Successfully measuring meaningful change in fraud performance remains a challenge for insurance fraud leaders. In Modern Insurance Magazine Issue 77, Matt Gilham thinks ‘beyond savings’ to consider what good really looks like in counter fraud investment.
Measurement of success in counter fraud is frequently anchored to two core metrics: fraud savings and reduction in operating cost. While both are central to performance measurement and value, reliance on these metrics alone can constrain innovation. Investment decisions become dependent on demonstrable and immediate return, including at early stages such as research, testing, or progressing a proof of concept. This results in a bias towards reacting to known fraud risks that have already materialised, rather than anticipating and mitigating emerging threats.
A recent discussion with the Head of Innovation at a large European insurer illustrated a more balanced approach to assessing value. Industry commentary often suggests that a high proportion of AI initiatives fail. In this organisation, approximately one third of projects did not progress. Of the remainder, a third delivered measurable financial impact to profit and loss, while a further third were retained in production despite no measurable net present value. These retained solutions improved decision-making, reduced operational friction, and enhanced the effectiveness of existing processes, even where direct financial return was limited.
In counter fraud, the role of technology extends beyond identifying additional fraud in policies and claims. It supports more consistent triage, reduces unnecessary intervention for genuine customers, and provides investigators with clearer and more reliable information to support decisions on case progression. It also helps balance counter fraud activity with broader objectives, including customer experience, protection of victims, business growth and conversion, and wider cost control across the claims lifecycle.
When viewed in this context, the impact of technology should not be confined to direct financial return alone. A narrow focus on short-term outcomes risks reinforcing reactive capability, limiting the organisation’s ability to respond to evolving fraud patterns. A more complete assessment considers its contribution to overall capability and business objectives.
Meaningful change in counter fraud is therefore not always immediately reflected in financial metrics. It is more accurately observed in the quality and consistency of decisions, the experience of genuine customers, and the organisation’s ability to adapt as fraud continues to evolve.
You can read the original article, in Modern Insurance Magazine Issue 77 in the Fraud Board page 38, here
