Carrier use cases · Vendor SLA enforcement

Contract terms only work if you can measure them.

VIP evaluates whether contracted service standards were actually achieved on the claim, and connects the answer to the transaction.

The problem

What gets in the way today.

Service levels are negotiated carefully and then monitored loosely, because the evidence sits across assignments, documents, invoices and correspondence.

Why the problem exists

  • Scorecards are periodic and self-reported.
  • Claim-level timing data is not connected to the contract.
  • Remedies require evidence nobody has time to assemble.

What happens today

  • Performance is reviewed in a quarterly meeting.
  • Misses are discussed rather than applied.
  • Available contract remedies go unused.
How VIP changes the workflow

Same claim. Different path.

Before VIP

Performance is a periodic conversation.

With VIP

Performance is a measured, claim-level control connected to the contract.

  1. Contract standards captured
  2. Assignment and activity timestamps collected
  3. Performance measured per claim
  4. Exceptions surfaced
  5. Remedies applied where contracted
  6. Performance intelligence retained
Evidence

What the pilots actually showed.

8.98%of analyzed spend modelled as potential impact across accuracy, SLA enforcement and FTE effortEstimated — modelled

Modelled estimate of annual opportunity, not a realized saving.

Business impact

  • Contract terms applied consistently
  • Evidence-backed performance conversations
  • Vendor accountability tied to real claim activity

Where this sits in the claim

Pre-FNOLFNOLClaims OperationsExpensePerformancePaymentClosureIntelligence

Related VIP capabilities

Success stories

Evidence this has been done.

Related use cases

Next to this one.

Bring us one claims workflow.

Show VIP where the friction exists. We will map the workflow, identify the operating gaps and show where VIP can create measurable value.