Closing API Gaps Without a Multi-Year IT Project
A Faster Way to Close the Gap Than a Full Rebuild
The scale of the API gap between broker platforms and cedant systems can make the problem feel like it requires a multi-year technology overhaul to fix. It does not. The most effective operating fix is narrower and faster: identify the highest-volume, highest-friction submission flow, build a targeted integration or translation layer for it, and expand from there once the model is proven.
Where Should a Reinsurer Actually Start?
It should start with the single broker relationship or submission type generating the most manual rekeying volume, not with an attempt to solve the entire market's connectivity problem at once. A focused starting point makes the business case obvious, since the volume of manual work being eliminated is immediately visible, and it gives the technology team a bounded, achievable project instead of an open-ended integration mandate. This mirrors the same practical sequencing already working for reinsurers tackling onboarding delays for newly bound programs, where fixing the highest-friction step first produces faster, more visible results than trying to redesign the entire process end to end.
What Does a Targeted Fix Actually Look Like?
It typically looks like a translation or middleware layer that sits between the broker's submission format and the cedant's core system, converting one into the other without requiring either side to rebuild its own platform. This approach avoids the disruption of a full system replacement while still eliminating the manual rekeying step that currently introduces delay and error. Reinsurance News describes ACORD's own Data Exchange Platform and Translator as built for exactly this purpose, converting submission, quote, and order data into a structured format that different systems can consume without a custom, one-off integration for every counterpart.
How Does This Connect to Other Manual Workarounds Already in Place?
It connects directly, because the same translation logic that closes a broker-cedant API gap often overlaps with the manual process already used for bordereaux reconciliation with cedants. Both problems come from data arriving in a format the receiving system cannot use natively, and both are candidates for the same kind of targeted integration or standardization fix rather than separate, siloed projects.
| Step | Traditional approach | Targeted operating fix |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Full core system or platform replacement | Single high-volume submission flow |
| Timeline | Multi-year | A few months |
| Risk | High, affects entire operation at once | Contained, limited to one integration point |
| Business case | Hard to isolate specific savings | Clear reduction in rekeying volume, immediately visible |
None of this requires resolving why the gap exists in the first place at an industry level. It only requires picking the highest-value starting point inside the reinsurer's own operation and proving the model works before scaling it to additional broker relationships.
Reinsurers waiting for an industry-wide data standard to fully solve this problem are waiting for something that may take years to materialize evenly across every broker platform. Reinsurers that instead pick one high-volume flow and fix it now are already capturing the benefit while that broader standardization slowly catches up.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does closing broker-cedant API gaps require a full core system replacement?
No. Targeted integration on the highest-volume submission flows typically closes most of the practical gap without touching the core system itself.
Where should a reinsurer start when closing this gap?
With the broker relationship or submission type that generates the highest volume of manual rekeying, since that is where automation pays back fastest.
What role do industry data standards play in a practical fix?
They provide a common structure both sides can map to, reducing the need for custom, one-off integration work with every broker platform.
Can a middleware or translation layer help without replacing existing systems?
Yes. A translation layer that converts broker submission formats into the cedant system's expected structure avoids a disruptive rebuild on either side.
How long does a targeted integration project typically take?
A focused integration with a single high-volume broker relationship can often be delivered in a few months, far faster than a full platform overhaul.
What operational metric shows the fix is working?
A rising percentage of submissions received through structured, automated channels and a falling volume of manual rekeying hours.
Who should manage this project day to day?
An operations owner working jointly with technology, since success depends on both the technical integration and the underwriting workflow around it.
What is the biggest risk of doing this poorly?
Building a rigid, one-off integration that only works for a single broker format, recreating the same fragmentation problem at a smaller scale.
