Our Approach to Your Security

At Consor, we rely on a clearly defined and proven update process to minimize security risks and keep your software consistently up to date:

• Regular Reviews: Using tools like RenovateBot and Dependency Track, we identify new versions and potential vulnerabilities early on. In addition, we conduct annual penetration tests through an external provider.
• Rapid Response: Critical security vulnerabilities are resolved within 30 days — often even faster.
• Structured Processes: New libraries are only integrated after thorough review by our TechBoard — including license and compatibility checks.

Why This Matters to You

• Maximum security for your systems
• Continuous development without disrupting your operations
• Reduced risk of outages and attacks due to outdated components

Our Promise

We don’t just keep Consor Universal running — we make it secure, stable, and ready for the future.

Have questions? Feel free to reach out — we’re happy to help.

Challenges

However, quotation and inventory management systems are often not designed to deal with so many objects. The different types of objects in the divisions and products also have completely different characteristics with correspondingly different attributes and business rules. As a makeshift solution, Excel spreadsheets are used in which the objects are managed separately from the offer or contract.

Approach with Consor Universal

With object management, Consor Universal offers an ideal solution for precisely such contracts. The objects are stored within the business transactions in an audit-proof manner and with a history. They are entered and managed directly via the underwriting platform and are intuitive. The objects are also seamlessly and completely available for the output (documents). Groups and hierarchies are also supported so that comparable objects can be combined for pricing, e.g. different vehicle types in fleet insurance.

Object management is also suitable for embedded insurance and group contracts. For the latter, in particular, it is possible to configure at product level whether the risk objects of approved business transactions may be changed. In group business, this is of course necessary for entries and exits. Group contracts are used for business accident insurance, for example.

Would you like to find out more about property management or would you like to see it live? Then get in touch with us!

However, the reality in industrial insurance in 2024 is still completely different.

The degree of automation through software support is still low for many brokers and insurers.

Let’s take the example of industrial property insurance and assume that a medium-sized company with 20 locations in southern Germany needs property insurance for buildings and contents. In addition to the addresses, a large number of risk characteristics are collected for the 20 locations, such as flood zone, type of construction, fire alarm system, fire extinguishing system and much more. Depending on the type of business and insured risks, further risk characteristics are added for each location. Larger locations can be subdivided into individual areas – for example, production hall, warehouse and administration. This multiplies the number of risk characteristics to be recorded.

Often, all these data points are still collected manually – with paper and pen or in an Excel spreadsheet. As part of a tender, this data is typically sent by the broker to various insurers by e-mail. The most common “data formats” are Word, Excel, PDF or simply plain text in an unsecured e-mail.

Insurance companies have to manually process this unstructured flood of data. Many industrial insurers still work with Excel for risk assessment and pricing. Accordingly, the data received is manually typed from one Excel spreadsheet into another. This is not very efficient or digital – it is also error-prone and time-consuming.

Originally, the insurance industry was one of the pioneers in IT.

Back in the 1970s, insurance companies invested heavily in digitization, which was still called EDP at the time. So why is it that the level of digitalization is so low in industrial insurance today?

One key reason for this is the lack of standardization in data exchange. In principle, every industrial insurer collects and processes roughly the same data. In industrial property insurance, for example – as described above – flood zones, construction methods, operating modes, etc.. However, there is no comprehensive and widely supported data exchange standard and no corresponding data exchange platform yet.

The BiPRO e.V. association has covered the rating, offer and application (TAA) processes for private and commercial business with the 420 standards and has also standardized a description of the risk data with the 419 standards. These BiPRO 419 standards are actually only a shell – the specific data structures have not been worked out in detail. Accordingly, these standards are still largely unknown in industrial insurance and are hardly mapped in specific IT systems. Due to demand from the industry, BiPRO e.V. would like to revive the topic in a specialist group from Q1/2025. Affaire à suivre.

The Corify platform – a subsidiary of InsurTech company Hypoport – is taking a promising approach. Corify aims to enable a standardized and holistic risk description and thus a transparent market. The platform brings together the risks of the insurance industry with the requirements of insurers and brokers in a digital process. Corify has already come a long way with the specification and implementation of the platform and has already gained brokers such as Pantaenius and the fleet insurance service provider Auto Fleet Control as participants in the marketplace.

In addition to private-sector initiatives such as Corify’s, there is also movement at association level towards a standardized exchange of risk data.

At the beginning of September 2024, the General Association of the Insurance Industry (GVNW) announced that the RD-X project was about to be launched. RD-X stands for Risk Data Exchange. The aim of this GVNW initiative is to make the exchange of risk data between customers, brokers and insurers more efficient and secure. The aim is to develop a platform that enables the digital and standardized transmission of risk data. The focus is on increasing the efficiency of risk data exchange between all market participants.

However, we are not there yet. Under the leadership of the GVNW, an association will first be founded to finance and implement this project. The initiative of the insurance industry is supported by several large insurers and brokers. BASF, HDI Global SE, Swiss Re Corporate Solutions, Ecclesia Group, Zurich Insurance and Funk are among those involved.

Is this GVNW initiative in competition with Corify? No, on the contrary! It’s not just industrial customers and insurers who want standardized data exchange. Private-sector providers of software solutions are also hoping for corresponding standards and processes for the secure and automated exchange of risk data.

Only a cooperative, committed approach by all market participants can ensure that the opportunities of digitalization can be exploited in the medium term and that scanned, handwritten risk data does not have to continue to be sent.

New perspectives through platforms

Traditionally, industrial insurers have segmented their customers according to company size and industry affiliation in order to better understand risk profiles and customer needs. But with the advent of digital platforms, the focus is shifting. Platforms such as Corify (https://www.corify.de/) enable a digitalized exchange between insurers and brokers. This leads to a certain standardization of processes and data, which in turn increases efficiency and improves interaction between the parties.

The future of IT architectures for industrial insurance

If we look at the effects of these changes on the IT architectures of industrial insurers in particular, it becomes clear that different business models also place different demands on IT systems. For example, the highly complex individual business requires flexible and individualized IT support, while the fast-flow business relies on standardization and automation.

The challenge for the IT architecture is to meet both requirements. An attempt can either be made to master this balancing act by using a single system to cover all the needs of the different segments. Or you can avoid the balancing act by adopting a two-platform strategy: a standardized, automated platform for the fast-flow business and an individual, flexible platform for the industrial business.

Individual, flexible needs in the industrial business

The renowned consulting firm Oliver Wyman, which specializes in the insurance industry, has given this question some in-depth thought. See “St. Gallen Trend Monitor for Risk and Financial Markets” issue 3/23 of the Institute of Insurance Economics, University of St. Gallen. The authors from Oliver Wyman suggest using a broad underwriting platform that can map the complexity of individual business.

This platform should be flexible enough to support individual products and processes, while at the same time enabling seamless integration with upstream and downstream systems such as the partner system or the collection/disbursement system. In fast-flow business, on the other hand, the core processes should be integrated in policy management, with the underwriting system only taking on a subordinate, supporting role.

Today, the common core systems for insurers’ portfolio management are based on the second design principle (efficient portfolio management for fast-flow business). However, this does not meet the requirements of individual business. The flexibility required for individual business must therefore be mapped in an upstream, separate underwriting system that is built according to the first design principle.

Future Outlook

individual business and in many cases still uses Excel for pricing and Word for creating contracts. With the emergence of digital platforms at the interface between insurers and brokers, the form of interaction with sales partners will continue to develop. This will increase the networked exchange of data and the relevance of technical standards in service agreements.

The experts at Oliver Wyman emphasize the importance of seamless integration of digital interfaces both externally and in internal processes. This is the only way for insurers to meet the requirements of an increasingly digital world and secure their long-term competitiveness.

If you would like to know how Consor Universal can support you with digitalization, please contact us.

Challenges

Many underwriting and policy management systems offer insufficient support for master policies, if such functionality is available at all and does not require the use of word processing systems. As framework contracts differ from the basic product, they usually have to be set up as separate products. This causes corresponding IT expenditure (development), not least in the maintenance of the agreements. This can also lead to undesirable delays in the “activation” of a new sales partner because the agreement still has to be implemented from a technical perspective.

Advantages with Consor Universal

Consor Universal offers integral, end-to-end support for framework agreements. The basic functionality is as follows:

• The basic product is defined through customizing – as usual.
• However, it is now also determined whether framework agreements are possible and, if so, where deviations are permitted.
• Initially, a “framework” for outline agreements is modeled, which defines the scope within which the end users are allowed to operate in the context of their business transaction processing.
• When creating a new business transaction (GeVo), end users (underwriters, partner advisors, corporate customer advisors, etc.) choose whether they want to
  a) want to create a new GeVo based on the base product,
  b) create a new framework contract or
  c) create a GeVo based on an outline agreement.

The conditions in the offer or contract are automatically adopted from the base product or framework agreement.

Schematically, this can be depicted as follows:

This allows end users to independently create not only individual policies, but also new framework contracts – without the need for product modelers or even programmers to intervene. The framework contracts are then automatically available to all authorized users.

It should be emphasized that this principle works across the entire life cycle, i.e. from offers to contracts to contract amendments.

If we have aroused your interest and you would like to know more about this new function and its technical design options, we will be happy to provide you with a detailed demo.

Unlike conventional insurance policies, embedded solutions cannot be taken out separately from the service or item. In some cases, the customer is not even aware of the insurance cover – at least until a claim is made, as is the case with Airbnb cover mentioned above. In terms of insurance, embedded products are usually covered by collective contracts. The insurance partner, i.e. Airbnb or Swisscom in the examples mentioned, is the policyholder. Insured persons, i.e. the landlord or cell phone owner, then join the collective contract.

Insurance companies expect a great deal of growth from embedded solutions, not least through the use of the partners’ new sales channels. Accordingly, many are developing new offers together with partners and testing them on the market.

The Challenges

Due to various peculiarities of embedded products, there are a number of challenges in their implementation and operational processing, which affect IT in particular. At its core is a “balancing act” between individualization and standardization that must be mastered: the contract between the insurance company and the policyholder (the partner) must be able to reflect the individual needs of the partner, but the conditions, benefits and premiums for the insured persons are highly standardized within the contract.

At least initially, a high degree of flexibility is required when defining and rolling out the products. The partners want to be able to integrate new solutions quickly and, based on their experience in the market, be able to make adjustments and extensions together with the insurers.

It must also be possible to map a wide variety of products in different sectors; the requirements differ significantly depending on the partner and the type of product they offer. This also applies to billing Do the insured persons receive the premium invoices or is billing handled in summary form by the partner, who then passes them on depending on the product? Are the products tied to a fixed term or extended on a recurring basis? Is billing done once, monthly or annually?

The interface from the partner to the insurer must also be made available. After all, the partner is in charge when new insured persons join and usually also when individual insured persons make changes or leave. How does the insurer receive the relevant entries and changes? This is often done manually via spreadsheets, i.e. the partner sends the insurer an Excel spreadsheet with all new entries every month, for example. In return, the insurer then creates a statement based on this data, also manually. Operating such a manual interface is inefficient, error-prone and unattractive for the employees involved. In addition, the data is difficult or impossible to evaluate, which means that further business potential is wasted.

This is a pity and avoidable, as we show below.

Digital implementation with Consor Universal’s Object Manager

Property management is a tried-and-tested module from Consor Universal. Originally developed for large property insurance contracts, our customers are increasingly using it for embedded insurance in order to serve their cooperation partners better and more efficiently. We have also extended the module specifically for embedded insurance.

The contract with the partner is created and released as a regular business transaction with the usual flexibility of Consor Universal. However, the insured persons are outsourced to object management. When a new person joins, the rules defined in the business transaction, e.g. those for pricing or entry requirements, are inherited and applied to the person. For example, the person’s premium can be calculated or membership can be refused because the requirements are not met.

Object management is seamlessly integrated into Consor Universal. Both the business transactions and the objects can be fully modeled: Business users define the entire business logic, the data structures, the output and also the user interface using the Consor Universal design engine. In this way, data that varies by product and industry (e.g. personal details, addresses, premiums, insurance sums, details of the cell phone model, etc.) can be kept in object management.

The objects are managed historically. They can be manipulated in 3 different ways:

Manually via the Consor Universal user interface.
From peripheral systems via the API. Partner applications can report entries, adjustments and exits directly and online. Reporting by file with subsequent batch processing is also supported.
By uploading an Excel file with the corresponding changes.

Last but not least, contracts can also be billed via Consor Universal’s inventory management.

Conclusion

Embedded insurance offers insurance companies many exciting opportunities. However, with increasing maturity and growing volumes, it is important to integrate cooperation partners quickly and digitally. Insurance companies must also ensure that they can maintain and bill their offers efficiently. Consor Universal offers an ideal solution for this with property management.

Would you like to know more? Then get in touch with us.

International program (IP) business is one of the most complex insurance businesses as it involves a lot of interaction between many parties. In traditional business, only clientele, insurers and brokers are involved. In IP, the participants multiply, especially internationally. So here you have the additional factor that these parties

• are located in different countries, which are subject to different local legislative and regulatory frameworks;
• are subject to different tax regimes
• speak different languages and use different currencies
• are not necessarily employees of their own company, but of partners;
• have their own systems, processes, procedures and capabilities.

It is very challenging to operate IP in an efficient, controllable and risk-appropriate manner. Accordingly, this business is prone to errors, with the errors usually not recognized until damage has occurred.

Proven approaches to improvement

Relatively quickly and without large investments, significant improvements can be achieved through consistent education and training of the employees involved. In this context, the partners must not be forgotten. The basis for the success of the training is that all those involved communicate in a single “corporate language” and that the training materials and guidelines are written in this language. Based on this, the following topics in particular should be trained:

• Concept of an IP
• Processes and procedures within IP
• Roles and expectations
• Operation of the applications and tools used
• Terminology (everyone must understand the same terms)
• International communication and collaboration.

Regulatory consequences

Once the foundations have been laid by the training program, the focus can turn to processes and IT systems. In almost all insurance groups, it is the case that there is no end-to-end system for creating (quotes, policies) and administering IP. On the contrary:

People are often forced to resort to tools that work with unstructured data, such as in text, spreadsheet and e-mail programs. Where IT systems are available, local and international systems are often not integrated or consistent.

This inadequate tooling leads to friction, inefficiency, and frustration on the part of employees, brokers, and customers. Transparency and controllability of the overall process is also made more difficult, if not impossible.

It is advisable to use a single platform

If, for example, the local contract creation in one country falters, it is difficult to determine the reason for this. If the master insurance agreement has already been issued in the country of the head office, a local delay may even have regulatory consequences, for example in the UK (Contract Certainty Code of Practice).

That there are differences between the local policies and the global agreement is in the nature of IP. It is important to know and understand them (“underwriting intent”). Without appropriate systems, however, this becomes so time-consuming that an IP can hardly be operated cost-efficiently.

A unified platform

Instead of using a multitude of unrelated, different systems, it is advisable to use a single platform for the master insurance Agreements, local policies of the IP, and regular local business. Often, much of the content, business rules and processes are across policy types are the same or show a high degree of consistency. At the same time, it is the case that product customizations are are usually driven locally, for example because of changing regulations and laws.

The adjustments should or even must also be incorporated into the local policies of the IP, and in some cases also into the master insurance agreements. The platform enables reusability in this respect and guarantees that local changes are incorporated everywhere.
are incorporated everywhere.

Further, the same platform should be used in as many countries/entities as possible to ensure pervasiveness, transparency and consistency. The possibilities for influence and
control options are also increased through the use of a consolidated platform.

IP place the highest demands on an IT platform in terms of flexibility. For example, it must be able to be used across all industries, be multilingual and multicurrency, and be able to handle international taxes. Since the print pieces – offers, policies, and so on – are very diverse and dynamic, it has become apparent that central systems for generating them do not have enough flexibility. It is therefore advantageous if the platform offers its own print engine that has these capabilities. Local processes in the countries also differ. In this respect, too, the platform must offer appropriate flexibility so that local workflows can be taken into account.

Investment required

IP is complex and an extremely exciting and challenging business. Due to globalization and the increasing internationalization of even small and medium-sized companies, they have experienced great growth in recent years. Despite the larger volumes, IP will not be able to be standardized and automated in the foreseeable future, as the needs of policyholders are too individual. IPs must be able to take these individual requirements into account.

In order to still be able to operate IP successfully and efficiently, investments must therefore be made in continuous training and further education as well as in flexible IT systems that can be used across national borders.