BTP Underwriting
A new tool designed to help underwriting teams evaluate risk using existing data across policies, geography, and natural hazards.
Context
Our team was brought in to design a new underwriting workspace to improve how risk is evaluated across accounts. Underwriters were working across multiple systems to gather policy, exposure, and hazard data. We focused on bringing that into a single experience to streamline the workflow and support clearer decision-making.
The Problem
Half of the work wasn’t evaluating risk — it was tracking down and verifying information across different systems. Underwriters had to piece together data manually, often checking the same inputs in multiple places just to confirm accuracy.
This created unnecessary friction, slowed down straightforward cases, and made the overall process inconsistent. The goal was to reduce that overhead and make evaluation more direct and reliable.
From Fragmented Inputs to Structured Evaluation
Underwriters were spending too much time gathering and verifying risk data across disconnected sources before they could even begin evaluating an account.
Before BTP, risk data was fragmented across systems, forcing underwriters to manually piece together a complete picture before making a decision.
BTP centralized and structured fragmented risk data into a single evaluation layer, reducing cognitive load and enabling faster, more consistent underwriting decisions.
Role & Contribution
- Defined the interaction model for evaluating risk across accounts
- Built prototypes to validate workflows before implementation
- Designed data interactions for reviewing and validating inputs in context
- Established visual patterns for working with dense underwriting data
Key Decisions
The main shift was moving from a disconnected set of tools into a single workflow. Instead of jumping between systems to gather information, everything needed for evaluation was brought into one place.
Working with data in place
One of the core decisions was to make data part of the workflow itself. Users could run calculations directly within the data inputs, so they could validate numbers in place instead of jumping out to double-check things elsewhere.
Bringing context together
We brought topographical and natural hazard data into the same place, so underwriters could evaluate risk with full context instead of jumping between tools to piece things together.
Maintaining continuity
We added a structured notes system so underwriters could capture context as they worked, making it easier to hand off accounts and come back to them later without losing track of what was done or why.
Example — Risk Overview
This view brings together geographic data, hazard exposure, and trend analysis into one place, so underwriters can quickly understand risk and spot patterns without jumping between systems to piece it together.
The map provides geographic context, while the charts and tables break down exposure and trends, allowing users to move from a high-level view into the details without losing context.
Inline Editing & Validation
Reducing Friction
Underwriters were constantly stopping to validate numbers, often jumping out of the workflow to double-check data in other tools.
We brought that interaction into the table itself. The side panel allows users to adjust and validate values in place, so they can keep moving without losing context.
Keeping this anchored to the table meant they could review multiple records and make changes without losing their place.
Structured Context, Not Just Notes
Accounts didn’t stay with one person. They were passed around, revisited, and picked back up later — often without clear context on what had already been done.
We tied notes directly to the account and made them searchable and filterable, so underwriters could quickly find the right context without digging through everything or starting over.
This made it easier to track decisions over time and understand how an account evolved, especially when work changed hands.
Thinking Ahead
Notes were tied to specific scenarios, workflows, and parts of the account, so context stayed connected to the work instead of living in a separate thread.
With filtering and search, underwriters could quickly find what they needed, whether reviewing past decisions or picking up where someone else left off.
Outcome
The result was a more cohesive underwriting workflow. What used to require jumping between systems became a simpler, more direct evaluation process.