Lessons from Supporting MIP Implementations, Upgrades And Migrations Across Southern Africa
By Mia Geringer | SolveCo Actuarial Services
After supporting insurance system implementations for more than two decades, we’ve noticed something interesting. When projects begin to struggle, people often blame the software. In reality, the software is rarely the problem.
The biggest implementation risks are usually created long before development begins.
Across dozens of implementations involving platforms such as MIP, Exergy, Sapiens and ThoughtExpress, we’ve seen the same patterns emerge time and again.
The projects that succeed are rarely those with the newest technology. They’re the ones that spend the most time understanding the business before configuration begins.
The Biggest Risks Are Created Early
One of the biggest misconceptions in insurance system implementations is that problems emerge during development or testing. Our experience has been different.
Most implementation issues can be traced back to decisions made during the earliest stages of the project. Requirements that weren’t fully understood. Business rules that weren’t documented. Product exceptions that weren’t identified. Assumptions that were never challenged.
A common implementation risk is confusing “nice-to-have” functionality with business-critical requirements. As projects progress, requests for additional integrations, bespoke user interfaces and specialised workflows naturally emerge. Without disciplined governance, these additions can increase cost, extend timelines and create unnecessary implementation risk. A phased approach often delivers better outcomes than trying to implement every idea in the initial release.
Once development begins, these gaps become increasingly expensive to correct.
By the time they are discovered during User Acceptance Testing—or even worse, after go-live—they often require rework across configuration, testing, documentation and training.
The later an issue is identified, the more expensive it becomes to resolve.
There Is No Such Thing as an “Off-the-Shelf” Insurance System
One lesson has remained remarkably consistent across every major platform we’ve worked with: No insurance administration system is truly “off the shelf.”
Every insurer has unique products, underwriting rules, commission structures, customer communications and operational processes.
Technology provides the framework and the business determines how that framework is configured.
That is why implementation success depends far more on understanding the insurer’s products than simply understanding the software.
Different policy administration systems have different strengths. Selecting the right platform depends on the insurer’s products, operating model, distribution channels and long-term strategy.
Assumptions Are Expensive
When product specifications are incomplete or not reviewed by the developers, implementation teams naturally begin making assumptions.
Developers naturally interpret requirements through a technical lens. Without insurance domain knowledge, subtle product rules, historical exceptions and operational practices can easily be misunderstood.
Business users incorrectly assume everyone shares the same understanding.
Testers discover different interpretations later during the testing and the result is almost always the same: Rework.
In our experience, assumptions are one of the biggest contributors to implementation delays.
They increase project costs, extend timelines and often introduce unnecessary complexity that could have been avoided through better business analysis at the beginning of the project.
Why Testing Often Happens Too Late
Many organisations treat testing as the final phase of an implementation. We believe it should begin much earlier. Testing is not simply about finding software defects, it is about validating business understanding.
By the time User Acceptance Testing begins, most product behaviour should already have been verified through business reviews, functional testing, system integration testing and regression testing.
If business users are seeing the product for the first time during UAT, the project is already carrying unnecessary risk. Testing protects business knowledge—not just software quality.
Why Small Problems Become Expensive
One of the patterns we’ve consistently observed is that the cost of correcting an issue increases dramatically as an implementation progresses.
A misunderstanding identified during business analysis might take an hour to resolve. The same misunderstanding identified during configuration may require rework.
Found during User Acceptance Testing, it may require changes to configuration, integration, testing, documentation and training.
Discovered after go-live, it can affect customers, operations and business confidence.
That is why experienced implementation teams invest heavily in getting the early stages right.
Business Analysis Is the Best Risk Management Tool
Over the years we’ve become convinced that the highest return on investment in any implementation is not additional development but rather better business analysis, clear product specifications, well-documented business rules, defined customer journeys and reviewed product exceptions.
These activities rarely attract attention because they happen before configuration begins. Yet they consistently reduce implementation costs and improve delivery certainty.
One of the specialist services SolveCo provides is independent specification reviews before development starts. By reviewing product definitions, business rules and functional requirements early, we help identify gaps, ambiguities and conflicting interpretations before they become costly change requests or production issues.
What Successful Projects Do Differently
After supporting implementations across multiple platforms and countries, we’ve found that successful projects tend to share several characteristics:
- They invest in business analysis before configuration.
- They involve business users throughout the project.
- They treat testing as a continuous activity rather than a final milestone.
- They challenge assumptions early.
- And they recognise that implementation success depends on collaboration between business, actuarial, technology and testing teams.
Technology alone has never delivered a successful implementation, people do.
Lessons from the Field
After more than twenty years of implementation experience, several observations continue to repeat themselves.
Not all systems are the same
Some platforms are stronger in certain areas than others. Selecting the right system starts with understanding the business rather than comparing feature lists.
The biggest risks are created before development begins.
Most production issues originate in unclear requirements rather than software defects.
There is no substitute for good product specifications.
Configuration reflects business understanding—it does not replace it.
Testing protects business outcomes.
Independent testing validates that products behave as the business intended.
Business users should never disappear after requirements workshops.
The most successful projects maintain business involvement from design through to production.
Every month spent improving specifications saves months of rework later.
Time invested upfront is almost always recovered during implementation, testing or after go-live
Final Thoughts
Insurance system implementations are among the most complex technology programmes that insurers undertake. The software matters and the technology matters. But our experience has shown that implementation success depends far more on understanding products, documenting business rules and validating assumptions than on the technology platform itself.
Whether an organisation is implementing a new policy administration system, upgrading an existing platform or preparing for a major migration, the same principle continues to apply:
The earlier implementation risks are identified, the lower the cost, the lower the disruption and the greater the likelihood of success.
After more than twenty years of supporting insurance system implementations, one conclusion continues to stand out: Successful implementations are rarely defined by the technology selected. They are defined by the quality of the decisions made before configuration begins. Technology enables change but business understanding delivers it.
Thinking About Your Next Implementation?
Whether you’re:
- Selecting a new policy administration system
- Defining product specifications
- Preparing for development
- Strengthening your testing strategy
- Reviewing implementation readiness
- Looking for independent implementation assurance
