This is an industry analysis, not a client result. It separates published research from operating hypotheses that must be tested against an organization’s own workflows and data.
The 2026 Ivans/Applied Systems agency-carrier connectivity research points to repeated data entry and commercial submission automation as material concerns for independent agents. The figures are useful industry context. They do not establish the workflow, loss, or performance of any particular agency.
74%
Applied Systems/Ivans reported that 74% of the 702 independent-agent respondents identified re-keying risk data into multiple carrier portals as their leading workflow pain point. This is a respondent-reported survey result, not an audit of every agency.
79%
Commercial submission automation ranked as the capability respondents most wanted carriers to provide in the 2026 survey. The result describes agent preference; it does not prove that one automation product or integration will fit every carrier or line.
70% vs 62%
The survey reporting showed a higher re-keying rate among commercial-lines-heavy agencies than personal-lines-focused agencies. Risk & Insurance described the commercial-heavy subgroup as agencies writing more than 75% of their book in commercial lines and noted that this was about 10% of the sample. Treat the subgroup result cautiously.
49% / 7%
The 2026 survey reporting highlighted email as a commonly used collection method among commercial-heavy agencies, while relatively few reported using dedicated submission-capture software. This is a description of the surveyed group, not a recommendation to buy a particular platform.
The 2026 Ivans Connectivity Survey included 702 independent agents who voluntarily participated online between April and May 2026. It covered technology use, connectivity preferences, and workflow pain points, and was supported by the Agents Council for Technology. Applied Systems is an industry technology provider. The published percentages are respondent-reported findings and should not be generalized to every agency, carrier, line of business, or submission. They do not independently establish the causes of re-keying or quantify the cost inside a specific agency. Validate the problem with observed submissions and local operating data.
This is a simplified discovery map. The actual sequence, roles, systems, and exceptions must be documented with the organization.
Collect the information needed for the specific risk and commercial line through the agency's approved channel. Record where each material fact came from, when it was received, and whether the information is confirmed or still requires clarification.
Identify the agency management system or approved record that is authoritative for each field. Match the insured, locations, exposures, vehicles, schedules, prior coverage, and loss information carefully; do not create duplicate records simply to move faster.
Review the risk against current, documented carrier appetite and submission requirements. Confirm which markets are appropriate to approach and identify carrier-specific applications, supplemental questions, schedules, and supporting documents.
Reuse verified information where permitted, map it to the required destination fields, and check completeness, consistency, dates, and supporting evidence. Keep unresolved questions visible rather than filling gaps with assumptions.
Send the carrier-specific package through the carrier portal, approved integration, wholesaler, or other authorized channel. Preserve submission identifiers, timestamps, the version sent, and the person accountable for the handoff.
Record carrier questions, revised information, required documents, due dates, and the owner of each response. Distinguish agency-controlled work from items waiting on the insured, a third party, or the carrier.
Bring quote status, terms, conditions, declines, and next actions into the agency's authorized workflow. Licensed staff retain responsibility for coverage discussions, recommendations, binding instructions, and client approvals.
These patterns are hypotheses, not statements about every organization in this industry. Each one includes a signal to look for and a way to validate it.
Signal to look for
Staff copy named insured details, locations, classifications, payroll, sales, vehicles, property values, or other exposure fields from agency records into carrier portals, PDFs, spreadsheets, or supplemental applications.
Why it matters
Repeated entry consumes staff attention and creates opportunities for transcription differences. Some re-entry may be unavoidable when carrier-specific questions, validation, or unsupported interfaces require it; the agency needs to distinguish necessary work from avoidable duplication.
How to test it
Observe representative submissions across selected markets. Log each repeated field, its original source, each destination, why it was re-entered, who checked it, and whether a correction followed.
Signal to look for
The agency maintains different versions of similar information because carriers use different question wording, supplemental forms, schedules, or document requirements.
Why it matters
A single generic form may not satisfy each carrier's underwriting requirements. Conversely, rebuilding the entire package for each market can repeat work and make version control difficult.
How to test it
Compare the required fields and supporting documents for a defined risk class across a small set of target markets. Identify common fields, carrier-specific fields, conditional questions, and requirements that need licensed review.
Signal to look for
A carrier or underwriter requests missing schedules, clarification, signatures, dates, or supporting documents after the submission has already been sent.
Why it matters
Late discovery creates another handoff and can extend the agency-controlled preparation process. Not every follow-up is a preventable error: underwriting may legitimately need additional information after reviewing the risk.
How to test it
Classify returned items by reason: missing at initial send, inconsistent data, carrier-specific requirement not captured, new underwriting question, or changed insured information. Measure preventable gaps separately.
Signal to look for
The AMS, shared email, individual inboxes, spreadsheets, and carrier portals each show only part of the submission's current status.
Why it matters
A manager may be unable to see which markets have been approached, which responses are outstanding, or who owns the next action without asking staff to reconstruct the history.
How to test it
Sample open submissions and record their stage, target markets, last activity, external dependency, next action, due date, and accountable owner. Reconcile the sample against the source systems.
Signal to look for
Producers rely on separate appetite guides, personal knowledge, calls, or emails to decide where a risk should be placed and to understand which market has responded.
Why it matters
If appetite knowledge and submission outcomes are not recorded consistently, teams may repeat market research or have difficulty learning from previous placements. A tool cannot replace current underwriting guidance or broker judgment.
How to test it
Review how appetite information is sourced and updated, how market decisions are documented, and whether prior submissions, declines, quotes, and reasons can be retrieved reliably.
The consequences below are possible operational effects. Their presence and materiality must be established through workflow observation and business data.
Repeated preparation, data entry, status checks, and document chasing can reduce the time available for client conversations and work that requires professional judgment. The time impact must be measured in the agency's own process.
When information is scattered or requirements are discovered late, the agency may need additional internal and insured-facing handoffs before it can send a usable package. Carrier response time should be measured separately.
Different versions of the same exposure or inconsistent dates can trigger clarification and rework. The agency should measure confirmed discrepancies rather than assuming every repeated field produces an error.
Without a reliable view of open submissions, blockers, aging, and ownership, managers may struggle to rebalance work or identify where the process is waiting.
Technology is one possible response. Sometimes the right first step is clearer ownership, better operating rules, or more disciplined use of tools already in place.
Consider when
Use this when basic risk facts arrive through inconsistent formats or staff repeatedly chase the same information before preparing a submission.
Prerequisites
Define the minimum information by line and risk type, approved source fields, required evidence, conditional questions, and who may confirm or amend each fact.
Important caution
A generic intake form must not replace carrier-specific applications or create the impression that unverified information is complete.
Consider when
Use this when the main constraint is unclear ownership, missing next actions, scattered status, or inconsistent use of fields and activities already supported by the current platform.
Prerequisites
Agree stage definitions, named owners, due dates, market identifiers, document status, exception categories, and the system of record for each item.
Important caution
Avoid creating a second shadow tracker that staff must update manually alongside the agency management system.
Consider when
Use this when observation confirms that the same verified facts are repeatedly entered across carrier-specific packages.
Prerequisites
Build a field map, define source-of-truth rules, preserve provenance and timestamps, handle carrier-specific fields, and require review for changes or uncertain data.
Important caution
Do not force non-equivalent questions into one field or automatically reuse stale information. The person preparing the submission must be able to inspect and correct mapped values.
Consider when
Use this when duplicate transfer is material, the source and destination platforms support stable connectivity, and carrier and vendor terms permit the proposed exchange.
Prerequisites
Confirm API or import/export availability, field mapping, identity matching, permissions, error queues, logging, version handling, vendor responsibilities, and rollback procedures.
Important caution
Do not scrape portals, bypass carrier controls, reuse credentials outside approved terms, or silently submit information without the required agency review.
These questions help turn a general industry hypothesis into a specific, testable operating problem.
Evidence to inspect
Submission volume by line and segment, market distribution, producer or account-team workload, and a defined observation period.
Evidence to inspect
Observed submission walkthroughs, field-level re-entry log, source records, carrier portal fields, and supplemental forms.
Evidence to inspect
AMS field configuration, document provenance, timestamps, client follow-up records, and data ownership rules.
Evidence to inspect
Current carrier instructions, application and supplement requirements, appetite guidance, required schedules, and examples of returned submissions.
Evidence to inspect
Assignment rules, queue records, shared mailbox procedures, portal activity, task due dates, and escalation paths.
Evidence to inspect
AMS and carrier vendor documentation, supported interfaces, API terms, security requirements, and carrier or wholesaler agreements.
Evidence to inspect
Agency procedures, producer authority, carrier instructions, approval requirements, and documented review controls.
A useful measure has a clear numerator, denominator, time window, source, and owner. Baselines should be agreed before implementation.
Definition
Count manual transfer events for a defined set of fields from the source record into carrier portals, applications, spreadsheets, or other destinations.
Interpretation guardrail
Separate required carrier-specific validation from avoidable duplicate entry. Define which fields and workflow stages are included.
Definition
Share of submissions that meet the agreed initial package requirements for the selected carrier and risk class without a return for information that should have been included.
Interpretation guardrail
Classify new underwriting questions, carrier-specific follow-up, changed risk facts, and preventable omissions separately.
Definition
Elapsed time from receipt of the agreed minimum usable information to the agency's dispatch of the complete submission package.
Interpretation guardrail
Record time waiting on the insured, third parties, internal approvals, and carrier requirements separately. Do not label all elapsed time as processing time.
Definition
Share of submissions requiring correction or a replacement package because information was missing, inconsistent, outdated, or mapped incorrectly.
Interpretation guardrail
Exclude legitimate underwriting requests and changes in the insured's information from preventable agency preparation errors.
Definition
Share of open submissions with a named accountable owner, visible current stage, next action, and due date or documented external dependency.
Interpretation guardrail
A populated owner field does not prove that the person accepted the task or that the next action is being progressed.
Definition
Track quote receipt and disposition for submissions grouped by comparable line, risk type, market, and observation period.
Interpretation guardrail
Do not attribute quote or bind outcomes to workflow changes without considering appetite, risk quality, pricing, market conditions, and sample size.
The sequence below is a proposed evaluation method, not a fixed delivery timeline or a guarantee of results.
Choose one commercial line, risk segment, and a small set of markets. Trace recent submissions from insured intake to carrier response and record repeated fields, missing items, handoffs, and time spent.
Expected working output
Current-state workflow, field-level re-entry map, submission sample, and baseline definitions.
Agree authoritative fields, verification status, source and timestamp, carrier-specific requirements, stage definitions, owners, approvals, and exception handling.
Expected working output
Target-state workflow, data dictionary, completeness checklist, role matrix, and control requirements.
Test an improved intake, AMS configuration, controlled reusable record, or one approved integration. Keep submission review, underwriting judgment, and required client or carrier approvals with authorized people.
Expected working output
A limited pilot with user instructions, exception logging, change history, access controls, and a rollback plan.
Compare manual touches, preparation time, completeness, correction reasons, queue visibility, and user feedback against the agreed baseline. Separate agency-controlled time from external waiting.
Expected working output
A documented decision to expand, revise, or stop. Make no improvement claim unless the observed data supports it.
This is an industry concept and research-based diagnostic framework, not a client result or a claim that every independent agency experiences the same submission problem.
The 2026 Ivans/Applied Systems figures come from a voluntary online survey of 702 independent agents. They are not a census, independent operational audit, or measured baseline for an individual agency.
Carrier applications, underwriting questions, appetite, and submission requirements vary by carrier, jurisdiction, line, and risk. A reusable data layer must preserve those differences rather than flatten them.
This brief does not provide underwriting, coverage, eligibility, claims, or placement advice. Licensed and otherwise authorized professionals retain responsibility for risk assessment, client advice, carrier selection, binding instructions, and approvals.
Non-public personal and commercial information must be handled under applicable law, agency policies, contractual requirements, and least-privilege security controls. Check state-specific requirements; an NAIC model law is not automatically enacted in every state.
Integrations must use supported and authorized interfaces. Do not bypass carrier access controls, portal terms, security requirements, or required review steps.
Sources provide industry context for the questions in this brief. They do not prove that a specific organization has the same conditions or will achieve a particular result.
Applied Systems / Ivans · 2026; survey conducted April–May 2026
Primary industry-provider source for the 2026 agency-carrier connectivity survey, including reported workflow pain points, re-keying, and carrier digital capabilities.
Scope: The survey included 702 voluntary online respondents who were independent agents. The report also uses platform data and industry interviews. Percentages should be treated as respondent-reported findings, not a universal market benchmark.
Applied Systems · August 26, 2026
Provides published headline results on submission friction, commercial submission automation, re-keying, and collection methods among commercial-heavy agencies.
Scope: Company press release summarizing the same Applied Systems/Ivans survey; it is not an independent replication of the survey.
Risk & Insurance · 2026
Provides additional context on the commercial-lines-heavy subgroup, including the definition used for agencies writing more than 75% commercial lines and reported manual collection methods.
Scope: Industry reporting on the Ivans survey, not an independent survey. Subgroup findings represent a smaller portion of the sample and should be interpreted cautiously.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners · Current NAIC topic page
Provides context on state adoption of insurance data-security requirements and the NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law.
Scope: State adoption and applicable requirements vary. The topic page and model-law framework do not replace checking the law and regulator guidance for the relevant jurisdiction and entity.
