Problems › Operational Excellence Consulting › Insurance Brokers
Improvement programmes reliably improve the places that were never the constraint, because those are the places that are easiest to improve. This page works through it for insurance brokers specifically — including an unedited excerpt from a real analysis of an insurance broker.
Improvement programmes reliably improve the places that were never the constraint, because those are the places that are easiest to improve. What makes this harder for insurance brokers is structural: 71 percent of revenue flows through carrier commissions while shifting an incremental 8 percent to fees would require replacing 142 renewal accounts and cut near-term margin by 1.8 to 2.3 points. Any credible answer therefore has to hold 19.0 and 91.2 in the same view, which is exactly where most internal analysis stops because the two live in different systems.
Every operation has one thing that limits output at any given time — a machine, a crew, a licence, an approval, a person. Work done anywhere else does not increase throughput; it increases the inventory waiting at the constraint. This is not controversial and has been understood for forty years, and improvement programmes still routinely violate it, for a structural reason: initiatives are generated by the teams that volunteer, and the constrained team is by definition the one with no spare capacity to volunteer.
The result is a programme with excellent hygiene and no effect. Waste is removed, standard work is written, boards are visible, and the units out of the door are the same as last year. Because the activity is real, the response to a flat result is usually more initiatives, which consumes more of the capacity of the teams that were never limiting anything.
The second thing that hides in these programmes is that the constraint is often full of the wrong work. A plant running at capacity on a product line earning nothing does not have an efficiency problem; it has a selection problem wearing an efficiency costume. No amount of method fixes that, and method applied to it makes the unprofitable work cheaper to produce, which increases the volume of it.
Efficiency Transformation Strategy (catalog id T12) starts from the constraint and what occupies it — throughput, contribution per unit of the scarce resource, and what would have to be true for the next unit of capacity to pay. Where the answer is that the process genuinely is the limit, a lean programme is the right purchase and the analysis will point at where to aim it.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ A large number of completed improvement initiatives and unchanged output
✓ Nobody agrees on which step is the bottleneck, or the answer changes by department
✓ The most improved areas are the ones with the most available time
The move that usually makes it worse. Rolling out a method across the whole operation, which spends the scarce improvement capacity on the steps that were never limiting anything.
It is for you if you run or finance an insurance broker and a large number of completed improvement initiatives and unchanged output. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on an insurance broker. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Kesterline Risk Partners, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — 47.8 million dollars in total revenue from commissions and fees.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Customer Value Architecture · sample company profile
The move. Convert 460 commission accounts to fee retainers, funding a $3-5M digital workbench from productivity gains while staying inside the $4.8m investment ceiling.
| Investment required | $3.0-5.0M total (base $3.0M, upside $5.0M for accelerated digital workbench) |
| Expected return | 3.2-4.8× over 36 months on $3-5M investment, based on +$4.2-8.5M incremental fee revenue at 35-45% gross margin versus current 19% operating margin. |
| Revenue, year 1 | $50.1-51.8M total revenue (+$2.3-4.0M incremental fee) |
| Revenue, year 2 | $54.4-57.9M total revenue (+$6.6-10.1M incremental fee) |
| Revenue, year 3 | $58.2-64.8M total revenue (+$10.4-17.0M incremental fee) |
| Exit criteria | Strategy should be reversed if, within 12 months, pilot conversion rate falls below 15% OR incremental churn exceeds 5% OR producer productivity drops below $600k average; OR if, within 24 months, cumulative fee revenue does not reach $6.6M incremental run-rate. |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Efficiency Transformation Strategy, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For insurance brokers it works through 19.0, 91.2, 664 and 31, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
They solve different problems and the choice matters less than the aim. Lean attacks flow and waiting; six sigma attacks variation and defects. If your problem is that things sit in queues, lean. If it is that outputs are inconsistent, six sigma. If you do not yet know which, the method choice is premature and either one will produce activity.
Assessment phases run roughly £40k–£120k. Full deployment with embedded practitioners and training is commonly £250k–£1m over a year, often quoted against a promised multiple of savings. Ask how the baseline is set and who verifies the savings, because self-verified benefits are the norm and they are systematically generous.
The method can — the material is public and cheap, and plenty of firms have taught themselves. What is genuinely hard to self-supply is the outside judgement about where to aim it and the willingness to say that a favoured department is not the problem. That is the part worth buying, and it is a much smaller purchase than a deployment.
Materially, yes. 71 percent of revenue flows through carrier commissions while shifting an incremental 8 percent to fees would require replacing 142 renewal accounts and cut near-term margin by 1.8 to 2.3 points — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are 19.0, 91.2, 664, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on 19.0 and 91.2. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.