly cost of a manual process by the number of months it will take an internal build to reach production.
A process costing $100,000 per month, for example, creates $900,000 in continued operational cost over a nine-month development cycle. That is before accounting for delays, maintenance costs or the value of other technology work displaced by the project.
Internal automation projects often take longer than expected because they compete with broader technology priorities. Timelines can extend as new complexities emerge, resources are reassigned or proofs of concept require additional work before they can operate reliably in production.
Throughout that period, the organization continues absorbing the cost of manual effort, limited capacity, slower service and avoidable errors.
The question is therefore not only what it will cost to build the automation. It is also what the business will continue to lose while it waits.
Buy the automation the business needs now
Processes such as submission intake, renewals, email triage, claims routing, loss-run processing and bordereaux management are essential to operational performance. They directly affect cost, speed, accuracy, capacity and service quality.
Automating this work can reduce manual effort, improve turnaround times, lower operating costs, and allow the business to grow without adding headcount at the same rate.
These workflows may not differentiate one insurance organization from another, but their performance has a significant impact on the business. They should not remain in development backlogs simply because internal teams have more strategically important work to deliver.
For common operational processes, the value usually comes from the outcome rather than from owning the underlying technology. Buying proven automation can therefore be the fastest and most effective way to get that value.
Buying shortens the path to value
Buying from a specialist provider gives an organization access to established technology, infrastructure and delivery expertise without first having to build those capabilities internally.
A provider can remain focused on getting the automation into production without competing against core system projects, regulatory work or the organization’s wider transformation roadmap.
That dedicated focus can significantly reduce the time between identifying an opportunity and achieving an operational result. Manual effort, processing costs and backlogs can be reduced sooner, while internal teams remain focused on the technology that most needs their attention.
“I’ve seen so many internal automation projects stall because teams are balancing competing priorities. Automation is becoming increasingly urgent as organizations look to protect margins and grow more efficiently, but it can be difficult to prioritise alongside regulatory requirements, core system projects and other immediate business needs. While automation projects remain in the backlog, operations teams continue working manually, and the organization continues bearing the cost.
“The benefit of partnering with a specialist provider isn’t just access to the technology. You gain a team dedicated to getting your use case into production and making sure it delivers the results you set out to achieve.”
Sasha Haco, CEO and Co-founder, Unitary
Buying comes with performance guarantees
A specialist provider can be held accountable for defined success rates, reliability, accuracy and service levels. These expectations can be set out contractually through clear SLAs, giving the organization greater confidence that performance will be maintained and issues resolved quickly.
The organization is not simply buying access to technology. It is buying a defined level of performance, backed by contractual commitments.
Buying turns fluctuating costs into fixed, predictable spend
Internal builds can carry uncertain long-term costs. Model usage, cloud infrastructure, monitoring, support and human intervention may all increase as volumes grow and additional complexity emerges. Estimates based on a small pilot may not reflect the true cost of operating the automation reliably at scale.
Buying replaces much of that uncertainty with a fixed, predictable fee. Rather than managing fluctuating infrastructure, model and support costs directly, the organization pays an agreed amount for the required outcome.
The provider takes responsibility for absorbing and managing those underlying costs, giving the business greater certainty over what the automation will cost as volumes fluctuate and usage grows.
Build what differentiates the business
Buying common operational automation allows internal teams to focus on the capabilities that contain proprietary knowledge, intellectual property or decision logic that directly contributes to competitive advantage.
These may include:
- Pricing models
- Underwriting appetite and decision logic
- Proprietary risk-scoring capabilities
- Product design and portfolio management technology
- Unique placement or distribution capabilities
These technologies shape how an organization selects risk, prices business, develops products, serves customers and performs in the market. Owning them can provide greater control over the underlying data, intellectual property and development roadmap.
Where technology represents a genuine source of differentiation, there is a strong case for building and maintaining it internally.
The value of ownership must outweigh its cost
Building internally requires far more than the initial development work. It creates an ongoing responsibility for testing, monitoring, infrastructure, maintenance, support and continuous improvement.
Insurance workflows also change over time. Documents are updated, business rules evolve, systems are replaced, new edge cases emerge and regulatory requirements shift. An internal team must be prepared to support the automation throughout its operational life, not simply deliver a working first version.
That investment can be justified when ownership protects or strengthens a genuine source of competitive advantage.
It is harder to justify when the workflow solves a common operational problem shared across the market. In those cases, the organization takes on a permanent technical responsibility without gaining a meaningful strategic asset in return.
The stronger the strategic value of ownership, the stronger the case for building.
A practical build-versus-buy framework
The right decision will vary by workflow. The following considerations can help organizations determine where internal ownership is justified and where buying may provide a faster route to value.
A useful starting question is: Would owning this technology make the business meaningfully more competitive?
If the answer is yes, the capability may justify internal development.
If the value lies primarily in reducing cost, increasing capacity or improving turnaround times, buying proven technology may be the faster and more effective route.
Build for competitive advantage. Buy for operational impact.
Insurance organizations cannot afford to leave high-impact operational workflows sitting on an automation roadmap indefinitely. Every month of delay means continued manual effort, higher operating costs, slower service and less capacity to grow.
The build-versus-buy decision should therefore be based not only on whether an organization can build something itself, but on where ownership creates real strategic value and how quickly the business needs results.
Technology that contains proprietary expertise, decision logic or intellectual property may justify the investment of an internal build. But for common operational workflows such as submissions, renewals, claims triage and bordereaux, the priority should be getting reliable automation into production as quickly as possible.
Buying proven automation from a specialist provider is often the most effective way to do that. It can shorten the path to value, reduce the cost of delay and provide clearer accountability for performance, maintenance and ongoing costs.
The strongest strategy is therefore selective: buy the operational automation the business needs now, while focusing internal teams on building the capabilities that genuinely differentiate the organization and create long-term competitive advantage.
Trying to decide which processes on your automation roadmap should be bought and which are worth building internally? Let’s talk it through.
