The real work begins after an acquisition closes. Insurance leaders share how to standardize critical systems without sacrificing what made an agency valuable.
An insurance acquisition may look straightforward on paper. But, behind the scenes, the combined organization still has to reconcile systems, billing processes, data, and change management. Those decisions influence whether the organization can operate efficiently, protect its information, and preserve the strengths that made the acquired agency attractive.
During a panel at BrokerTech Connect: Chicago 2026, moderated by Chris Peabody, Director of Partnerships at Ascend, insurance leaders discussed this often-overlooked part of mergers and acquisitions. Their message was clear: Post-acquisition integration is not a single system migration; it is a series of decisions about what must be standardized, what deserves further evaluation, and how employees can be brought through the change.
Look Beyond the Initial Price Tag
Cost and efficiency remain important measures of a technology investment, but they do not tell the entire story. Firms also need to consider security exposure, vendor durability, data quality, implementation demands, and the disruption of replacing a system later.
Spencer Miller, Director of IT at Henderson Brothers, said his organization evaluates traditional factors such as cost, staffing requirements, and potential outsourcing savings. But it has also added another consideration.
“Partnership is a metric that we’re trying to measure now,” he said.
That includes assessing whether a vendor is likely to have staying power and can continue supporting the business as its needs evolve. Henderson Brothers uses a third-party management solution to rank and track vendors, making the strength of those relationships part of its evaluation process.
Collin Hill, Chief Information Officer at Shepherd Insurance, similarly emphasized total cost of ownership. A vendor that understands the business and grows alongside it may deliver value that is difficult to capture in a spreadsheet but still reduces friction over time.
Security must also be part of the calculation. Purvin Vakil, Director of IT Applications and Technology at CBIZ, said the organization considers the exposure an acquisition may bring, remediation already completed, and governance surrounding any artificial intelligence tools in use.
Decide What is Truly Nonnegotiable
Integration does not require treating every inherited system the same way.
Cybersecurity, identity and asset management, infrastructure, data governance, and core systems may require common enterprise controls. Other tools, particularly those supporting a specialized service line or client need, deserve closer examination before they are removed.
Ann Casey, CFO of the retail business at World Insurance Associates, described a firm approach to bringing acquisitions onto the company’s technology stack. At the 90-day mark, acquired businesses move to its systems through a hard cutover supported by local teams, training, and continued assistance. That does not mean every inherited tool disappears automatically.
“What they built got them here,” Casey said. “So, we don’t want to break it.”
When technology may offer broader value, the firm considers its cost, returns, overlap with existing platforms, and potential use elsewhere. The acquired team can also demonstrate why it could benefit the larger organization — not only its individual unit.
Vakil outlined a similar model built around three layers. Enterprise standards cover core infrastructure and security. Service-line standards allow different applications when employee benefits and property-casualty operations have distinct needs. At the local level, teams can continue innovating, provided the work is governed, documented, secure, and capable of scaling. This structure creates room for entrepreneurial thinking without allowing the technology environment to become fragmented.
Make Adoption a Peer-Led Effort
Even the right system will fall short if employees do not understand why they are being asked to use it. For Joe Callister, Chief Operating Officer at Leavitt Group, adoption begins with setting expectations: “What is going to change, what isn’t going to change and why? The key is why.”
Employees need to understand how a change will help them work more efficiently or serve clients better. They may also be more receptive when that message comes from a trusted colleague instead of as a corporate mandate.
At Leavitt Group, proof-of-concept programs establish whether a technology works before it is deployed broadly. They also reveal which employees are using it effectively and can become champions for their peers.
One panelist noted that a particularly persuasive champion may be an employee who was initially reluctant to change. When a respected skeptic tests a system and recognizes its value, that individual can make a credible case for adoption.
Start AI Where the Friction Is Obvious
The panelists offered practical advice for identifying useful AI projects: Ask employees where work is slow, repetitive, or unnecessarily difficult.
“What do you do today that just takes forever, that you hate doing, that’s harder than it should be?” Casey said.
Examples discussed during the panel included accounting automation, document retrieval, policy checking, financial data extraction, expense report review, and workflow analysis. These use cases address visible problems, making their value easier for employees to recognize and leaders to measure.
At CBIZ, employees submitted potential AI use cases through a challenge conducted across different divisions. A panel reviewed and prioritized the ideas, combining bottom-up input with top-down governance. Vakil said the process encouraged adoption while surfacing opportunities technology leaders might not have identified independently.
Casey shared another example: using AI to review low-risk expense reports below a designated threshold. The change responded to complaints about slow approvals and reduced the need for every report to receive manual review.
The lesson is not to apply AI everywhere, but to begin with a defined business problem, involve the people who experience it, and establish the data and governance needed to support the solution.
Expand the Technology Diligence Checklist
Technology diligence can no longer focus only on which agency management system a firm uses. Leaders must consider the structure and quality of its data, cybersecurity exposure, employee adaptability, process and cultural fit, and dependence on individual people.
“I would look closely at single points of failure,” Casey said.
That could be a system only one employee knows how to operate, a homegrown tool no one else understands, or an essential process that has never been documented. Each creates risk that may not become visible until integration begins.
Ultimately, the final measure of a technology decision is not how many systems were consolidated. It is whether the combined organization becomes easier for employees to navigate and easier for clients to work with.
As Casey put it, “You don’t usually win business on service, but you will certainly lose business on service.”
That reality gives integration leaders a useful standard. The right technology strategy should protect the enterprise, reduce administrative work, and put better information into employees’ hands, while preserving the specialized capabilities that help them serve clients well.
Thursday, November 5, 2026