
A design agency CEO argues the industry's AI investments fail because they don't start with the people using them. The solution is workflow integration, not automation.
The CEO of Cake & Arrow, a design agency with more than 15 years in insurance, has a message for the industry: your AI investments aren't failing because of the models. They're failing because of the design.
His firm watches the same pattern repeat. An executive team picks a platform, builds a copilot, and rolls it out. Adoption stays low. The blame lands on the users. "Resistant to change" becomes the diagnosis. The CEO calls that wrong. People aren't resistant to tools that help them. They're resistant to tools that make their day harder, add complexity, or are designed to replace them.
The argument matters beyond the insurance conference circuit. Publicly traded insurtech companies – Lemonade, Root, Hippo, and others – have spent heavily on AI. Their stock performance has been mixed. If the CEO is right, the winners will be the ones solving real workflow problems, not the ones churning out automation features.
Agents aren't asking for another tab, login, or disconnected assistant. They're already juggling agency management systems, CRMs, email, spreadsheets, carrier portals, and rating tools. They type the same information into multiple screens. They hunt for context across half a dozen apps.
The CEO calls this a workflow problem, not a single-task productivity problem. AI that writes an email is useful. AI that understands the context behind that email, pulls from the right systems, shows its sources, and lets the human verify – that's something different. That's connective tissue.
His firm spoke directly with agents and brokers for a recent report. What emerged was not resistance. It was resourcefulness. Agents are already experimenting with AI on their own. They draft emails, summarize policies, compare quotes, and pre-read meetings. Some build quiet workarounds because the official tools don't fit how they actually work.
The gap is plain. The industry talks about AI as an automation story – replace the human, cut costs, eliminate messy relationships. Agents, on the other hand, want integration. They want the system to remember who the client is, what changed since the last call, and what needs follow-up. They want to stop re-entering data.
For anyone evaluating insurtech companies, the CEO's framework offers two concrete signals. The first is whether the company invests in design research before building. Does it observe real workflows, listen for friction, and map the invisible work that holds the system together? Or does it start with the technology and hope adoption follows?
The second signal is whether the tool earns trust. AI cannot just generate confident answers. It has to let the user see the source, verify the recommendation, correct errors, and approve what goes to a client. The CEO calls that a design requirement, not a user preference.
Invalidating signals are easier to spot. A company that pitches AI as a replacement for human labor is likely chasing cost cuts, not value. A tool that adds another disconnected interface – another login, another tab – will get ignored. A product that asks agents to trust black-box outputs without verification will breed suspicion, not adoption.
The CEO offers a test. Before any AI investment, ask two questions. First, who is this for and what real friction does it address? Second, does it fit seamlessly into the person's existing workflow? Companies that treat adoption as a post-launch problem, not a design requirement, are likely to repeat the same old mistake – faster and more expensive.
Insurance does not need more AI for the sake of AI. It needs AI that solves actual problems for the people doing the work, in the real flow of their day. The companies that get that right will see the return. The ones that skip the design work will have a lot of expensive software and low usage. The CEO is sure of that – he's watched it happen for 15 years.
Prepared with AlphaScala research tooling and grounded in primary market data: live prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, hedge-fund holdings, and insider activity. Each story is checked against AlphaScala publishing rules before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.