How Transferable Are Skills Between Insurance Automation Platforms?
Here’s a question for you: as the insurtech industry continues to digitise its core functions, how transferrable are the skills between all of the available platforms?
By 2030, McKinsey predicts that up to 50% of claims processes could be automated. With tools like Guidewire, Sapiens, and Duck Creek becoming industry staples, the tech is evolving fast. But what about the talent?
Here’s a question for you: as the insurtech industry continues to digitise its core functions, how transferrable are the skills between all of the available platforms?
Between policy, claims and billing, processes are relying more on software. They’ve become the digital backbone of modern insurance operations. The only drawback is, each of these platforms has its own proprietary interface, configuration rules, and scripting language, creating isolated ecosystems that can trap talent in silos.
This got me wondering just how transferrable the skills between these platforms might be.
Is it easy for developers, business analysts and claims specialists to jump from one system to another, or does each product create its own ecosystem that effectively locks in its own unique talent? Either way, this could prove to be a real dilemma for recruiters and talent leaders.
Why It Matters
There are many reasons why this can be a sticking point within the industry. Not just internally, but also when it comes to hiring new talent. A candidate with 12 years of experience on Duck Creek could be rejected for a Guidewire project role. Why? Lack of certification, not capability.
Recruitment teams and hiring managers need to understand how transferrable these skills are because it could have a dramatic impact on the available talent pool. This could widen your search or limit it completely.
Platform experience ≠ platform potential.
For example, do you ignore candidates who have 10 years’ experience with a completely different system and favour the one who’s only used yours for 2 years? How much time are you willing to contribute towards upskilling staff if there’s a skill barrier between the two platforms?
68% of insurers believe legacy systems are the biggest obstacle to digital transformation, so access to talent who can handle newer software is holding them back.
With job seekers, the adaptability of these platforms could influence how “trapped” they might feel based on their experience with them. Equally, it could present an opportunity to learn something new. It all depends whether they can hit the ground running or not.
Understanding the Similarities
Insurtech has paved the way for fundamental changes to how coverage is applied and paid for within the insurance industry. From better pricing models based on more personalised data to deep learning from AI, the tasks of brokers can be made easier to find the right mix of policies to complete an individual’s coverage.
It’s probable, then, that all of the platforms available will have different features, depending on what additional avenues the company is prioritising. And while platforms like Dacadoo or Bdeo push the boundaries with AI, the fundamental process logic – underwriting, claims, billing – remains largely consistent.
Naturally, though, as these are all platforms for insurance automation, you can assume there will be some overlap in capabilities. At their core, they’re all trying to automate the same business processes, including:
- Submitting and adjudicating claims
- Configuring billing rules
- Managing policies across lifecycles
- Handling compliance and audits
So if the core logic is similar, does the platform really matter as much as we think?
People Are Making the Switch
There has been movement from candidates transitioning across platforms, whether it’s developers who’ve switched from Duck Creek to Insurity or analysts moving from Sapiens to Guidewire.
There can also be another barrier to switching, which is the programming language they use. These can vary from Java to Gosu, .NET and more.
We’re beginning to see signs that these transitions are becoming more common, particularly as upskilling becomes a strategic priority.
However, just because recruiters and hiring managers have reported that candidates have transitioned to different platforms, are these exceptions or signs or a broader trend?
What Skills Might Be Transferable?
With insurance automation platforms, these can differ by cloud-native or on-premise, and low code vs developer-heavy coding. But we’ve already established that there are core capabilities these platforms share. So what exactly is transferable?
For starters, there’s domain knowledge. These insurance professionals will have an understanding of how claims or policy underwriting works, which is exactly what these automation platforms are for.
Next, there’s process thinking. The common aspects across platforms will be things like workflow logic, rule configurations and exception handling. Anything without this wouldn’t be fit for purpose, so the skills will be there for any platform.
Thirdly, there’s technical flexibility. Developers fluent in Java or C# might be unfamiliar with the platform-specific language, but they can usually learn it with relative ease.
Finally, there’s agility and tooling. Any candidate with familiarity in version control, ticketing systems and cloud environments will translate these skills well into different platforms. For instance, someone familiar with configuring claim rules in Sapiens will recognise the logic flow when doing the same in Duck Creek, even if the syntax differs.
Where Are the Skills Gaps?
I’m certainly not suggesting for a moment that all of these platforms will operate in the same way. There will, however, be instances where knowledge gaps will be more prevalent. If we consider that legacy system integration to Guidewire can be time-consuming and require considerable end-user training because of its steep learning curve, what other obstacles are there?
Proprietary scripting languages like Gosu or Pega’s PRPC could post a steeper learning curve, even for developers already familiar with other programming languages.
Guidewire Developer Certification, while beneficial, often becomes a non-negotiable checkbox, even when real-world experience outweighs it. If a candidate has relevant experience, recruiters could be put off by an advanced Duck Creek certification for a Guidewire role they’re hiring for, even if they’ve been in the industry for 15 years or longer.
UI adaptability can also be a blocker. Transitioning from a low-code platform to a fully-coded one is more than just a step; it’s a leap. A business analyst comfortable with drag-and-drop workflows may struggle in a platform that demands deeper scripting knowledge. With so much more to get your head around, it will take candidates time to get up to speed.
Questions Worth Asking as a Hiring Team
As a hiring team, there are several considerations when looking at the transferability of these skills within insurance automation platforms.
- Should you prioritise domain expertise and learning agility over specific product experience?
- Is it worth investing in short term upskilling programmes to bring cross-platform talent up to speed?
- Could opening up job descriptions to include “experience in any major PAS” attract better candidates?
You don’t want to lock out great talent just because you use a particular platform. Consider rewriting job descriptions to focus on process outcomes rather than tool-specific tasks.
Would your team rather wait 3 months for a platform-certified candidate, or hire someone with transferable skills who’s ready to learn and ramp up within 4 weeks?
I’m not trying to get into which skills are or aren’t transferable. I’m simply exploring how possible it could be for top talent to navigate these changes, whether they’re looking to upskill or move to different roles.
In an industry where platforms evolve rapidly, the real competitive edge doesn’t lie in mastering a single tool, but in building a workforce agile enough to adapt across all of them.
Have you navigated a switch between platforms, or hired someone who did? I’d love to hear how it played out, and what helped make it successful.