When ticket-based support stops working for insu...

An insurance company has a backlog of work, a technology support agreement in place, and people assigned to help. So why does getting a relatively simple change completed still take weeks?

Maybe an urgent policy administration issue has pulled a developer away from a planned enhancement. A regulatory update is approaching its deadline. Meanwhile, an integration improvement your business team requested keeps getting pushed back.

If you manage insurance technology, you've likely experienced some version of this. You're balancing production support, system enhancements, regulatory requirements and larger projects, often with the same limited pool of resources. When I see teams struggling with these competing demands, one of the first things I examine is how their support model is structured.

Capacity-based managed services can offer more flexibility by allowing you to purchase an agreed level of delivery capacity and apply it to your most important work as priorities change.

Does your current support agreement give you enough flexibility to keep work moving?

Why does ticket-based IT support become difficult to manage?

Ticket-based support is straightforward. Someone submits a request, and the work is reviewed, estimated, approved and assigned. This works well for routine, isolated requests. It becomes cumbersome when you're managing a steady flow of work across multiple insurance systems.

Think about what your team might handle in a typical month:

• Production issues affecting underwriting or policy servicing.
• Regulatory and product-related system changes.
• Integrations between policy, billing and claims systems.
• Enhancements requested by business users.
• Testing and releases for modernization projects.

Each request has different priorities, dependencies and technical requirements. Yet under a ticket-by-ticket commercial model, even a small enhancement may need a separate estimate and approval before anyone can begin. Multiply that across dozens of requests, and your team can spend a surprising amount of time coordinating work.

One warning sign I look for is how long approved requests sit waiting for someone to start. If straightforward changes routinely get delayed by administrative steps, it's worth examining the process.

What happens when support and project work compete for the same resources?

Insurance technology teams rarely get to focus on one initiative at a time. Production systems need attention, regulatory deadlines are approaching, and business users are requesting improvements. Often, the same specialists are needed across several projects.

Let's say your team is preparing a policy administration update tied to a regulatory deadline. Requirements are approved, and configuration is ready to begin. Then a production issue requires the same developer. Meanwhile, an integration enhancement is waiting for a specialist assigned to another project. Suddenly, you're revisiting schedules and explaining delays to stakeholders.

Adding resources may help, especially when you consistently need a particular skill, but insurance technology work rarely requires the same expertise throughout an entire project. You may need a business analyst early on, developers during configuration, integration specialists during implementation and testers before release. Reserving every role full-time can become expensive when the workload changes or dependencies prevent work from moving forward.

That's why I encourage insurance technology leaders to consider whether their resource commitments reflect how work moves through their teams.

How do capacity-based managed services work?

With capacity-based managed services, you purchase an agreed level of delivery capacity that can be applied to a prioritized backlog.

You and your provider establish the scope, capacity, responsibilities and process for managing priorities. The team then allocates resources based on business needs, deadlines and available expertise. That capacity might support production issues, policy administration enhancements, regulatory changes, integrations, data requests and smaller projects. A core team maintains knowledge of your systems and processes, while specialists contribute as needed.

For example, if you're preparing for a major release, your provider can allocate more testing expertise. When integration work becomes the priority, the resource mix can shift.

The agreement should clearly define what's included, how urgent incidents are handled, how capacity is measured and what happens when demand exceeds the agreed level. With those expectations established, you have a more flexible way to manage ongoing work while maintaining visibility into spending and delivery.

When does capacity-based managed services make financial sense?

Start by looking at your workload.

Do you have a steady stream of support requests, enhancements and smaller projects? Does the volume fluctuate? Do you need different technical skills throughout the month?

If so, capacity-based managed services may be worth evaluating.

Under a traditional resource-based agreement, you might reserve specific people for a set period, which can work well when demand is consistent. However, a developer may be fully occupied one week and waiting on requirements the next. An integration specialist might be critical during a release, then have limited work until another initiative begins.

A capacity-based arrangement can help you adjust the mix of expertise to match the work that's ready.

Before making a decision, consider the following:

• How much time are we spending estimating and approving requests?
• How often are reserved resources waiting on work?
• How frequently do we need expertise outside our assigned team?
• How predictable is our workload over the next quarter?
• What would the same capabilities cost under each support model?

Be sure to review minimum commitments, capacity adjustment rules and specialist availability in any proposed agreement.

The financial question comes down to how effectively your managed services investment helps your team deliver priority work.

How do you maintain control over priorities, spending and service quality with capacity-based managed services?

A flexible support arrangement still needs clear accountability and spending controls.

I recommend establishing a regular planning cadence with your managed services provider.

Weekly: Review urgent issues, upcoming deadlines, work in progress and blockers. Agree on where available capacity should go next.

Monthly: Compare your backlog and upcoming initiatives with available capacity. Identify where different skills or additional support may be needed.

Quarterly: Review service performance, delivery trends, spending and whether your capacity commitment still fits your priorities.

You'll also want clear escalation procedures for production issues and firm regulatory deadlines. This approach helps you and your provider make informed decisions about priorities and capacity without requiring a separate commercial approval for every routine change.

What exactly should insurance IT leaders measure for managed services?

Ticket volumes, resolution times and service-level performance are useful measures, particularly for production support. When your provider also handles enhancements and project work, I'd recommend tracking a broader set of metrics.

These measures are most useful when reviewed together. For example, your monthly report might show dozens of completed tickets while an important regulatory enhancement remains behind schedule. I'd want to understand why that priority is still waiting and whether capacity is being directed toward the work that matters most.

Five signs your insurance company may have outgrown its current support model

If you're evaluating your managed services agreement, I'd start with five questions.

1. Do routine enhancements require repeated estimates and approvals?

If straightforward changes routinely spend more time waiting than being worked on, your approval process may be slowing delivery.

2. Are the same resources constantly pulled between support and project work?

Frequent switching can disrupt schedules and make it difficult to complete planned enhancements.

3. Are you paying for resources who regularly have no work ready to begin?

Look for specialists waiting on requirements, environments or approvals while other work needs attention.

4. Can you clearly explain what your managed services investment delivered last month?

You should be able to connect spending to completed work, service quality and progress on business priorities.

5. Can your agreement accommodate changing priorities?

Consider how quickly your team can respond to an unexpected production issue, regulatory deadline or accelerated initiative.

If several of these challenges occur regularly, I'd take a closer look at how your support capacity is purchased and managed.

Is capacity-based managed services right for every insurance company?

The short answer is "no." The best approach depends on your workload and the expertise you need.

If you have occasional, well-defined requests, ticket-based support may be entirely appropriate. Dedicated resources can also make sense when you consistently need a particular skill.

Capacity-based managed services are worth considering when you have a continuing backlog of support, enhancements and smaller projects, with changing priorities and technical requirements.

Before making a change, make sure you understand the service scope, available expertise, capacity commitments, response expectations and how priorities will be managed. I'd also pay close attention to how your provider maintains knowledge of your systems. That continuity is especially valuable in insurance environments with complex platforms and integrations.

A better way to plan for the work ahead

Keeping core systems running while managing regulatory changes and business improvements is a constant balancing act for insurance technology leaders. If your current support agreement is making that work harder to manage, start by reviewing your backlog, resource commitments and approval process.

Look at where requests get delayed, which skills are consistently in demand and how much of your managed services investment is going toward priority work. That assessment can help you determine whether additional capacity, a different mix of expertise or a more flexible support model would make the greatest difference.

At Sikich, we work with insurance companies to support and modernize the technology behind their operations. If you're reconsidering how your team manages ongoing support and enhancements, we can help you evaluate your current approach and identify opportunities to improve delivery. Contact our insurance technology team for a conversation.