Gallagher Bassett’s digital transformation was not driven by technology for its own sake. Instead, the global claims and risk management firm began with a more basic question: which outcomes mattered most to clients – and which actions consistently delivered them.
For Joe Powell (pictured), chief digital officer at Gallagher Bassett, that framing reshaped how the organization approached innovation across its claims operation, from frontline adjuster workflows to advanced medical management models. The objective was scale and consistency, supported by measurable improvement rather than assumption.
“Gallagher Bassett, fundamentally, is a claims and risk management organization,” Powell said. “When it comes to transforming, we start by measuring what our clients care about, as obvious as that sounds, and then putting innovations in place that actually move the needle on those aspects of claim handling.”
Powell said the firm’s innovation framework began with alignment. Transformation, he said, meant agreeing with clients on which outcomes mattered most and how success would be measured.
In one Australian engagement, that alignment focused on familiar performance indicators such as closure, duration and claimant satisfaction. From there, Gallagher Bassett deconstructed those outcomes to identify which specific desk-level actions influenced results.
“We’re not just relying on what we believe or what the industry has held true,” Powell said. “We were quantitatively tying the actions we take to the outcomes we want to drive.”
That analysis allowed the firm to measure how factors such as the timing of claimant contact affected performance. Powell said the data showed where outcomes improved when contact occurred within a defined window - and where results deteriorated when it did not.
By linking actions directly to outcomes, Gallagher Bassett built a measurement architecture designed to support accountability and improvement. Scorecards tracked claim and service outcomes across teams and regions, highlighting areas of strength, weakness and deviation from benchmarks.
“Underneath that, we looked at what the drivers were,” Powell said. “Where were our pockets where we were stronger? Where were we not as strong? And what were the commonalities there?”
The same framework also informed workforce development. In the Australian example, Gallagher Bassett tracked how new hires performed over time and measured the impact of targeted training initiatives.
“Once we did a training initiative, we could see how performance changed,” Powell said. “Not just in terms of outcomes, but the actions that would drive those outcomes.”
A second pillar of innovation focused on reinforcing the right actions during the life of the claim. In some cases, that meant relatively simple alerts, such as flagging delayed claimant contact or reserves that appeared misaligned with expectations.
In other cases, the tools were more sophisticated. Powell pointed to the firm’s medical management model, which assessed whether treatment aligned with evidence-based medicine guidelines.
“When care adhered to those guidelines, we saw 38% lower cost on the claim and 13% lower duration,” he said.
Gallagher Bassett continuously measured treatment quality and intervened when care fell outside expected standards, aiming to redirect claims before costs and duration escalated.
While most AI and decision-support tools were developed internally, Powell said external solution providers still played an important role when selected carefully.
“If you just pull vendors off the shelf, you end up with something that looks like glue and duct tape,” he said. “Not a cohesive process for our end users.”
Instead, Gallagher Bassett brought in specialized components that fit a defined solution. In the medical management model, for example, the firm built the clinical intervention framework internally while sourcing evidence-based medicine data from an external specialist.
“That was a great example of finding an expert with a differentiated offering, bringing it into our solution, and making it seamless,” Powell said.
Alerts related to treatment quality, litigation risk or other indicators were embedded directly into the resolution manager’s desktop, rather than requiring staff to access separate systems.
“They didn’t have to go to a separate place to get it,” Powell said. “It was right where they were already working.”
Integration created challenges, particularly around usability and data security. Powell said one of the most common risks in transformation was allowing tools to dictate process rather than designing technology around desired outcomes.
Data privacy also shaped Gallagher Bassett’s approach, especially when working with younger technology firms that required extensive claim data.
“Gallagher Bassett took data privacy and security extremely seriously,” Powell said.
Rather than exporting sensitive data to multiple third parties, the firm built a secure internal environment and selectively brought external capabilities into that setting.
Equally important was who shaped the tools. Claim staff were involved in both design and adoption, Powell said, with former adjusters now serving as AI specialists to ensure solutions reflected real-world workflows.
“That lens was instrumental,” he said. “Not just making something that looked good on paper, but something that really moved the needle.”
Adoption was monitored alongside outcomes, with feedback used to identify training gaps or product refinements. The loop between data, people and process ultimately determined whether innovation delivered lasting value.
