
A new industry analysis urges insurers to replace project-based tech teams with product teams built around underwriting and claims, warning that silos begin with structure, not communication.
A new industry analysis argues that insurance companies should replace project-based technology teams with product teams organized around shared capabilities such as underwriting and claims.
The report, published by an insurance technology consultancy, says organizational silos start with structure rather than communication. When carriers arrange teams by business unit, technology and data practices follow the same vertical pattern. Each unit builds its own systems for similar problems, creating fragmentation that is hard to reverse.
The recommended fix preserves the deep expertise each line of business needs – specialty carriers rely on that depth to attract brokers and clients – while building shared infrastructure underneath. Core processes like underwriting, the report notes, are similar across most segments. A shared team focused on underwriting as a capability can build common tools while still accounting for the unique needs of each business unit.
From a technology perspective, the better model is to build once and deploy many times. The report contrasts this with the traditional project-based approach, where a team assembles for a single initiative, disbands, and the next project starts fresh. A product-based model keeps teams in place over time, owning a platform or business capability. They understand the backlog, the technology environment, and the outcomes they are responsible for.
Data is central to the argument. If data stays fragmented across units, artificial intelligence and other advanced tools become another siloed application rather than a source of value. The report says data engineering should sit inside the product teams, not in a separate function, so that business context and technical execution stay connected.
The analysis warns against common modernization traps. Technology should never be a solution looking for a problem. Carriers should be selective about what they build versus what they buy from vendors. If a capability differentiates the business, building it provides more control. If it supports a standard function, buying is often more efficient.
Human judgment remains essential, the report adds. Automation should free underwriters and business development teams for higher-value work, not replace them. The human decision then feeds back into the model, improving it over time.
The report does not name specific carriers or quantify the potential savings. It positions the product-team shift as a structural change that affects how technology, data, and accountability connect across an insurer's organization.
Prepared with AlphaScala editorial tooling from the source reporting linked above. Indexable analysis may include a cited Alpha Score value. Publishing checks screen each story before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.