EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.
Recent Searches
In brief:
Many insurer finance transformations fail due to strategic misalignment, cultural resistance and weak execution rather than technology issues.
Legacy systems, fragmented data and insufficient change management often undermine confidence and slow progress.
Insurers that succeed align people, data and strategy early, apply disciplined governance and remain adaptable as conditions change.
Despite insurers pouring millions into finance transformation, many programmes still struggle to fully achieve their objectives, and it’s often not the technology that’s to blame. Studies estimate that a significant proportion of business transformations fall short of their goals. In insurance, our experience suggests the challenges are frequently human and strategic: lack of ownership, cultural resistance, overly complex processes, and limited ability to correct course midstream. These issues can leave insurers with bloated costs, fragmented data, and finance teams still reliant on manual workarounds.
Insurers today operate under sustained pressure, driven by three key forces: tougher regulations, digital‑savvy competitors and economic pressure on costs. In this context, finance transformation has become a strategic imperative rather than an optional exercise, elevating the finance function from a traditional record‑keeping role to a strategic business partner that delivers timely, reliable information of increased value to the business.
Common pitfalls undermining transformations
1
Chapter 1:
Lack of strategic alignment and clear vision
A common early challenge in finance transformation programmes is the absence of a clearly defined and shared finance transformation vision that is simple and recognisable to all stakeholders and aligned to the insurer’s broader business strategy. In practice, we often see initiatives launched as tactical or siloed efforts, without a unifying vision or firm link to strategy. This can result in unclear objectives and competing priorities that undermine progress.
Examples of these challenges include:
Unrealistic or shifting goals: Initial enthusiasm can lead to over‑ambitious targets and timelines that are not grounded in operational reality (for example, radical cost reductions or full system overhauls). When these targets are missed, stakeholder confidence often wanes.
Short‑term firefighting versus long‑term value: In some cases, transformations are driven by immediate pressures (such as regulatory compliance or urgent cost reduction) rather than a longer‑term strategic vision.
Poor executive alignment: Misalignment at C‑suite level is another frequent challenge. Where the CEO, CFO, COO and business leaders are not aligned on priorities and trade‑offs, programmes can drift. A recent EY survey found that 67% of CFOs reported experiencing misalignment within executive teams during transformations; this often reflects tension between long‑term investment and short‑term performance expectations.
Insurers that make stronger progress typically invest time upfront in shaping a coherent finance transformation strategy. This includes clarifying how finance transformation supports the organisation’s competitive strategy, setting realistic but meaningful objectives, and establishing governance to ensure every initiative remains aligned to those objectives. A visible and well‑sequenced transformation roadmap is often a differentiator, helping stakeholders understand what will be delivered, when, and how it connects with other enterprise change programmes.
Clear leadership sponsorship is also critical, often with the CFO — and in some cases the CEO — visibly championing the transformation vision across the organisation.
2
Chapter 2:
Inadequate change management and cultural resistance
Even the strongest strategy can falter without people fully behind it. Yet many finance transformations underestimate the human dimension. Insurance finance teams are often shaped by cultures of precision, compliance and risk aversion — strengths that can unintentionally slow transformation if not actively addressed.
Key challenges include:
Top‑down change with poor communication: If employees do not understand the “why” or see personal benefit, engagement quickly drops.
Transformation fatigue: After years of stalled or partial initiatives, teams can become sceptical of the next “big change.”
Skills gaps: Modern finance increasingly requires data, technology and cross‑functional capability. Without targeted upskilling, new systems risk becoming expensive shelfware.
The frozen middle: Middle management resistance can quietly stall progress if incentives and expectations are misaligned.
BAU versus transformation tension: Finance operations staff often hold the deepest insight but are constrained by business‑as‑usual demands. Freeing up this capacity is essential.
Insurers that sustain momentum tend to treat change management as a core workstream rather than an afterthought. This includes early and ongoing communication, involving teams in shaping the future, and consistent leadership visibility.
Many also avoid “big‑bang” delivery models, favouring agile, incremental approaches that allow for early wins, learning and course correction (particularly important where transformation fatigue already exists).
3
Chapter 3:
Technology – legacy complexity versus modern capability
Most finance transformations involve significant technology change, intended to help teams work faster and smarter. However, technology often proves to be a double‑edged sword: when poorly sequenced or implemented, it becomes a source of friction rather than an enabler of value.
Common technology‑related challenges include:
Lifting and shifting outdated processes: Treating transformation as a pure IT upgrade, simply moving inefficient processes into modern systems.
Choosing the wrong technology or over‑customising: Selecting solutions that are not fit for insurance complexity, or heavily customising standard platforms beyond their intended design.
Legacy IT constraints and technical debt: Decades‑old core systems can limit the benefits of new finance platforms, while replacing them mid‑programme introduces significant risk.
Underestimating integration and testing: Rushed data migration and insufficient end‑to‑end testing often lead to post‑go‑live issues that quickly erode confidence.
When approached deliberately, technology can be a powerful enabler of finance transformation, freeing teams from manual effort and enabling higher‑value analysis. Insurers that see stronger outcomes typically redesign processes first, address data and technical debt early, and involve finance and actuarial stakeholders throughout implementation. Those that do not often experience “faster chaos” rather than sustainable improvement.
4
Chapter 4:
Fragmented data and systems
Fragmented and poor‑quality data is a frequent constraint on finance transformation outcomes. After years of growth and siloed systems, many insurers have critical data scattered across platforms and spreadsheets, each with different definitions and controls. Without deliberate intervention, this can undermine trust in new processes and tools, prompting users to revert to legacy workarounds.
Many insurers now recognise the need to embed a comprehensive data strategy into their transformation from the outset. This typically involves defining priority data domains, agreeing common definitions, and establishing governance to support a trusted single source of truth across finance, actuarial, risk and the business. Data is often the foundation on which sustainable transformation success depends.
5
Chapter 5:
Poor programme execution and governance
Even well‑designed finance transformation plans can unravel without disciplined execution. These are multi‑year, cross‑functional programmes, and execution is often where ambition meets organisational reality. Common challenges include:
Flawed planning: Rushed timelines, vague scope, or endless analysis paralysis derail momentum before delivery begins. Planning must be realistic, account for the finance team’s BAU cycles, and balance ambition with operational reality.
Change overload: Insurers often run too many initiatives at once. Without portfolio discipline, resources are stretched thin, and transformation fatigue sets in. Smart sequencing and ruthless prioritisation are essential.
Weak governance: Unclear decision rights, lack of clarity around ultimate decision-maker (e.g. CFO, CIO or program manager) or no succession planning can paralyse progress. Transformation needs a strong steering committee, clear workstream ownership, and the ability to adapt as people and priorities shift.
Vendor dependency: External partners are valuable but only if the insurer retains control. Without internal capability, oversight, and accountability, projects drift or stall.
Siloed delivery: Finance transformation touches IT, actuarial, operations, and more. If teams don’t collaborate across functions, integration breaks down. End-to-end process mapping and shared ownership are non-negotiable.
Poor risk management: Scope creep, key person risk, and technical failures are inevitable, but they shouldn’t be surprises. Proactive risk identification, escalation paths, and contingency plans separate resilient programs from reactive ones.
Ultimately, success requires more than delivery discipline. It depends on clarity of purpose, visible leadership, and a sustained focus on outcomes rather than activity. Insurers that communicate the cost of inaction, measure progress beyond purely financial metrics, and deliver tangible early wins tend to build belief and momentum over time.
6
Chapter 6:
Regulatory and compliance pressures
Regulation has long shaped finance transformation in insurance, acting as both catalyst and constraint. Major initiatives such as IFRS 17 triggered large‑scale system, data and process change, but many organisations focused narrowly on baseline compliance rather than broader modernisation. This often resulted in compliant outcomes supported by additional workarounds rather than simplified operating models.
Insurers increasingly recognise the value of treating regulatory change as part of a broader transformation roadmap, continuing optimisation beyond go‑live and integrating regulatory data into planning, analytics and decision‑making.
7
Chapter 7:
Market dynamics and economic conditions
External economic and market conditions significantly influence transformation outcomes. During downturns or shocks, transformation initiatives are often paused or scaled back, sometimes before benefits are realised. Where programmes lack flexibility, changing market dynamics can quickly render original plans misaligned with business needs.
Insurers that perform better tend to build resilience into their transformation approach, using modular designs, contingency planning and mechanisms to adapt without losing long‑term momentum.
Conclusion: toward successful finance transformation in insurance
Ultimately, finance transformation success is rarely about finding the “perfect” technology. It is about aligning people, data and strategy, and remaining adaptable as conditions change. Regulatory deadlines and cost pressures will persist, but insurers that treat these moments as opportunities to build long‑term capability often extract far greater value.
Finance transformation is challenging, but standing still carries its own risks. The insurers that navigate this complexity most effectively are those that apply judgement, stay pragmatic, and recognise that transformation is a journey rather than a fixed destination.