First Nordic Insurtech Report.

1. NORDIC
INSURTECH
REPORT
By:
Michal Gromek
Henrik Allert
Matt Broniarek

2. PhotobyXnylStudio
NORDIC
INSURTECH
REPORT
By:
Michal Gromek
Henrik Allert
Matt Broniarek
May 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10 Key findings of the report
14 Trends in Nordic Insurtech landscape
18 Segmentation of Nordic Insurtech Companies
30 Eight leading Insurtech trends
42 Nordicstartups’challengeswhileworkingwithIncumbents
48 NordicIncumbents’challengeswhileworkingwithstartups
52 ConnectingIncumbentsandstartupsinastructuredway
55 Methodology and Limitations
58 List of Nordic Insurtech companies

3. 4
5
“
#GOOD TO SEE YOU
—Margaret Heffernan
Margaret Heffernan argued that “For good ideas and
true innovation, you need human interaction, conflict, ar-
gument and debate”.
The successfully conducted Sthlm Fintech Week 2019
was a community-driven event facilitated by a handful
of organisers, co-organisers and volunteers. The event
enabled 520+ participants, from nine different areas of
Financial Systems, to interact and debate different dis-
play arguments as well as search for new solutions with
102 speakers. Due to the community efforts involving
members of other Nordic Fintech Hubs, Accelerators,
Incumbents as well as members of the Academic Com-
munity – the team behind this report – has been able to
aggregate, possibly for the first time, a total of 72 Nor-
dic Insurtech Companies. Furthermore, specifying eight
leading trends impacting Insurtech, nine leading chal-
lenges (out of 81 classified) in the cooperation between
Incumbents and startups as well as providing data
about the gender and demographics of the Insurtechs
CEO led to some unexpected discoveries. Following
Heffernan’s argument, may the findings of this report
be an introduction and fuel the upcoming Sthlm Fin-
tech Week 2020 and all of the discussions that we will
be having until then.
For good ideas
andtrueinnovation,
you need
human interaction,
conflict, argument
and debate Michal Gromek
Co-organiser, Sthlm Fintech Week
PhotobyEliasLjungberg

4. 6
7
PARTNERS OF THE REPORT MAIN AUTHOR
This report was made possible while sharing resources
with the following partners:
Michal Gromek
Sthlm Fintech Week is a community-driven Fintech conference based in
Stockholm launched for the first time in February 2019. For the entire week,
520+ participants engaged in the discussion with 102 experts from the in-
dustry, academics, politics, and representatives of ‘business environment
institutions’ to foster new connection and develop the Nordic ecosystem.
www.sthlmfintechweek.com
Michal Gromek – as a Fintech builder and
Researcher in eleven countries, he has gath-
ered his professional experience while sup-
porting governments to adopt their policies
towards changing FinTech environments
(e.g. Malaysia, South Korea) and also lead-
ing international expansion of European
Fintech Ventures in executive positions (e.g.
Rocket Internet, FundedByMe). He is a con-
tributor to the Forbes Magazine and an author of the Stockholm Fin-
tech Report 2018, and also a co-author in numerous reports and books.
www.michalgromek.com
Designed by: Matt Broniarek
Cover design: Michal Gromek
Finmate is a Stockholm based one-stop-shop for Insurtech, Fintech, and
Regtech companies which anticipated access to services in identification,
authentication and payment service providers. Having a comprehensive
agreement with the biggest providers, Finmate is able to limit both the
costs as well as the time-to-market.
www.finmate.se
Itello is a Swedish Insurtech company and the leading provider of Policy
Administration Systems and digital solutions for the Nordic life and pension
industry. Itello offers software and flexible and sustainable solutions with
the objective to empower customers with market-leading capabilities of
business agility, compliance and process efficiency and control – enabled
by digitalisation and process automation.
Itello is actively involved in the evolving Insurtech ecosystem with the am-
bition to be a hub in the Nordic Life and Pension industry. Through broad
experience and expertise, new innovations and technology advancements,
Itello generates business value to organisations in the industry.
www.itello.com

5. 8
9
SYNOPIS
Since 2015, different teams of researchers from Stock-
holm School of Economics have released reports that
review the signals which have reflected on the devel-
opment of the regional Fintech, RegTech, and Insurtech
ecosystem. Those reports have uncovered different
areas of the ecosystem remain open-source and grew
with its complexity.
This report is anticipated as a continuation of the re-
port ‘The Next Wave of Fintech, Redefining Financial
Services Throughout Technology’ published in 2018
together with PA Consulting. It provides an extension
and a new angle on the development with a focus on
Insurtech as a subsection of the Nordic Fintech Eco-
system.
The overall goal of this report has been, for the first time,
to scout and segment the landscape of Insurtechs in all
Nordic countries. It specifies current trends within the
industry and reviews some aspects of the development
within the Insurtech space while providing insights on
the current stage as well as potential future develop-
ment of the industry.
Stockholm Fintech Report 2018
The Next Wave of Fintech, Redefining Financial
Services Throughout Technology’
The Rise and Development of FinTech: Accounts of
Disruption from Sweden and Beyond
Chasing the Tale of the Unicorn
This report is made available under
a Creative Commons license, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
8
Photobyrawpixel.comfromPexels
Links to related open source
publications about Swedish Fintech Scene:

6. 10
11
72 Insurtech companies have been established in the
Nordic Countries. 50% of them (36 companies) are
incorporated in Sweden. With only three female In-
surtech CEOs, men account for 95% of the Chief Ex-
ecutive Officers in the industry. Furthermore, with an
average age of Insurtech CEOs in Norway and Sweden
at 46.7 years old and only three founders being below
30 years, this industry requires more mature manage-
ment teams.
Eight leading trends might impact the development
of Insurtech companies: Wearable Technology, Ro-
botic Process Automation, Reassessment of Incum-
bent-startups Relationship, Online-Only-Customers,
Cloud Infrastructure Providers, Conversational In-
terfaces, Decentralised Ledger Technology (DLT) and
API connections. The Taxonomy of the activity of In-
surtech companies has been divided into eight sub-
segments which are: Claims, Management & Process-
ing, Customer Engagement, Consumer Communities
Peer-2-Peer (P2P), Distribution, Personalisation, On
Demand Insurance, Underwriting & Reinsurance,
Risk Detection & Prevention. More than 40% of all
Insurtech companies have been incorporated in the
year of 2015 or after and their activities are mainly
allocated in the subsegment: Distribution, Risk De-
tection & Prevention.
Contrarily to the Nordic Fintech companies in the In-
surtech industry, there has been so far an absence of
Unicorns like Klarna, Revolut or Izettle. So the consen-
sus to embark on the ship of digital transformation in
insurance based on a smaller sense of urgency has been
slower.
In interviews, Nordic startups have specified 27 lead-
ing challenges to work together with Incumbents. The
Incumbents specified 54 challenges. Reassignment of
the startup – Incumbent relationship might be at the
core of trends possibly increasing the efficiency in the
ecosystem.
When it comes to the development of the industry, in
the process of ‘digital transformation’ (following Wes-
terman, Bonnet & McAfee, 2014), digital is not the an-
swer, the transformation is.
Focusing on transformation instead of dig-
ital highlights the fundamental role of lead-
ership and organisational capabilities in cre-
ating real business value from technological
innovations (Westerman, Bonnet & McAfee, 2014).
Despite the slower path of change in Insurtech, In-
cumbents across the Nordic Insurtech spaces have
launched a portfolio of diversified alliances. Coopera-
tions, cooptations, partnerships, buyer-supplier agree-
ments, and co-branding of different activities like the
Sthlm Fintech Week 2019 or this report, have been
created to foster a new type of cooperation projects.
Following interviews with market leaders, the pathway
towards digital transformation has been quite rocky for
both Insurtechs and Incumbents, but it goes forward.
Every day further brings about a little piece of progress.
KEY FINDINGS OF
THE REPORT
PhotobyrawpixelfromPixabay

7. PhotobyHelloquenceonUnsplash
12
13
INTRODUCTION
The increase of shifting customer behaviours towards
‘comparison websites’ and ‘online-only customer’ trend
is slowly but steadily increasing the pressure on the in-
dustry.
This pressure is starting to first: open up micro-level
isolation within Incumbents provide more service-ori-
ented platforms combining not only technology, prod-
uct and service but also establishing new value-added
services for the customers.
It is essential when following communication studies
(Blakstad & Allen) not to extrapolate on incomplete
data, and before jumping to conclusions, there is a need
to understand:
• What are the developments in the Nordic Insurtech
Ecosystem?
• How do different actors interact with each other?
Reflecting on these questions, the goal of this report is
to provide an answer to the most fundamental question
that might be the foundation of any additional assump-
tions:
• What are the different startup players in the Nordic
Insurtech ecosystem?
• How is the market being impacted by holistic global
trends?
“(…) Insurtech with some excep-
tions tends to align at the centre
of small startups with up to 10
individuals with often non-sus-
tainable business models, which
rarely focus on the problems of
segments which are underserved by the banks. This unfortu-
nately often mimic services provided by the banks or insurance
companiesbutwithbetteruserexperienceorcustomercentricity.
On the other end, Banks and Insurance companies don’t com-
municate where they need support. This miscommunication
in the market means that we waste our innovation potential.”
— Stig Johansson,
Former Head of Fintech
at Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority Source: (Forbes, 2018)
As our brains are wired for categorisation (Caramazza,
2001), we like to see clear lines between different players
in the market while drawing categories, segments and sub-
segments. Unfortunately, in a time period of interdisciplin-
ary diversification of risks, products and growing consoli-
dation of the market, the lines between different types of
Insurtechs are not only blurry, but need a continuous and
frequent readjustment of the positions of the players in the
ecosystem. As the usage of technology develops at a nearly
exponential rate, any categorisation of the players of the
Insurtech market should be approached with great care as
it can be outdated as it’s read.
Insurtechs, refers to the use of technology inno-
vations and digitalised processes to generate new
business opportunities, increase quality, savings
and efficiency at various value added steps in the
insurance industry model (Stockholm School of
Economics, 2018).
The crumbling walls of stand-alone finan-
cial products which focused solely on one
national state reached a significant delay to
Fintech – the Insurance industry.
WHAT MAKES
A COMPANY
AN INSURTECH
COMPANY?
TECHNOLOGY
INNOVATIONS
AND DIGITALISED
PROCESSES

8. 14
15
TAXONOMY
The following taxonomy of Nordic Insurtech companies
have been divided into the following eight different subsegments
to display the core business areas:
Allows the customer to mitigate risk and mutually cover their losses. Due to the increased availabil-
ity of the Internet, online payment methods as well as the digitisation of trust, customers joining in
P2P insurance systems use Insurtech companies to for example insure each other’s cars – which
are a reinvention of ‘mutual insurance’.
CONSUMER COMMUNITIES PEER-2-PEER (P2P)
TRENDS IN
NORDIC INSURTECH
LANDSCAPE
Taxonomy of Nordic Insurtech companies (Stockholm School of Economics, 2018).

9. PhotobyJoséMartínRamírezConUnsplash
16
17
CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT
PERSONALISATION
Enables Insurers to engage with customers in a proactive matter, offering them: e.g. an up-to-date
congestions information, suggesting steps to continue to improve their health based on the result
of their biometrical data, providing information about particular weather conditions. Upgrading
the customer engagement matrixes from reactive to proactive allow Insurers not only to retain
the customer but additionally lowers risk of a specific vehicle-based incident.
Ubiquitous access to the internet, as well as extensive availability of new data sources like biomet-
rical data, or tools permitting geolocalisation not only allow the insurance providers to understand
their customer base more extensively but further tailor their offering to a particular subsegment.
Insurance Wallets which will enable aggregating the products in one place and Financial partners
can be viewed as a type of ‘distributor’. The key difference to traditional insurance distributors is
the fact that companies in this category are involved as ‘financial partners’ being primarily based
on user consumption pattern and preferences.
CLAIMS, MANAGEMENT AND PROCESSING
Claims management services and processing consist of advice or services in respect of claims for
compensation, restitution, repayment or any other remedy for loss or damage. They consist of
processes supporting handling: compensation, restitution or reimbursement for any loss or dam-
age. Companies in this subsegment provide Robotic Process Automation (RPA), which are systems
informing about the current stage of an application, as well as products offering services in the
area of Machine Learning (ML) to process a particular claim more efficiently.
DISTRIBUTION
Due to the shift in the distribution models towards price-aggregator, the traditional insurance
‘agents model’ could lose its relevance. This category includes both Digital Brokers, Comparison
Portals as well as Digital Insurers.
RISK DETECTION & PREVENTION
Access to new information sources like Big Data analytics, Artificial Intelligence Software; com-
panies provide real-time weather forecasts and satellite images of pre- and post-incident models
that allow insurers to detect risk and potentially prevent incidents. This category includes both
data-input providers using the Internet of Things (IoT), offering solutions in Risk Screening that
might result in products, technologies and services like Proactive Insurance.
UNDERWRITING AND REINSURANCE
At the central role in the insurance value chain, due to regulatory compliance, large capital re-
quirements and often long contracts time. Companies in this subsegment provide administration
systems and digital solutions to increase business administration efficiency and control. Every
underwriter needs a system for administration of the insurance policies. This system might include
invoicing and payments, policy issuance, claims management, regulatory reporting, commission
management and technical sub-ledger accounting.
Companies in this category allow Incumbents using componentisation ‘Episodic Insurance’ and
‘Product Insurance’ to provide on-demand services connected to a minimal period or a particular
item. For example retailers, or Hospitality providers integrate different types of coverage during
their online check out process. On-demand insurance strives for the balance between the presen-
tation of the policy offered to the customer at a dedicated period, while gaining the convenience
and simplicity of a comprehensive policy.
ON DEMAND INSURANCE

10. 18
19
SEGMENTATION OF
NORDIC INSURTECH
COMPANIES
Seventy two companies scouted in the Nordics have been
classified into eight different categories.
36 Sweden, 13 Denmark, 12 Norway, nine Finland, two in Iceland.
The majority of companies are active in the subsegment of ‘Distribution’ and ‘Risk Detection & Prevention’.
SWEDEN
Segmentation of Insurtech companies in all Nordic countries.
Segmentation of Insurtech companies in Sweden.

11. 20
21
DENMARK NORWAY
Segmentation of Insurtech companies in Norway.Segmentation of Insurtech companies in Denmark.

12. 22
23
ICELANDFINLAND
Segmentation of Insurtech companies in Iceland.Segmentation of Insurtech companies in Finland.

13. 4,6%
95,4%
2
32
1
11
12
6
2
24
25
Nordic Insurtech
startups in average
Age of CEO
95,4% oftheNordicInsurtechCEOs
Year of incorporation
AGE
Fintech CEOs, with an average age of 40 years old (Gromek, 2018),
are 6.7 years younger than their Insurtech counterparts.
Methodology:
The age of the CEOs has been defined as of 2019. Each name of the
CEOs specified on allabolag.se (SE) and proff.no (NO) was provided
with a birth year in the same source. Denmark, Finland and Iceland
authorities don’t publicly distribute such data.
Amount of male and female CEOs per country.
Cumulative incorporation of Nordic Insurtech companies by year.
Insurtech startups CEOs are on average 46.7
years old with only three CEOs who are below
30 years old.
46.7
Man
2010 Number of CEOs in Insurtech startups by age group.
25–30 30–35 35–40 40–45 45–50 50–55 55-60 60–65 65–70 70–75
Total
2
4
6
25–30 30–35 35–40 40–45 45–50 50–55 55–60 60–65 65–70 70–75
SwedenNorway
2
4
6
8
8
INCORPORATION
YEAR
43,3% of all Insurtech companies have been incor-
porated during or after 2015. Data has been based
on 67 sub-segmented companies which have been
reviewed using the company’s registration offices
at different Nordic countries. Disclaimer: As it is a
usual business practice, to buy already established
companies, such process might have partly distort-
ed data.
Establishedin1968,theFinnishcompa-
nyTietowasthefirstInsurtechcompa-
ny in the Nordics.
GENDER
Methodology:
The names of the Insurtech CEOs have been
collected with the help of companies web-
sites and publicly available data. The gender
has been extracted using ‘genderizeR’ a
solution that uses ‘genderize.io API’ to pre-
dict gender from first names extracted from
text corpora. The accuracy of prediction has
been controlled by two parameters: counts
of first names in the database and probabil-
ity of gender given the first name.
PhotobyrawpixelfromPexels
Men clearly take up 95,4% of the
Nordic Insurtech CEOs position.
Sweden has the lowest ratio of
male to female CEOs. The gen-
der disproportion in Insurtech
companies is 4% higher than in
the Stockholmer Fintech indus-
try (Gromek, 2018).
Sweden
Finland
Norway
Male Female
Denmark
AggregatedvaluesforallNordicInsurtechcompaniesin%
Iceland
80
60
40
20
0
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
average

14. 26
27
Since Insurtech are a novel development, it might be
tempting to compare the 72 scouted companies with
around 350+ Fintech companies that operate in dif-
ferent Nordic countries. Furthermore, as only a very
limited amount of countries like for example Australia
(Insurtech Australia, 2018) have investigated and seg-
mented their Insurtech landscape, the comparison to
other geographies remains difficult – as reports scout-
ing for Insurtech companies remain rare.
Fintech has been defined as services, products, and
technology served by banks to retail and corporate
customers, which have historically included Insurtech
companies (Gromek, 2018, p. 21). Due to the unique
position distantly from Banks, and connected exclu-
sively to Insurance companies, the ‘Insurtech’ category
as such is entirely new.
Fintech Unicorns IZettle, Klarna and Bamborra, which
have been active in the subsegment of payments or
ARE 72
INSURTECH
COMPANIES
‘FEW’ OR ‘MANY’?
consumer lending, had at the time period of their in-
corporation a significantly lower so-called ‘barrier to
entry’ than Insurtech companies. ‘Barrier to entry’ are
being defined as a level of launching costs and other
hurdles that prevent new startups from market entry.
To establish an Insurtech company, the founders need
to have extensive knowledge in payment systems, data
protection, financial regulation, user experience, cy-
bersecurity as well as insights from the underwriting,
insurance, reinsurance, claim management, and regula-
tory environment connected to the Insurance industry.
Following Kotter (2012) eight-step process for leading
change, the lack of ‘challenger-Unicorns’ like ‘Klarnas’,
‘Revoluts’ or ‘Izettles’ in the Insurtech space is likely
to be negatively impacting the speed of change in the
entire industry. As the first step on the Kotter scale
leading-change scale is a driver defined as: ‘Establish
a sense of urgency.’
Without a sense of urgency created by both potentially
large Unicorns in the area of Insurtech, regulation like
PSD2, the management teams of Incumbents might as
not proactively be taking the remaining seven steps to
foster change.*
A lower ‘dynamics of change’ might not be simplified to
‘lack of action’ as multiple Incumbents in the insurance
industry have decided to take measures to transform
both their internal processes and also shift the focus
toward different solutions in the area of user-centricity.
The Insurtech scene is slowly but steadily growing both
in terms of the number of companies as well as services
offered. Furthermore, there are still few but an increas-
ing amount of cooperations between Incumbents and
Insurtech companies.
*Remaining Steps: 2. Creating a powerful coalition; 3. Developing a vision;
4. Communicating the change vision; 5. Empowering employees to act on
the vision; 6. Generating short-term wins; 7. Consolidating improvements
and producing more change; 8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture.
WHY ARE WE
SEEING MORE
FINTECH COMPANIES
THAN INSURTECH
COMPANIES?
InterioroftheOsloOperaHousebyTomasAdomaitisonStockvault

15. Sweden
Finland Denmark
28
29
SPP – Swedish Occupational pension Incumbent to-
gether with Swedish Property and Casualty (P&C)
insurance provider, ‘Trygg-Hansa’, have partnered
up with Fortnox, a cloud-based provider of account-
ing software that focuses on Small and Medium En-
terprises. (SMEs).
Fortnox provides P&C insurances tailormade for
SMEs through Trygg-Hansa. SPP underwrites the
occupational pension plans in an entirely automat-
ed and digitised process. Such a co-effective under-
writing system has opened up the possibilities for
the Incumbents to use ‘Fortnox’ as a ‘deal-genera-
tion partner’ for 200k+ potential SMEs connected
through the accounting platform. On the other hand,
Fortnox moves into the role of ‘one-stop-shop’ for
SMEs providers which allows the use of new P&L
possibilities, while using the existing core system.
Finland’s largest life insurance company, ‘Local-
Tapiola Life’, launched a customer engagement
app called: ‘Smart Life Insurance’ in November
2015 using the Finnish Insurtech company ‘Well-
mo’. Since launch, Smart Life Insurance expanded
to Germany and Poland, and have provided thou-
sands of Europeans the possibility to channel dif-
ferent health-tech apps into one platform. Wellmo
allows Insurance companies to offer additional ser-
vices for their retail clients and, according to own
reference, at least 3/4 of customers who received
access to their service from their insurance provid-
er are using it regularly (Wellmo, n.d.).
ThefinancialserviceproviderSkandiahaspartnered
upwithDanishInsurtechstartup,thatprovideslead
generation to ‘Matter Pension’. Matter enables cus-
tomers to select a sustainable solution while invest-
ing their pension. Matter reviews external compa-
nies in which the pension of individual customers is
being invested based on several criteria:
• No investments into companies, which produce
fossil fuels, weapons or tobacco.
• Increased standards for ethics and responsi-
ble business practices into companies which
underline higher concern for human rights and
responsible business practises.
• Targeted investments into entities producing
green energy, new technologies, medicine and
health care solutions. (Matter, 2019)
Tryg, a leading Nordic non-life insurance company
is engaged with an Insurtech startup addressing
the needs of a segment of customers called “mil-
lennials”. The startup ‘Undo’ uses AI and data from
Tryg to design personalised insurance covers pro-
posals. ‘Undo’ provides a customer journey into the
Tryg app based on multisided-platforms like Uber
and Airbnb.
EXAMPLES OF
COOPERATION
BETWEEN DIFFERENT
PLAYERS IN THE
NORDIC ECOSYSTEM
PhotobyRedHatFactoryonUnsplash

16. 30
31
The impact of the increasing availability of technology
is connected to a shift in demographics and usage of
traditional insurance products which reside at the in-
tersection between numerous fields, such as consum-
er decision making, psychology, sociology, application
of technology in economic activities, or economic ge-
ography. The period in which the development of a
single technology could be perceived as a stand-alone
development has potentially passed a long time ago.
Available technologies are bundled and interconnect-
ed more intensively than in the past.
Historically speaking, the adoption of multiple tech-
nologies have been accompanying the user since the
industrial revolution. Since the presentation of the
first light bulb by Thomas A. Edison on the New Year’s
Eve of 1879 (David, 1992), the connection between
at least two technologies, a light bulb and electrical
power supply, became visible to the end-users. To
successfully use the light bulb technology, individuals
have to be a user of both the light bulb as well as the
electric power supply.
Since 1950, the possibility to explain and predict end
users’ technology acceptance has been the core in-
terests of the academic field of information systems
(IS) (Festinger, 1957; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ron-
dan, Arenas & Ramires, 2015). The definition of such
a process has been conceptualised as a state known
as ‘technology acceptance’ which is an outcome vari-
able of the psychological process that end-users pass
through while deciding on using a particular technol-
ogy (Dillon & Morris, 1996). Despite the fact that ‘In-
surtech’ has often been defined as a new phenome-
non, the underlying drivers of individuals to use a
particular service, technology, or product has been
reviewed comprehensively – at least academically
speaking.
Furthermore, every individual is unique in his or her
personal and social beliefs, perceptions, preferences
and choices. Using past studies in macro-develop-
ments that impact individuals, it might be partly pos-
sible to foresee industry developments and poten-
tially respond to individual behaviour to some extent.
Leveraging on the context surrounding motivation
psychology, ‘motive’ and ‘motivation’ for individuals
to use a particular technology are often being wrong-
ly used interchangeably, but are in fact two different
notions. A ‘motive’ is a psychological disposition
which is individually developed and content driven.
Some motives are inborn while others are developed
during the socialisation process. On the other hand,
‘motivation’ is a process which highlights how individ-
ual motives become activated.
Interconnected-technology requires new approach-
es. Only the adoption of proactive insurance with
wearables (e .g. Apple watch) requires an interde-
pendent approval of the internet, a particular health
app, wearable, and a potential service provided by an
Incumbent and a form of online payment.
Furthermore, before the user decides to use an app
like‘Undo’,heorshehastoacceptnotonlyONEofthe
‘trends impacting Insurtech’, but have a positive atti-
tude towards ALL sections of embraced technology.
As the world grows in complexity, only a slight distrust
that, (for example, the ‘personal data’ might be mis-
used by any of the players in the ecosystem), might
result in a resignation from a particular service. Such
a distrust might not be connected with an insurance
provider directly, but with the telecommunication
operator, public regulator, online payment provider,
producer of wearables or even the platform which
provides the app. This indicates that in a connected
world, the responsibility for or against the adoption
of a particular technology might be a result of differ-
ent interactions and experiences of individual users
and a specific policy provider.
Based on the experts’ interviews with both Incum-
bents and startups following eight leading trends,
influencing Insurance have been displayed.
EIGHT LEADING
INSURTECH TRENDS
PhotobySushilGhimireonPexels

17. 32
33
“
Insurtech
trends
1 Wearable Technology
2 Robotic Process Automation & Intelligent Process Automation
3 Open APIs connections
4 Online-Only Customers
5 Improving the Incumbent – Insurtech cooperation
6 Cloud Infrastructure Providers
7 Conversational Interfaces
8 Decentralised Ledger Technology
Money is
the currency
of transactions.
Trust is the
currency
of interactions
—Rachel Botsman
PhotobyThomasRichteronUnsplash
3333
32

18. 34
35
1. Wearabletechnology
been delayed or cancelled before they arrive at the airport,
wearables can inform the user about potentially hazardous
weather conditions or health, thus limiting the negative
outcomes from an upcoming event. This is just one of the
many possibilities of how wearables can be used. Two US-
based Insurtech companies like ‘Cigna’ and ‘Oscar’ connect
the high volume of users to the amount of walked steps,
sports activities etc. Wearables enable insurers to gather
a large amount of information regarding biometrics of in-
dividuals from the pulse, activity levels, sleep cycles, skin
temperature, and blood chemical element levels.
Insurers might use them to provide personalised sugges-
tion and solution that might benefit the Incumbent-custom-
er relationship.
The definition of wearables has shifted primarily from
‘watches’ that have been available to the general population
as early as in the 16th century, to electronic devices that
might directly collect biometrical data from individuals for
mostly recreational use. With the introduction of Smart-
watches by Apple in 2015, it emerged towards mainstream
technology from professional sports and health-tech.
Wearables have the potential to impact the insurance eco-
system in a significant way, as they allow the shift from
‘reactive service’ in which the customer engages with the
Insurance company after an occurrence to possibly allow
the customer to take countermeasures before an accident
might take place. Similar to app services from different
airlines that inform the customers that a connection has
advanced automation solutions based on APIs and work-
flow management. Examples of typical activities suitable
for RPA processing is the creation of invoices and handling
various types of registrations of applications, agreements
and master data.
RPA has the capacity to provide excellent output for both
customers and data collection but is only as good as the
quality of the data input - as its crucial foundation remains
on clear, structured data and predefined parameters and
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) focuses on the rap-
id automation of repeatable, primarily internal, business
processes using software robots. The major objective is to
assess the support ‘knowledge workers’ by removing re-
petitive, replicable, and routine tasks. Basic RPA solutions
mimic a human user interaction via the graphical user in-
terface (GUI) of the business application. This is very use-
ful for labour intensive operations in combination with an
older legacy software architecture not adapted for more
rules. RPA might be an excellent tool to monitor transac-
tions and flag potential unexpected developments that re-
quire a human-based manual review.
With RPA growing more mature and advanced over the
years it has morphed into the concept of Intelligent Pro-
cess Automation (IPA). IPA is an emerging set of new tech-
nologies that combine fundamental process redesign with
robotic process automation and machine learning (Berutti
et al., 2017).
• Advanced RPA: Being able to connect and interact with
relevant software applications like Enterprise Resource
Planning Systems (ERP), service desks, databases, and
other business applications.
• Smart Workflow: A process-management software
tool that integrates tasks performed by groups of hu-
mans and machines (sitting on top of RPA to help man-
age the process) (Berutti et al., 2017).
• Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML),
Advanced Analytics: Utilizing algorithms that identify
patterns in structured and unstructured data, through
“supervised” and “unsupervised” learning. Allows mak-
ing predictions based on new inputs on their own and to
provide insights on recognized patterns. Machine learn-
ing and advanced analytics could be a game changer for
insurers, for example, in the race to improve compliance,
reduce cost structures, and gain a competitive advan-
tage from new insights (Berutti et al., 2017).
• Natural-language generation (NLG): Software engines
that create seamless interactions between humans and
technology by following rules to translate observations
from data into speech or text -based communication.
(Gavs, 2018)
• Cognitive agents: Technologies that combine machine
learning and natural-language generation to build a
completely virtual workforce (or “agent”) that is capa-
ble of executing tasks, communicating, learning from
data sets, and even making decisions based on “emotion
detection.” (Gavs, 2018)
2. Robotic Process Automation & Intelligent Process Automation PhotobyLukeChesseronUnsplash
PhotobyThomasKolnowskionUnsplash

19. 36
37
3. Open APIs
The introduction of ‘Application Programming Interface
(API)’ empowered the interlinking of different IT frame-
works or applications, as well as enabling them to utilise
each other’s resources. Creation of an intersection be-
tween different Information Systems, with the help of APIs,
continues to facilitate and create an efficient connection
between, for example, Incumbents of Insurtech compa-
nies increasing availability on well described open APIs
might provide connections which allow them to facilitate
cross-sectional partnerships interlinking traditional insur-
ance providers to services collecting biometric data, weath-
er forecasts, and government systems.
The legacy systems of Incumbents in the insurance indus-
try, fast-growing disparities between the customer trends
in the area of personalisation of insurance services. Fur-
thermore, the increased importance of price-aggregation
portal indicates a shift from ‘online desired’ to ‘online only’
customer interactions. Today’s solutions allow customers
to compare the premiums of different insurance providers.
Customer behaviour has shifted to a pre-purchase, online
comparison of available Incumbent’s services and phone
contacts with chosen providers to compare multiple offer-
ings. After initial phone calls, customers still tend to return
to the online process to complete a particular agreement.
Such ‘online>phone>online purchasing process’ displays
difficulty in comparing offerings. Similar to experiences
from the banks, in which retail customers rarely visit branch
offices after the initial account opening. The ‘Online-Only’
shift puts a stronger pressure on the Incumbent – client re-
lationships, as well as the need of Incumbents to avoid the
so-called ‘race to the bottom’ fostered by platforms offer-
ing price-aggregation services that often show the lowest
price at the top of the comparison engine.
81% of Insurtech founders denied in a recent study that
management Incumbents are doing enough to foster ef-
fective collaboration with Insurtech companies (Insurtech
Australia, 2018). Due to complex challenges specified in the
next section, both Insurtech companies and Incumbents
face difficulties in fostering effective cooperations with
each other. Finding a new avenue of partnership between
different players in the regional and Nordic ecosystems
might be at the core of value creation for customers which
have not been explored adequately.
4. Online-Only Customers
5. Improving the Incumbent – Insurtech cooperation
Example
The easy accessibility of API has been at the core of the
business model of the US-based Insurtech company
‘Lemonade’. The Insurtech allows, for example, creation
of a multisided platform for renters and homeowners
to integrate Lemonade while the user signs up with the
app, the company connects to other services via API in
order to match the current condition of building with a
particular risk premium (Sclafane, 2017).
PhotobyBrookeLarkonUnsplash

20. 38
39
Initially, cloud providers focused on providing computing,
storage, and networking capabilities to their customers.
This continuously expanding infrastructure allowed for
smaller players to access large scale infrastructure ser-
vices for a fraction of the price, thanks to a pay-as-you-go
model. This contributed to increased innovation, as smaller
players could create new services and access large swathes
of customers globally. It also allowed for a faster pace of in-
novation as ideas could be quickly tested using public cloud
resources without the need to order new infrastructure (i.e.
servers).
However, the game is changing. With the global and
more mature infrastructure in place, the cloud providers
compete on managed services which free even more of
the customer’s resources to focus on experience and in-
novation. Cybersecurity was among the first elements
that cloud providers focused on, as providing a secure
environment and helping individual customers to achieve
sufficient levels of security was essential in building trust
both with the regulators and larger Incumbent customers
and Insurtech companies. With their new managed ser-
vices, the cloud providers take even more responsibilities
in handling the infrastructure on which customers host
their applications.
For example, they will update the patch servers to make
sure the latest security is enabled. Alternatively, they will
even get rid of the servers altogether and provide “server-
less” infrastructure where the Insurtechs will deploy a code
that runs seamlessly. Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial
Intelligence (AI) are growing trends and cloud providers are
focusing on extensive models and algorithms customers
can use to work their data. Again, this allows for even fast-
er innovation by reducing costs and putting ML/AI capabil-
ities in the hands of a growing number of developers.
These capabilities serve as enablers of both new startups
and new services in the “data-heavy” and traditional in-
surance industry. This trend pushes Incumbents to adopt
the cloud at a faster pace with the goal of staying ahead
of the competition. However, the task is not easy, with In-
cumbents often sitting on legacy systems or having to mod-
ernise their applications to access the benefits of the cloud
and satisfy the regulators in terms of compliance.
The insurance industry has historically been rather con-
servative when it comes to the adoption of public cloud-
based infrastructure. These reluctance has been connect-
ed to many factors. One of which has been the pressure
of, for example, Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority
(FI) (SE. Finansinspektionen) and Swedish Data Protection
Authority (DPA) (SE. Datainspektionen) for the companies
to be compliant with national or European regulation (like
GDPR). However, as not all cloud providers have their HQ
in Europe, they are subject to, for example, the US ‘Cloud
Act’. In short, the Cloud Act stipulates that US authorities
may require access to data of companies or individuals
users even if they are placed in countries - as long as the
provider is a US based company.
Furthermore, already in 2015, nine million data centres
accounted for greenhouse gas emissions similar to the
entire aviation industry (Vaughan, 2015). According to a
Clicking Clean report published by Greenpeace in 2017,
30% of Amazon Web Services Data Centers and 31% of
Microsoft data centres are still powered using coal energy
(Greenpeace USA, 2017). There is a need for reflection on
the public cloud providers and their environmental aspects
as well as closer collaboration between the insurance in-
dustry. The collaboration of Insurtech ecosystem and the
regulatory authorities is crucial to fully migrate and take
advantage of the promised advantages of cloud technology.
Example - Cystellar
Cystellar is a UK-based, cloud-based data analytics platform that has been built to improve data-driven decision
making. This startup serves as Insurers in the area of agriculture to help farmers avoid damaging natural events
using satellites and drones, and also integrating it with geo-referenced data. The aggregation of the data on the
cloud allows real-time integration of different databases, providing an efficient underwriting of weather-related
claim thanks to before-and-after analysis, automated post-event loss assessments, and claim adjustment system
(Inmediate.io, 2018).
“Four years ago, as an IT Security specialist in one of the Nordic Fintech Unicorns,
I was doing my best to find different reasons why our products should not be moved
to any public cloud providers. After closely reviewing the cyber security services of
one of these providers, I realised that due to budgetary and organisational restric-
tions, it would be nearly impossible for a Fintech or Insurtech company to have the same level of security in
a traditional datacenter environment.”
— Georgios Kryparos,
Head of Security at Tink
6. Cloud Infrastructure Providers

21. 40
41
7. Conversational Interfaces
8. DecentralisedLedgerTechnology(DLT)
Conversational Interfaces (CI) – focus on the understanding of
the request received by a user and to process it in the shortest
and most efficient way. Typically CI is powered by advanced
technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning
(ML) and Natural Language Processing (NLP). This is different
from the internal processes of an Robotic Process Automation
(RPA) like ‘invoice creation’, which are based on ‘automation’.
Furthermore Conversational Interfaces, which are sometimes
simplified to the term ‘chatbots’ are mostly directed towards
the external user. The overall goal of CI is to provide answers
and are not executing internal processes. Conversational Inter-
faces are designed to follow pre-programmed detailed rules,
performing natural language processing, and trying to under-
stand and evaluate questions.
In the area of Insurtech, chatbots might lower costs and in-
crease the user experience in the automated underwriting
process. Such an increase would be achieved through the in-
teraction of chatbots with a prospective customer acting as
an assistant and asking questions, eventually leading towards
a tailored, personalised insurance offering for a client.
Reflecting on the recent development in the area of ‘home assis-
tants’ like Alexa, Homepod or Google Home which allow com-
puters to execute processes like buying items on an online plat-
Blockchain Technology can be described as a new type of
‘digital infrastructure’ that can best be referred to as a vis-
ible public database (for example, in the form of an Excel
spreadsheet) into which different types of users might pro-
vide data entries, but nobody can erase them. Any change
or distribution from its creation until the present can be
validated, registered, and traced on a Blockchain ledger.
Despite the early stages of the usability of Blockchain In-
formation Technology in the insurance industry, it might re-
duce operational costs, provide additional customer-specif-
ic information, more extensive risk evaluation and improve
efficiency. Similar to the location of the different servers
on the Internet, Blockchain works based on a decentralised
cooperation.
Effective usage of Blockchain Technology might, in the
future, replace infrastructure from clearing banks and in-
crease data security, as different databases could be placed
and validated on decentralised computers. The insurance
industry could benefit from the usage of Blockchain, for
example, while executing what is called ’smart contracts’,
form of one’s choice, this could blur the lines between
RPA and Chatbots further. A good example of this is the
Google Duplex, a voice based fully digital assistant for
booking appointments. In not-a-distant future retail
customer could use their home-assistants devices (like
Google Home) to aggregate Insurance offering. Such
a possibility might shift the interaction points away from
price aggregation platforms.
which would allow them to run contracts between partners
allocated independently from their different geographies,
increasing the transaction speed and reducing distribution
costs.
Blockchain Technology, because of its novelty and the ‘leg-
islative and regulatory delay’, might face some discrepan-
cies between the current stage of technology and current
regulatory framework. An example of such a regulatory
challenge has been the recent national implementation of
‘The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)’ precisely
Art. 17 – Right to erasure (or better known in the industry
as the so-called: ‘right to be forgotten’). Using the national
implementation of the GDPR directive, each user has the
right to request a website on which personal data has been
collected (for example an Insurtech company) to erase the
user’s personal data. Due to the irreversibility of data en-
tries, Blockchain technology caused legal disputes about
how such ‘right to forgotten’ should be executed (Finck,
2018).
PhotobyAustinDistelonUnsplash
PhotobyDonaldGiannattionUnsplash

22. 42
43
Whatisintra-organisationalcooperation?
In the era of increasing global online competition, innovative busi-
nesses are developing new collaboration systems that go beyond
the earlier concept of open innovation (Turiera & Cros, 2013). One
of such type of collaboration is intra-organisational cooperation.
It has been defined as “a cooperative, inter-organisational rela-
tionship that is negotiated in an ongoing communicative process,
and which relies on neither market nor hierarchical mechanisms
of control” (Hardy, Phillips, & Lawrence, 2003, p. 323). These
corporations can be in the form of alliance, partnerships or joint
ventures (Shi, Sun, & Prescott, 2012), buyer-supplier agreements
(McCutcheon & Stuart, 2000), networks (Phelps, Heidl, & Wadhwa,
2012), R&D alliances (Eisner, Korn, & Rahman, 2009), licensing,
co-branding, franchising, and trade associations (Parmigiani & Ri-
vera-Santos, 2011).
This collaboration between business competitors is also called
coopetition (Gast, Filser, Gundolf, & Kraus, 2015). In such coop-
eration, businesses combine their specialised skills to form a sym-
biotic relationship (Turiera & Cros, 2013). In these relationships,
businesses from different industries align their resources to
achieve the goal of developing new products, services, and pro-
cesses to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. Sharing
resources like technologies and expertise ultimately enhances
the value of the product on offer (Faems, Looy, & Debackere,
2005; Turiera & Cros, 2013). Such business-to-business collabo-
rations have sometimes been phenomenally successful (Altringer,
2013). A Nordic example of such coopetition is Combient, which
brands itself as a leading cross-industry collaboration network in
the Nordics and InnoBridge.tech – dedicated towards the coop-
eration between Incumbents and startups in the area of Financial
Services.
To expand the existing pieces of knowledge in this field, during the
preparation for both this report as well as the Sthlm Fintech Week,
a significant number of interviews were conducted with represen-
tatives of startups and Incumbents in order to understand the un-
derlying challenges in cooperation and coopetition between them;
a process known as intra-organisational cooperation.
NORDIC
STARTUPS’
CHALLENGES
WHILE WORKING
WITH INCUMBENTS
PhotobyBenKoldeonUnsplash
STARTUP PERSPECTIVES

23. 44
45
In intra-organisational cooperation, companies belong-
ingtosimilarorevendistantindustriesarecollaborating
systematicallywithothercompaniestheyneverthought
about before (Turiera & Cros, 2013). Turiera and Cros
(2013) noted that some such relationships develop by
chance, while others are the product of the systematic
exchange between companies. Developing such a mutu-
ally beneficial relationship is a complex process, but it is
crucial for radical innovation, customer service, or new
product or service development (Turiera & Cros, 2013).
(Baum, Calabrese, & Silverman, 2000; Wevers, 2007).
startups, in their nascent stages, need to use their re-
sources and capabilities efficiently despite their various
limitations(Paradkar,Knight,&Hansen,2015).Coopeti-
tioncanbearesourcefulcapabilityforthestartup(Teece,
1992). Partnership with larger firms also presents risks,
as the startups are usually immature and the more ex-
perienced competitors may take advantage of their
inexperience in negotiations (Guimarães et al., 2016).
Most research on coopetition studies large firms while
there is a dearth of literature in the case of startups
(Gast et al., 2015). Bouncken et al. (2015) mentioned
that future research should analyse to what extent
coopetition can help startup’s growth and success and
when, how, and why startups should engage in coope-
tition. Bouncken et al.’s (2015) guideline was used to
conduct interviews with both startups and Incumbents
to investigate the challenges in collaboration between
Incumbents and startups in Financial Services.
Being creative and innovative is not the only priority
for startups (Altringer, 2013). Turiera and Cros (2013)
compiled 50 examples of such businesses. They noted
that in the current global market, even the startups
have to collaborate, and sometimes even with large
Incumbents. For innovative startups, innovation and
collaboration is the “inseparable pair” (Guimarães, Cas-
tro-Gonçalves, & Vale, 2016)
Incumbents establish relationships with universities
and research labs to develop new technologies (Van-
haverbeke, 2005). They can even acquire other tech-
nology-based startups to obtain new technologies
(Vanhaverbeke, 2005). Contrarily, research shows
that resource-constrained startups are more innova-
tive in managing their resources as compared to large,
well-resourced companies. This is because constraints
lead them to focus on their core-advantages and ex-
periment with the options available, instead of taking
the conventional path (Altringer, 2013). Due to lesser
constraints and lack of bureaucratic processes which
are present in the larger companies, startups can de-
velop new products or services relatively quickly (Basu,
Phelps, & Kotha, 2009). Collaborations and alliances
among startups and large Incumbents develop a ‘lo-
cus of innovation’, especially in high-technology fields
“Insurance companies are
willing to take the next
steps. It would be useful
to find a way to inform them of startup account
internal processes as well as clarify the expecta-
tion towards them (e.g. development stage, needed
certificates, and proof of concept”
—Jason Coombes,
Chief Operation Officer at Zignsec
PhotobyPriscillaDuPreezonUnsplash
Example - Vilardell Purtí
Example-Starbucks&Square
An example of such collaboration purposely
chosen outside of Insurtech area is: Vilardell
Purtí, a business based in Barcelona, which
manufactures high-quality and high precision
screws with small dimensions for automotive,
home appliances, and aerospace industries.
In the early 2000s, the company developed
its high-precision dental implant using their
screws technology. Strategic collaborations
with CORE3D for the production of custom-
ised implants which were modelled through
digital scans and made of new materials. This
has also sent a positive indication to old clien-
tele, such as the automotive industry, which
now sees Vilardell Purtí as a company which
can produce even more sophisticated and pre-
cise parts (Turiera & Cros, 2013).
An example of such type of partnership in the fi-
nancial area is the connection between Square
(a startup in the field of mobile payments) and
Coffeehouse Chain Starbucks. The collaboration
aims at introducing a technological innovation
into the daily coffee buying routine of the users.
Square aims to replace credit card payments to
help businesses avoid high fees for minor amounts
of bills. In 2010 Square, designed an add-on device
that transforms an iPad or smartphone into a cash
register in return for a fixed percentage (2.75% of
total turnover). Starbucks invested US$25 million
in Square and its CEO, Howard Schultz, joined the
startup’s board (Turiera & Cros, 2013).

24. 46
47
Representatives from the startup communities have raised
the problem of not being able to identify which department
or who would be an ideal first point of contact on the side of
the organisation. Startup founders specified unique points
of contact from sending a Pitch-Deck to the general email
address, the customer service address, and finding repre-
sentatives of relevant social media pages and contacting
them directly. Only a few banks and insurance companies
have a dedicated webpage for Fintech or Insurtech com-
panies, with a dedicated email address and cooperation
requirements.
Best practices - SPP
SPP, an Incumbent in the occupational pension
market in Sweden, created an email fintech@spp.se
as a single point of contact to the organisation for
startups which desired to launch a potential coop-
eration.
During interviews with Nordic startups – (27) leading coop-
eration challenges have been discovered that hinder part-
nerships with Incumbents. The following four challenges
have been mentioned more frequently than others:
2. Black-Boxes
4. Uncertainty about Expectations
Companies which did define their cooperation with
Incumbents as a success provided ranges from
12– 36 months from the time when they have re-
ceived first letters of intent and created of a partic-
ular road map up to a fully concluded partnership.
Startup representatives found it difficult to assess
both potential timelines, as well as the potentially
needed allocation of resources to launch a possible
cooperationwithanIncumbent.
Startups express a potential lack of transparency about the
internal processes that are taking place once the Incum-
bents have received their Pitch-Deck. Some founders ex-
pressed their experience as ‘extremely frustrating’ as they
have been contacted by various individuals within the cor-
porate organisation of Incumbents, often asking very similar
questions with short deadlines. Founders experienced diffi-
cultiesinassessingthestageofaparticularapprovalprocess
the cooperation is being at – what might be the next step or
how many due-diligence procedures are there in total.
Startup founders have difficulties in assessing
when their particular idea, product, technology or
service ‘is being considered as developed enough’
to reach out to an Incumbent. Some founders,
which just passed the ‘pre-seed stage’, received
feedback that their development stage is not suf-
ficient enough. On the other hand, other found-
ers whose startups passed ‘Series A’ have been
informed to be too advanced for a specific accel-
eration program – because of the scope of their
offering.
“The Nordic countries launch
some of the most effective
cooperations in the North-
ern Hemisphere, but large In-
cumbents have an often not only technical legacy-sys-
tem but also an organisation-legacy-systems. Often,
different departments are being engaged in concluding
a partnership with a startup; each department tends to
perform its own small due diligence process on a start-
up. What is needed is a process that is similar to a book-
let to sell a Real estate which is often being handed out
to sellers by a Real estate broker. It starts with: “You
are here”, and there are X processes in front of you that
might take Y amount of time. To reach step one – please
prepare and send the following documents there (…).”
— Richard Rosenholz,
Chairman of the Nordic RegTech Association
1. Lack of a single point of contact
for startups
3. Time
PhotobyyanalyaonFreepik

25. 48
49
INCUMBENTS
PERSPECTIVES
Often represent outdated core system or insurance companies,
which have been created in a programming language like ‘Cobol’,
that has been in use – long before the period of the internet – yet
remain in use. Due to outdated legacy systems, often despite the
best will of the Incumbents, any technical integration might be clos-
er to impossible to achieve.
During interviews with representatives of Incumbents active in
the area of financial services, (57) leading cooperation challenges
have been defined which hinder them in cooperating with start-
ups; the following five challenges have been mentioned more
frequently than others.
“Today in banking architecture business stakehold-
ers are struggling to fulfil modern era TOM (Target
Operational Model) where entire landscape must
become “digital”. In-house IT departments are
overloaded with an effort to support legacy sys-
tems and fulfil regulatory requirements. In this situation, typical
digitisation projects have to switch to systems and applications
developed externally due to time and budget pressure.
In fact, due to high marginal costs of internal IT the most logical
is to tightly cooperate with efficient Fintech, in different forms.
Although that is just the first step and not productive due to
“low-level start” and frequent mismatch of ideas to what corpo-
rate need. What would be more practical and cost efficient – to
find for corporate directly Fintech partner in a specific area that
fits their TOM.”
— Sergey Fedorovich,
Enterprise Architect at BNP
1. Legacy systems
PhotobyMikitoTateisionUnsplash
NORDIC
INCUMBENTS’
CHALLENGES
WHILE WORKING
WITH STARTUPS

26. 50
51
2. Confusing Technology
with Solution
3. Proven Development Partners
4. Openness
Representatives of Incumbents voiced their concerns
that different management teams are focused on re-
placing one ‘core system’ with ‘another core system’ in-
dependently of the current market situation. Replacing
systems or introduction of the Blockchain technology
are examples of Digital Information Technology (DIT)
which might be viewed as ‘pieces of infrastructure’ or
technology but not as a ‘solution’ replying to the shifts
in customer behaviour.
As Incumbents work nearly exclusively with a handful
of partners developing their core infrastructure, In-
surtech companies have difficulties in entering this ‘ex-
clusive club’. Furthermore, current software providers
have created a high barrier to entry with complex and
not accessible APIs which hinders efficient cooperation.
Incumbents express a general openness towards In-
surtech companies but only rarely scout for them ac-
tively or express their needs. In case Insurtech compa-
nies are approaching Incumbents, they are sometimes
stuck because of the communication issues between
different departments.
Only a few Incumbents have teams which actively en-
gage with the ecosystem outside of its own organisational
boundaries, contrary to the Banks that have allocated their
Business Ventures teams in co-working and co-creation
spaces. The traditional Insurance companies maintain their
innovation-labs mostly in-house and engage only infre-
quently with the ecosystem. Furthermore, interviewees
stated that in case they desire to bring in expertise into their
networks, they interact with consultants and less with rep-
resentatives of academia or Insurtech companies.
5. Lack of Communication
with Ecosystem
PhotobyrawpixelonPexels

27. UNDERSTAND
THE PROBLEM
USE ACADEMIC
SOLUTIONS
DON’T INVENT
THE WHEEL AGAIN
SPEAK TO
INDUSTRY EXPERTS
+ TRUST
+ TRANSPARENCY
+ LOW POWER DISTANCE
#HOW TO WORK TOGETHER
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
52
53
InnoBridge – a Stockholm based non-for-profit that
has been founded based on the results of this first
Nordic Insurtech Report. The goal of InnoBridge
is to enable efficient cooperation between Incum-
bents and startups with the focus on the challenges
faced in the Financial Services industry.
Using the accumulated knowledge of InnoBridge
team members collected during years of coopera-
tion in corporations, startups, academia, journalism,
information technology and investments, the goal
is to support Incumbents to implement innovation
from startups into their core systems with the help
of trusted information technology providers. Inno-
Bridge includes not only the results out of the new-
est research in the area of intra-organisational co-
operation, piles of interviews with representatives
of the ecosystem, but also a review of the different
accelerators as well as an investigation in the failed
Stockholm Fintech Hub – to not repeat its mistakes.
“While forming the building
blocks for InnoBridge we have
gone through a systematic pro-
cess of not only analysing the
startup ecosystem and the Incumbents, but we have also
focused on listening to their challenges. We aim to drive
innovation while at the same time building virtual bridges
betweenthesetwo very different membersof the ecosystem.
While investigating different players in the ecosystem, we
have understood the lack of efficient cooperation between
startups and Incumbents is genuinely global. As many coun-
tries look up to the Nordics, it might be high time to under-
stand that nobody will resolve this problem for us and that
possibly we might lead the pathway and present a tangible
solution with global aspirations“.
—Jacob P. Strauss,
Chairman of InnoBridge
CONNECTING
INCUMBENTS AND
STARTUPS IN A
STRUCTURED WAY
Case Study of InnoBridge

28. SMOOTH USER EXPERIENCE
FOLLOWING BEST PRACTICES IN USER EXPERIENCE
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
COMPLEXITY INVISIBLE FOR THE USER
#PROPOSED SOLUTION OF INNOBRIDGE
54
55
Due to the dynamic nature of the Nordic Insurtech eco-
system, the scouting for available companies has been
executed using the ‘External Desk Research’ method
outsideoftheorganisationalboundaries,whilecollecting
relevant pieces of information with the following steps:
First, data about Insurtech companies have been ex-
tracted from previous reports as well as data sources
like Crunchbase, Nordic Tech List or LinkedIn.
Secondly, members of Nordic Fintech Hubs and Accel-
erators connected to the organisers of the Sthlm Fin-
tech Week and InnoBridge have been providing links
to available lists and databases.
Thirdly, the predefined list has been validated with
members of the Fintech and Insurtech community
before and after the conferences. More than 72 com-
ments have been incorporated into the taxonomy be-
fore and after the Sthlm Fintech Week 2019.
Lastly, the remaining companies have been anal-
ysed by authors, co-authors, and supporters, who
clustered them into different subcategories for vi-
sualisation purposes. Companies that have not been
formed, have a sales officer or a smaller daughter
company have been erased. Companies like the Ice-
landic ‘Klavier’ that had very little amount of infor-
mation available on them in public sources, had to
be further investigated with members of the local
community and VC investors. Through this process,
the pieces of information available online or in com-
pany’s registration sufficient information was gath-
ered to place the company in a particular subdivision.
As ‘only’ 72 Insurtech companies in the Nordics were
found and segmented, the results might be defined to
be a total ‘n’. Due to limited numbers of companies, each
new entry might have a substantial impact on average
and median values. Displayed data might be used and
quoted for indication purposes. It is to be ensured not
to extrapolate from incomplete data.
Insurtech in the Nordics remains on a slow but steady
development path. Based on the complexity of insur-
ance, there are high barriers to entry for new Insurtech
companies. Those high entry barriers connected with
the complexity of the industry are potentially one of
the drivers of the mature age of the Insurtech found-
ers who are on average 46.7 years old. Reflecting on
the lack of balance in the gender between male and
female CEOs in Insurtech as well as the 84 problems
spotted which hinder cooperation between Insurtechs
and Incumbents, this might be at the focus of both the
upcoming Sthlm Fintech Week, InnoBridge as well as a
potential focus area within the industry for the forth-
coming months.
METHODOLOGY
AND LIMITATIONS
CLOSING REMARKS
The InnoBridge process includes a comprehensive de-
scription of the problem faced by an Incumbent. Start-
ups will be able to send a solution proposal. During a
structured review of the solutions proposed by the
startups performed by a team of core system provid-
ers, experts in the area of marketing offering & prod-
uct-market fit a review in the field of legal and compli-
ance. Accepted startups will receive support to process
their services into the core system of Incumbents pri-
marily in the area of Insurance and Banking as a first
step.
Currently, as the foundations of InnoBridge are being
laid; missing competencies are being added to the team.
The goal of the foundation is to create two initial small
innovation calls in 2019 to test the displayed system.
The outcome of InnoBridge for startups enables
them to develop their product, service, and tech-
nology to remain possibly upsold in the core-system
used by Incumbents. Incumbents receive a new tool
to incorporate innovation securely and efficiently.
The efficiency of the ecosystem will increase; despite
being world-leading in Innovation, the Incumbents
have not yet facilitated efficient cooperation with
startups.
As it is a foundation in shaping, the most up-to-
date cooperation system has been displayed on
InnoBridge.Tech. Individuals that desire to contribute,
and partners willing to participate in the initial calls can
reach out to together@innobridge.tech.

29. 56
57
Inmediate.io. (2018). Insurtech startups that can bring digital transformation to the insurance industry. Retrieved March, 14,
2019, from https://medium.com/@inmediatesg/Insurtech-startups-that-can-bring-digital-transformation-to-the-insur-
ance-industry-8b0ca29d14f
Insurtech Australia. (2019). Insurtech: Enabler or disruptor? An assessment of the Australian ecosystem. Retrieved from https://
www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-and-Insurtech-australia-ecosystem-report-2018/$FILE/ey-and-Insurtech-aus-
tralia-ecosystem-report-2018.pdf
Kotter, J. (2012). The 8-step process for leading change. Retrieved March, 14, 2019 from http://www.kotterinternational.com/
ourprinciples/changesteps
Matter. (n.d.). What makes a pension plan sustainable? Retrieved March, 14, 2019, from https://www.matterpension.com/sustain-
ability/
McCutcheon, D., & Stuart, F. I. (2000). Issues in the choice of supplier alliance partners. Journal of Operations Management, 18(3),
279–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(99)00026-1
Paradkar, A., Knight, J., & Hansen, P. (2015). Innovation in start-ups: Ideas filling the void or ideas devoid of resources and capabili-
ties? Technovation, 41–42, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.03.004
Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a Path Through the Forest: A Meta-Review of Interorganizational Relation-
ships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407507
Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, Networks, and Knowledge Networks: A Review and Research Agenda.
Journal of Management, 38(4), 1115–1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311432640
Rondan-Cataluña, F. J., Arenas-Gaitán, J., & Ramírez-Correa, P. E. (2015). A comparison of the different versions of popular tech-
nology acceptance models. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2014-0184
Sclafane, S. (2017). Insurtech lemonade opens its sales platform for all to use. Retrieved March, 14, 2019,
from https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/10/12/467209.htm
Shi, W. (Stone), Sun, J., & Prescott, J. E. (2012). A Temporal Perspective of Merger and Acquisition and Strategic Alliance Initia-
tives: Review and Future Direction. Journal of Management, 38(1), 164–209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311424942
Stockholm School of Economics. (2018). The next wave in Insurtech: Redefining financial services through technology. Retrieved
from https://www.hhs.se/contentassets/cbe0e57170864 3418a3f0b7e7a18883f/Insurtechregtechreportsse1.01.pdf
Teece, D. J. (1992). Competition, cooperation, and innovation: Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological
progress. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 18(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(92)90050-L
Turiera, T., & Cros, S. (2013). Co-business: 50 examples of business collaboration (Second edition). Barcelona: Co-Society.
Vanhaverbeke, W. (2005). Chapter 10: The inter-organizational context of open innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke,
& J. West (Eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm (p. 23). Oxford University Press.
Vaughan, A. (2015). Data centre emissions rival air travel as digital demand soars. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.
theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/25/server-data-centre-emissions-air-travel-web-google-facebook-greenhouse-
gas [Accessed 8 Feb. 2019].
Wellmo (n.d.) Plattform für präventive digital gesundheit. [Brochure]. Otakaari, Finland: Wellmo. Retrieved from https://www.
wellmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/wellmo_brochure_28.5.-de.pdf
Westerman, G., McAfee, A. & Bonnet, D. (2014). Leading digital-turning technology into business transformation. Retrieved from
https://www.nima.today/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Leading-Digital-George-Westerman-Didier-Bonnet-And-An-
drew-Mcafee.pdf
Wevers, R. (2007). Inter-organizational cooperation and innovation: an empirical analysis of partner characteristics and innova-
tion based on CIS data (Master’s thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Altringer, B. (2013). A New Model for Innovation in Big Companies. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2013/11/a-new-model-for-innovation-in-big-companies
Basu, S., Phelps, C., & Kotha, S. (2009). The role of exploratory subunits in organizational ambidexterity: An inductive examination of corpo-
rate venture capital units. HEC working paper. HEC, Paris.
Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don’t go it alone: alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadi-
an biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267–294.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3%3C267::AID-SMJ89%3E3.0.CO;2-8
Berutti, F.,Nixon, G., Taglioni,G.,Whiteman,R. (2017). Intelligent process automation: The engine at the core of the next-generation operat-
ing model? McKinsey, Retrieved from: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/intelligent-pro-
cess-automation-the-engine-at-the-core-of-the-next-generation-operating-model
Bouncken, R. B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review
of Managerial Science, 9(3), 577–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-015-0168-6
David, A. (1992). Heroes, herds and hysteresis in technological history: Thomas edison and “the battle of the systems” reconsidered.
Industrial and Corporate Change. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/1.1.129
Dillon, A., & Morris, M. G. (1996). User acceptance of new information technology: theories and models. Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology Volume 31.
Eisner, A. B., Korn, H. J., & Rahman, N. (2009). Formation conditions, innovation, and learning in R&D consortia.
Management Decision, 47(6), 851–871. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910966622
Faems, D., Looy, B. V., & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach*. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00120.x
Festinger, L. (1957). Cognitive dissonance theory. Primary Prevention of HIV/AIDS: Psychological Approaches.
Newbury Park, California, Sage Publications.
Finck, M. (2018). Law and autonomous systems series: Blockchains and the right to be forgotten. Retrieved March, 14, 2019, from https://
www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2018/04/law-and-autonomous-systems-series-blockchains-and-right-be-forgotten
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading MA Addison-
Wesley . https://doi.org/10.2307/2065853
Gast, J., Filser, M., Gundolf, K., & Kraus, S. (2015). Coopetition research: towards a better understanding of past trends and future direc-
tions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 24(4), 492–521. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2015.068637
Gavs (2018) Intelligent Process Automation (IPA) - The Next Level of AI Enablement, Gave. Retrieved from:
https://www.gavstech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Intelligent-Process-Automation-IPA-The-Next-Level-of-AI-Enablement.pdf
Greenpeace USA. (2017). Fighting Global Warming. [online] Available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/ [Accessed Feb.
2019].
Gromek, M. (2019). Exit-Interview With A FinTech Regulator: Sweden Has Given Up To Be The European Fintech Leader. [online] Forbes.com.
Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michalgromek/2019/02/01/exit-interview-with-a-fintech-regulator-sweden-has-given-up-
to-be-the-european-fintech-leader/ [Accessed 3 Feb. 2019].
Gromek, M. (2018). Stockholm Fintech Report 2018. Stockholm, p.72.
Guimarães, T., Castro-Gonçalves, L., & Vale, G. V. (2016). Communities of practice of innovative startupes. Cooperation or competition: Is
this the question? In Annual of 2016 EURAM Conference. Paris, France. Retrieved from http://www.euram-online.org/annual-con-
ference-2016.html
Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources, Knowledge and Influence: The Organizational Effects of Interorganizational
Collaboration*. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 321–347.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00342
REFERENCES

30. 58
59
NAME OF THE
COMPANY
SUBSEGMENT WEBSITE MALE / FEMALE
CEO
Advinans Distribution www.advinans.se Male
Algorithmica
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.algorithmica.com Male
BIMA Mobile Distribution www.bimamobile.com Male
Capin Solutions AB
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.capinsolutions.com Male
Cloud Insurance
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.cloudinsurance.io Male
Comadso Distribution www.comadso.com Male
Compricer Customer Engagement www.compricer.se Male
Contemi
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.contemi.com Male
DDFinance Distribution www.ddfinance.com Male
Digisure Distribution www.digisure.no Male
Digitise
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.digitise.se Male
DXC Technology
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.dxc.technology/fi
Edlund
Underwriting
& Reinsurance
www.edlund.dk Male
Ekki Distribution www.ekkibanka.is Male
Enerfy
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.enerfy.se
Escali
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.escali.no Male
Fair Crowdsurance
Consumer Communities
(P2P)
www.fair.online Male
Finmate
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.finmate.se Male
Försäkringsfabriken
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.forsakringsfabriken.se Male
Fullmaktskollen Distribution www.fullmaktskollen.se Female
Gigga Distribution www.gigga.com Female
LIST OF NORDIC
INSURTECH
COMPANIES

31. 60
61
NAME OF THE
COMPANY
SUBSEGMENT WEBSITE MALE / FEMALE
CEO
Gobundl
Consumer Communities
(P2P)
www.gobundl.dk Male
Greater Than Distribution www.greaterthan.eu Female
Hedvig Distribution www.hedvig.se Male
IBA Applications
Underwriting
& Reinsurance
www.ibapplications.com Male
in4mo Distribution www.in4mo.com Male
Infooverflow Distribution www.infooverflow.com Male
Insplanet Distribution www.insplanet.com Male
Insurance Simplified Personalisation www.insurancesimplified.se Male
Insurello
Claims Management
& Processing
www.insurello.se Male
InsureMyTrans
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.insuremytrans.com Male
Insurino
Customer Engagement,
Distribution,
Personalisation
www.insurino.se Male
Itello
Underwriting& Reinsurance,
ClaimsManagementand
processing,RiskDetection&
Prevention
www.www.itello.com Male
Kasko Distribution www.kasko.no Male
Keylane Schantz
Underwriting
& Reinsurance
www.keylane.com/schantz
Klavier
Claims Management
& Processing
Male
Lifeplan Distribution www.lifeplan.se Male
Matter Distribution www.matterpension.dk Male
Metaforce Customer Engagement www.metaforce.se Male
Metafore Distribution www.metafore.se Male
Mono / Försäkringsarkivet Distribution www.gomono.se Male
NAME OF THE
COMPANY
SUBSEGMENT WEBSITE MALE / FEMALE
CEO
Next
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.next.dk Male
Nis
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.nisportal.com Male
Nore Tech
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.noretech.se Male
Paydrive
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.paydrive.se Male
Penni
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.penni.io Male
Pensiono Distribution www.pensiono.se Male
Pensure Distribution www.pensure.se Male
Profit Software
Underwriting
& Reinsurance
www.profitsoftware.com Male
Resys
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.resys.io
Roaring
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.roaring.io Male
Safe Stuff Personalisation www.safestuff.io Male
Safety Wing Distribution www.safetywing.com Male
Samlino Distribution www.samlino.dk Male
Sharemyrisk
Consumer Communities
(P2P)
www.sharemyrisk.com
Sky Forsikring Distribution www.skyforsikring.no Male
SplitEx
Consumer Communities
(P2P)
www.splitex.com Male
Teambrella
Consumer Communities
(P2P)
www.teambrella.com Male
Tia Technologies
Underwriting
& Reinsurance
www.tiatechnology.com Male
Tieto
Risk Detection & Prevention,
Claims Management and
Processing, Underwriting
and Reinsurance,
Personalisation
www.tietio.fi Male
Tillit Forsikring AS Distribution www.tillitforsikring.no Male

32. 62
In case of possible errors please contact: research@InnoBridge.Tech
NAME OF THE
COMPANY
SUBSEGMENT WEBSITE MALE / FEMALE
CEO
Tribe
Consumer Communities
(P2P)
www.tribe.no Male
Upptec
Claims Management
& Processing
www.upptec.se Male
Vakuutuslaskuri Distribution www.vakuutuslaskuri.fi Male
Vitec/Capitex
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.vitecsoftware.com Male
WaterCircles Norge AS
Consumer Communities
(P2P)
www.watercircles.no Male
Webcap
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.webcap.se Male
Wellmo Personalisation www.wellmo.com Male
Wisetalk
Risk Detection
& Prevention
www.wisetalk.se Male
Yetz Distribution www.yetz.no Male
Zlantar Personalisation www.zlantar.se Male
Zmarta Group Distribution www.zmartagroup.com

33. Michal Gromek
Henrik Allert
Matt Broniarek
NORDIC INSURTECH REPORT
May 2019