Dual running is often treated as a temporary and manageable consequence of insurance platform migration. In practice, it can place operations under sustained pressure, frustrate brokers and weaken the business case month by month.
Most organisations expect to operate two systems for a period. Far fewer account fully for what this asks of their people, intermediaries and technology estate.
Customer service teams must understand multiple processes. Operational staff need to establish which platform holds each policy before completing routine work. Brokers may face fragmented portals and conflicting product definitions. Complaints, policy adjustments, management information and regulatory reporting can all span both environments.
These difficulties can become embedded in everyday operations. A task that once followed a single process may require staff to identify the relevant platform, use different procedures and reconcile information across systems. As the transition continues, temporary workarounds begin to resemble permanent operating practices.
The effect on distribution partners can be particularly damaging. Brokers may need to navigate different portals, product definitions and servicing journeys depending on where a policy is held. Each additional step increases the effort required to trade with the insurer and gives intermediaries another reason to place business elsewhere.
The financial cost of coexistence
The financial impact is also routinely underestimated. Legacy licence fees, infrastructure and specialist support contracts continue while the insurer funds the target platform, migration teams and temporary operational inefficiencies.
Each additional month delays benefit realisation and adds duplicate run costs. A strategy selected to lower go-live risk can therefore weaken the economics of the programme if coexistence lasts longer than planned.
The original business case may have assumed a clear transition from legacy costs to target-state savings. In reality, those cost curves frequently overlap. Legacy contracts are extended, scarce technical expertise is retained and additional staff are brought in to compensate for slower processes.
The commercial position becomes harder to manage when legacy suppliers know that the insurer still depends on them. Contract extensions may need to be negotiated from a weak commercial position, particularly where specialist support or ageing infrastructure cannot be replaced quickly.
Dual-running fatigue
Individually, these demands appear manageable. Over time, productivity declines, training becomes harder, workarounds become embedded and distribution partners grow frustrated by the effort required to trade. The accumulated cost of coexistence can outweigh the disruption of the initial go-live.
Reliance on a small number of experienced employees also grows. These individuals understand both platforms, know where exceptions sit and can navigate processes that were never designed to work together. Their knowledge becomes operationally valuable, but it also creates dependency and key-person risk.
Meanwhile, teams are expected to support normal business activity, prepare for the next migration wave and manage issues arising from the previous one. The strain may first appear through lower productivity or service inconsistency, before becoming visible through complaints, broker dissatisfaction, employee turnover or missed delivery milestones.
Programme leaders therefore need to decide how much cost and operational complexity the business can sustain while reducing go-live risk. That decision should be based on a realistic view of how long coexistence will last, rather than the most optimistic date in the programme plan.
The final article explores how insurers can design the transition state deliberately, rather than allowing it to emerge through workarounds and incremental decisions.
If dual running is placing pressure on your migration programme, operating model or business case, come and talk to us at Simplify Consulting. We would be happy to help you assess the options and reduce the burden.
Chris Moore
Head of Solution Architecture
