This article is part of a sponsored series by dyad.
MGAs don’t struggle to scale because teams lack expertise or work ethic. They struggle because their operating model quietly bleeds time—through rework, handoffs, data clean-up, and manual coordination that compounds as volume grows.
That leakage is operational friction. And while technology plays a critical role in reducing it, here’s the uncomfortable truth many organizations miss:
Technology only helps once you understand where friction is actually being created.
Without that clarity, even the best platforms end up automating inefficiency instead of eliminating it.
The Real Cost of Operational Friction
Operational friction doesn’t always show up as a line item, but its effects are measurable:
- Lost capacity: Manual steps and rework limit how many submissions a team can realistically handle.
- Slower cycle times: Delays reduce broker confidence and win rates.
- Data inconsistency: Re-entered data inevitably leads to reporting gaps, audit risk, and downstream corrections.
- Strained relationships: When processes lack visibility, partners fill the gap with emails and follow-ups.
Over time, friction becomes normalized and we begin to think that the status quo is “just how MGA operations work.” In reality, it’s usually a sign that workflows, systems, and expectations aren’t aligned.
Where friction tends to concentrate
While every organization is different, friction consistently clusters in three stages of the MGA lifecycle.
Submission intake and underwriting preparation
Submissions arrive in varied formats, with incomplete or inconsistent data. Underwriters and ops teams spend significant time normalizing information before any risk evaluation can begin.
Duplication quickly follows: data is copied into spreadsheets, systems, templates, and portals—each touchpoint adding delay and increasing the chance of error.
Signal to watch: high-quality submissions wait behind low-quality ones because triage is inconsistent.
Quoting and binding
In many MGAs, quoting workflows only move forward when someone manually nudges them. Status checks, follow-ups, and unclear ownership become the de facto process.
At bind, missing or scattered documentation creates last-minute scrambles, often resolved through email rather than structured workflows.
Signal to watch: teams spend more time coordinating work than completing it.
Post-bind servicing and reporting
Endorsements, renewals, bordereaux-style reporting, data calls, and audits expose friction that’s been quietly accumulating since submission.
When data must be pulled from multiple systems, reconciled manually, and reformatted for partners, servicing becomes labor-intensive—and difficult to scale.
Signal to watch: every policy change feels like a small project.
Measure before you modernize
Many MGAs jump to tools because tools feel decisive. But technology applied to an undefined problem rarely produces meaningful change.
Before introducing new platforms or automation, take three foundational steps.
1. Map workflows as they actually operate
Focus on high-impact workflows—submission to quote, quote to bind, endorsements, renewals. Document each step, handoff, decision point, and system interaction.
Pay close attention to:
- steps that rely on email to progress
- data pulled from multiple sources
- pauses with unclear ownership
- information recreated rather than reused
Involve underwriting, operations, compliance, and IT. Each sees different breakdowns.
2. Track metrics that reveal friction
You don’t need sophisticated analytics to start—just consistency.
Useful indicators include:
- submission-to-quote time
- quote-to-bind ratio
- manual touchpoints per policy
- rework or correction rates
- submission hit ratio (quoted vs. received)
Start by benchmarking against your own baseline, not the market.
3. Listen for friction signals
Frontline teams, brokers, and carriers all experience friction differently. Repeated status requests, correction cycles, or late data are symptoms of process and visibility gaps—not communication failures.
How technology helps—when applied correctly
Once friction is clearly identified, technology becomes a force multiplier rather than a patch.
Effective approaches share a few traits:
- Focus on high-impact bottlenecks. Solve problems that compound across teams and volumes.
- Standardize handoffs and definitions. Clearly define what “ready” means at each stage and who owns the next step.
- Reduce duplication before automating. Automation magnifies whatever process it touches—good or bad.
- Use platforms and integrations to reinforce discipline. Technology should lock in improvements, not replace decision-making.
When applied this way, technology reduces cycle time, improves data quality, and allows MGAs to scale without proportionally increasing headcount.
Friction reduction is a growth strategy
Operational friction isn’t just an operational inconvenience—it’s a constraint on growth.
MGAs that succeed long term are those that can:
- Move faster without losing control
- Provide reliable, timely data to partners
- Scale volume without scaling manual effort
Technology plays a central role in making that possible—but only after friction is understood, measured, and prioritized.
Fix the process first. Then let technology do what it does best.
About Dyad
Dyad delivers software and services that powers modern insurance processing and distribution. Click here to explore the solutions that Dyad has purpose built for MGAs, wholesalers, and Program Administrators.
[inline-ad-1]
Topics
Tech
Insurance Wholesale