Topic starter
08/07/2026 6:54 pm
TL;DR: elipsLife Netherlands modernized its employee benefits platform with Comarch to replace legacy systems, improve user experience, automate end-to-end processing, and support data migration, cloud deployment, and integration with more than 12 external platforms. The deeper lesson is that modernization programmes now reshape identity, access, and operational governance at the same time, so control design must keep pace with platform change.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Comarch: “From Legacy to Leadership: elipsLife's Strategic Platform Modernization”.
By the numbers:
- The new platform integrates with more than 12 external industry or national platforms, including Berichtenbox and Pondres.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when an insurance legacy platform is modernised without rewriting access governance?
A: The common failure is that old approval paths, exception roles, and ownership assumptions stay embedded while the business process moves to a new platform.
A: Because each integration extends the trust boundary beyond the core application.
Q: How do IAM teams know whether a modernization programme is ready for cutover?
A: They know it is ready when access ownership, approval flows, and offboarding rules have been rebuilt for the target platform and tested against real business scenarios.
Practitioner guidance
- Map legacy access dependencies before cutover Inventory who approves, uses, and supports each legacy insurance workflow so entitlement changes can be rebuilt inside the target platform rather than carried forward informally.
- Rebaseline third-party integration ownership Assign an owner, scope, and offboarding trigger to every external platform connection so partner access does not survive after a workflow or contract changes.
- Separate application roles from operational roles Redefine who can administer products, claims, finance, and reporting in the modernised system so business function ownership does not blur into technical access.
Bottom line: Legacy system replacement in insurance is also an identity governance event because workflow ownership and access boundaries shift during the same transformation.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
08/07/2026 7:16 pm
Legacy modernization exposes an identity governance gap because the control model changes after the business process already has. The article shows that insurer transformation is not just about replacing old software, but about rebuilding the operational fabric around it. That creates a period where access, approvals, and system ownership can lag behind the new platform design. Practitioners should treat modernization as a governance re-baselining exercise, not a lift-and-shift event.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own access governance during an insurer's cloud migration?
A: Ownership should sit with the business process and identity governance stakeholders together, not with infrastructure alone. The cloud team can operate the environment, but business owners must validate who can do what, and IGA teams must ensure those decisions are reviewable and revocable. Shared ownership is the only way to keep the control model aligned with the new operating model.
👉 Read our full editorial: Legacy insurance modernization exposes the identity governance gap