702 agents
participated in the 2026 Ivans connectivity survey
The online survey was completed between April and May 2026 and covered technology use, carrier connectivity preferences, and workflow pain points. Participation was voluntary.
Industry Problem Brief · Insurance
Agency data lives across spreadsheets and disconnected systems.
Client, policy, and activity information may live in separate tools, so renewal and servicing work relies on manual coordination.
Concept · Research-based
This is an industry analysis, not a client result. It separates published research from operating hypotheses that must be tested against an organization’s own workflows and data.
01 / The central question
The target is not one giant database. It is controlled continuity: staff should know which record is authoritative, what information can be reused, who may access it, and what remains outstanding across agency and carrier workflows.
A 2026 agency-carrier connectivity survey reports that repeated data entry remains a prominent workflow concern for its respondents. That is a useful industry signal, but each agency still needs to map its own management system, carrier interfaces, permissions, and servicing process before an integration is proposed.
Industry evidence
74%
named re-keying as their top workflow pain point
This is a respondent-reported finding from the Applied Systems/Ivans 2026 survey. It describes the survey sample, not every independent agency or every carrier workflow.
98%
said they re-key data that already exists in their AMS
The report's published preview reports this issue among survey respondents. It points to a specific data-reuse and connectivity question that should be tested in each agency's environment.
The Applied Systems/Ivans survey is an industry-provider survey of 702 voluntary independent-agent respondents. Its findings are useful directional evidence, not an independent audit of all agencies. Re-keying may be caused by carrier-specific requirements, data-quality checks, unsupported interfaces, permissions, or workflow choices; the cause must be established before automation.
02 / Operating model
Follow the work, not just the software.
This is a simplified discovery map. The actual sequence, roles, systems, and exceptions must be documented with the organization.
Capture client and risk information
Collect the information needed for an authorized quote, policy service, endorsement, renewal, or other agency task. Identify the origin and date of each material field.
Establish the authoritative record
Determine which agency management system or approved record is authoritative for each data category. Preserve identifiers and avoid creating parallel records without a reconciliation rule.
Validate and prepare
Check required fields, format, source, and completeness. Distinguish missing information from information that is not applicable or requires licensed review.
Submit through an approved channel
Send the appropriate data to carrier portals or supported integration endpoints under the agency's permissions, carrier requirements, and contractual terms.
Track response and exceptions
Record the submission state, carrier questions, missing items, assigned owner, due date, and the next client or internal action. Keep the evidence of material changes.
Service, renew, and oversee
Coordinate renewals, documents, endorsements, client requests, and management reporting with role-appropriate access and an audit trail for relevant actions.
03 / Failure patterns to test
Where the operating model may break down.
These patterns are hypotheses, not statements about every organization in this industry. Each one includes a signal to look for and a way to validate it.
The same information is re-entered across systems
Signal to look for
Staff copy client, exposure, location, vehicle, property, or other risk fields from the AMS into carrier portals or documents.
Why it matters
Re-entry consumes staff attention and creates opportunities for transcription differences. It may still be necessary where a carrier requires additional validation or a supported integration is unavailable.
How to test it
Observe a representative submission and record each repeated field, its source, destination, reason for re-entry, validation step, and correction history.
No clear field-level source of truth exists
Signal to look for
Different systems show different values, and staff are unsure which one should be corrected or trusted.
Why it matters
A single system may not be authoritative for every field. Without field ownership and update rules, integrations can propagate stale or incorrect data.
How to test it
Build a field-level data map showing system of record, authorized editor, update frequency, and conflict-resolution rule for each material data category.
Submission status is not visible across the team
Signal to look for
Open work is tracked in email, spreadsheets, carrier portals, personal reminders, and the AMS without a consistent queue view.
Why it matters
Managers may not see the blocker, owner, or next action without asking several people. A status label alone may also hide what is required to move work forward.
How to test it
Sample open submissions and identify their stage, external dependency, blocker, owner, last update, due date, and evidence of completion.
Renewals and servicing tasks rely on individual reminders
Signal to look for
Preparation, client contact, carrier questions, and documentation are managed in separate calendars or memory-based workflows.
Why it matters
Renewal work involves multiple steps and dependencies. A single reminder may not show whether the client, account manager, carrier, or another party is responsible for the next action.
How to test it
Map a sample renewal backwards from effective date and identify milestones, owners, triggers, dependencies, and exception handling.
Operational visibility and data protection are designed separately
Signal to look for
A dashboard or shared spreadsheet exposes more client or policy information than each role needs, or material changes are difficult to reconstruct.
Why it matters
Efficiency improvements must preserve role-appropriate access, traceability, secure sharing, and applicable retention obligations. Integration can expand the number of systems and vendors handling sensitive information.
How to test it
Review roles, permissions, exports, audit records, vendor access, incident procedures, retention, and the business reason for each data flow.
04 / Business implications
Understand the cost before choosing the fix.
The consequences below are possible operational effects. Their presence and materiality must be established through workflow observation and business data.
Staff time is spent moving data rather than resolving exceptions
Repeated entry can shift effort toward copying and checking fields. The actual time and error impact should be measured in the agency's process rather than assumed from a sector survey.
Work status is harder to reconstruct
When submission, carrier response, renewal, and service records are spread across tools, handoffs can depend on personal inboxes and manual updates.
A new integration can increase risk if controls are weak
Connecting systems expands data movement. Without clear permissions, field mapping, logs, and vendor review, automation may duplicate or expose information rather than improve control.
05 / Options considered
Choose the smallest intervention that addresses the verified constraint.
Technology is one possible response. Sometimes the right first step is clearer ownership, better operating rules, or more disciplined use of tools already in place.
Map the data before selecting an integration
Consider when
Use this when staff report re-entry or conflicting records but the exact systems, fields, and cause have not been documented.
Prerequisites
Identify the AMS, carrier interfaces, comparative raters, document stores, email flows, field owners, and supported integration methods.
Important caution
Do not assume every carrier portal or AMS exposes an API or permits automated interaction. Confirm technical and contractual permissions.
Improve the workflow inside current systems
Consider when
Use this when the main issue is ownership, queue visibility, renewal timing, or incomplete status rather than a technical data-transfer gap.
Prerequisites
Agree work stages, required fields, owner, due date, exception categories, and management review cadence.
Important caution
Avoid creating a second shadow system that staff must update alongside the AMS.
Implement permission-aware data exchange
Consider when
Use this when repeated entry is verified and the relevant systems support authorized data import, export, API, or other stable connectivity.
Prerequisites
Define field mapping, identity resolution, validation, error queues, least-privilege access, logging, retention, and vendor responsibilities.
Important caution
Do not silently overwrite source records or bypass carrier access controls, terms, or required review steps.
Create a controlled operations view
Consider when
Use this when authorized managers need a reliable view of submission aging, renewals, unresolved requests, or workload across teams.
Prerequisites
Use reconciled source data, role-based access, consistent status definitions, timestamp rules, and a named owner for the view.
Important caution
A dashboard is not a system of record. Display data freshness and source context, and avoid exposing unnecessary non-public information.
06 / Discovery questions
What should be established before a build?
These questions help turn a general industry hypothesis into a specific, testable operating problem.
Which system is authoritative for each client, policy, risk, activity, and document field?
Evidence to inspect
AMS configuration, field map, data dictionary, duplicate-record policy, and ownership matrix.
Where is information re-entered, and why is each repetition required?
Evidence to inspect
Observed submission walkthrough, field-level re-entry log, carrier requirements, and supported interface documentation.
Which carrier and AMS interfaces are approved and technically supported?
Evidence to inspect
Vendor documentation, API terms, credentials model, integration contracts, and carrier-specific workflow requirements.
How are submissions, renewals, and service requests assigned and escalated?
Evidence to inspect
Queue definitions, task ownership, effective-date calendars, escalation rules, and sample work records.
Which activities require licensed professional judgment, client approval, or carrier confirmation?
Evidence to inspect
Agency procedures, authority matrix, carrier agreements, review steps, and documented approval records.
Who can view, edit, export, or transmit each category of non-public information?
Evidence to inspect
Role matrix, access logs, vendor inventory, third-party agreements, retention rules, and security procedures.
07 / Measures to baseline
Define the measure before setting a target.
A useful measure has a clear numerator, denominator, time window, source, and owner. Baselines should be agreed before implementation.
Repeated data-entry touches
Definition
Count of manual re-entry events for a defined set of fields in a representative workflow or submission cohort.
Interpretation guardrail
Separate required re-validation from avoidable duplicate entry. Count fields and workflows consistently.
Submission cycle time by stage
Definition
Elapsed time between clearly defined agency and carrier workflow milestones.
Interpretation guardrail
Separate agency-controlled time from carrier or client waiting time. Do not attribute all elapsed time to agency performance.
First-pass submission completeness
Definition
Share of submissions accepted into the next defined stage without a return for missing or inconsistent required information.
Interpretation guardrail
Classify carrier-specific requests, underwriting questions, and changes in risk information separately from preventable data errors.
Renewal task completion by milestone
Definition
Share of agreed renewal preparation and follow-up tasks completed by their assigned dates.
Interpretation guardrail
Define which milestones depend on clients, carriers, or external documents and report blocked tasks separately.
Queue aging and unresolved blockers
Definition
Number and age of open items by stage, owner, blocker type, and next action.
Interpretation guardrail
Use role-appropriate data and avoid treating every open item as overdue when a valid external dependency exists.
Access and audit exceptions
Definition
Count of review findings involving inappropriate access, missing change records, or unapproved data transfers in the scoped workflow.
Interpretation guardrail
Use an approved security and compliance review process. This metric does not itself certify regulatory compliance.
08 / A controlled way to test
Start with one workflow. Expand only when the evidence supports it.
The sequence below is a proposed evaluation method, not a fixed delivery timeline or a guarantee of results.
Map one representative workflow
Select a submission, renewal, or service process and trace its data from first capture to completion. Record systems, fields, owners, and external dependencies.
Expected working output
Current-state data-flow map, manual-touchpoint log, and list of verified friction points.
Define control and ownership requirements
Agree the authoritative source by field, permitted users, approval steps, retention expectations, and which changes require human review.
Expected working output
Target-state workflow, role matrix, field map, and risk/control checklist.
Pilot a contained workflow change
Improve one queue, one approved data exchange, or one renewal process. Keep licensed decisions and required carrier/client approvals with authorized people.
Expected working output
A scoped implementation with error handling, audit records, user guidance, and rollback plan.
Validate and decide
Compare manual touches, completeness, cycle time, queue aging, user feedback, and access exceptions with the agreed baseline.
Expected working output
A documented decision to expand, revise, or stop. No claim of compliance or performance improvement without appropriate evidence.
09 / Scope and limitations
Evidence first. Claims only after measurement.
This brief is an industry concept and research-based diagnostic framework, not a client result or a claim that all agencies have fragmented data.
The 2026 Applied Systems/Ivans figures are from a voluntary online survey of 702 independent agents. They are not a census or an independent audit of every agency or carrier.
Insurance information can be sensitive and subject to state-specific laws, carrier agreements, and agency obligations. NAIC Model Law #668 is a model law; its requirements apply only as adopted and as relevant to the particular regulated entity and jurisdiction.
CodeLixi does not make coverage, underwriting, claims, eligibility, or other licensed insurance decisions through this brief. Any workflow must preserve authorized human judgment, client and carrier approvals, permissions, and auditability.
Integrations must use supported and authorized interfaces. Automation must not bypass access controls, carrier terms, security requirements, or required review steps.
10 / Sources and further reading
Where the research comes from.
Sources provide industry context for the questions in this brief. They do not prove that a specific organization has the same conditions or will achieve a particular result.
Applied Systems / Ivans · 2026; survey conducted April–May 2026
2026 Carrier-Agency Connection Report
Reports a survey of 702 independent agents and findings on re-keying, agency management system data reuse, and carrier workflow connectivity.
Scope: Voluntary online survey supported by the Agents Council for Technology. Applied Systems is an industry technology provider; interpret the findings as respondent-reported industry evidence, not a universal agency benchmark.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners · Model law adopted by NAIC in 2017; adoption varies by state
Insurance Data Security Model Law (#668)
Provides a model framework covering information security programs, risk assessment, audit trails, service-provider oversight, and secure disposal of non-public information.
Scope: A model law is not automatically law in every state or applicable to every agency. Check the enacted law, regulator guidance, entity status, exemptions, and jurisdiction before drawing legal conclusions.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners · Current NAIC topic page
Cybersecurity
Summarizes NAIC cybersecurity work and state adoption context for the Insurance Data Security Model Law.
Scope: State adoption and scope change. This reference is context, not a substitute for checking the law of the state governing a particular licensee.
Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (Big 'I') · 2026
2026 Agency Universe Study
Provides industry context on the U.S. independent agency system and technology trends.
Scope: The study covers independent agencies. Do not generalize its findings to captive agencies, carriers, or every individual agency workflow.