Renewal season usually starts the same way: reconciling spreadsheets, chasing invoices, and trying to answer leadership’s annual question: “What’s this really costing us?” But the answer never lives in one place. Claims data is over here, policy details over there, exposure values somewhere else, and a dozen definitions of “total cost of risk” buried in email threads. Eventually, every risk team realizes this isn’t a reporting problem. It’s a workflow and connection problem. At this point, you need a risk management information system (RMIS) that eliminates manual processes so decisions don’t hinge on who updated the latest spreadsheet. If you’re evaluating RMIS software, you’ve probably felt the opposite of clarity: long feature lists, glossy demos, and promises that are hard to verify. This is also where independent RMIS analysts play a critical role. Rather than relying on vendor narratives or feature checklists, analysts evaluate platforms using standardized criteria, real-world scenarios, and side-by-side comparisons. Their role isn’t to pick winners for you. Instead, it creates a defensible baseline for evaluation before internal bias and sales influence creep in. The strongest RMIS decisions come from a repeatable scorecard. This is the same approach independent RMIS analysts use. One that validates core workflows, data foundations, analytics/TCOR, and vendor momentum using real scenarios, not feature lists. This RMIS buyer’s guide takes that approach. It starts with outcomes: efficiency (fewer handoffs), resilience (fewer surprises at renewal), and leadership alignment (one trusted view of cost and risk). From there, it lays out the criteria to help you select an enterprise RMIS platform that fits your data, workflows, and governance needs. Start With the Core Problem: Eliminating Manual Processes Risk data is often scattered across spreadsheets, broker portals, TPAs, carrier systems, and internal tools. That fragmentation slows teams down, creates inconsistent metrics, and makes renewal season more reactive than strategic. A modern RMIS addresses this by: Creating a single, consistent view of total cost of risk so finance, risk, and leadership are aligned. Providing visibility into coverage and limits so gaps are spotted early—before renewal, not after. Reducing repeat incidents by connecting intake, investigation, and corrective actions in one workflow. Improving claims outcomes with faster routing, clearer collaboration, and fewer handoffs that lead to leakage. Instead of simply digitizing spreadsheets, a RMIS connects data and workflows so teams can act faster and with confidence. Takeaway: Before comparing vendors, align internally on the outcomes you expect a RMIS to deliver. A strong RMIS strengthens resilience, improves efficiency, and creates one trusted source of truth for decisions. The Core RMIS Capability Areas You Should Assess Independent analysts typically assess RMIS platforms across a consistent set of capability areas to ensure fair, apples-to-apples comparisons. These categories are designed to test not just whether a feature exists, but how well it performs under operational complexity — across industries, geographies, and maturity levels. Imagine replaying your last renewal cycle with a system that connects claims trends, exposure changes, coverage structure, and cost drivers in one place. The evaluation criteria below are designed to assess exactly that ability. Think of this as your selection rubric. When vendors claim they offer “end-to-end risk,” these are the areas that separate an adequate tool from a durable enterprise RMIS platform. 1. Claims administration: “claims management software” vs. real operational support A lot of tools can track claims. Fewer can support the real operational complexity of claims teams. What to ask in demos How are new claims triaged and assigned? How do adjusters/managers collaborate and escalate? What claimant communication options exist? If your top priority is claims performance, you’re effectively evaluating claims management software (and often claims administration software) inside the broader RMIS context. Analysts often differentiate RMIS platforms here by how deeply claims workflows are supported—not by whether claims can be “tracked,” but by how effectively complexity is managed at scale. 2. Claims risk + legal management: where leakage happens This is the part of insurance claims management software that can make (or break) cost control. What to ask How does the platform support reserving, fraud detection/leakage prevention? How does it handle claims that enter legal dispute (documents, counsel coordination, requirements)? Is there claims audit support and evidence tracking? 3. Incident management: from intake to corrective action (CAPA) Your RMIS should make it easy to capture and centralize incident data, giving you visibility and insights into analytics across all locations and incident types. What to ask Can you capture incidents from mobile/web, in real time? Can we configure intake forms and workflows by incident type or location? Does the system make it easy to track status, flag trends, and generate reports for leadership? Can it integrate with EHS platforms — such as Origami Risk’s EHS solution — for deeper insight into investigations, root cause analysis, and corrective actions? 4. Policy & insurance management: renewal readiness and compliance To reduce gaps in coverage and streamline renewals, risk leaders need a centralized view of policy terms, claims activity, and contractual obligations. What to ask Is there a centralized repository across multiple lines (WC/GL/auto/property)? Can policy data link to claims and exposures? How are COIs and contractual requirements tracked? 5. Risk & exposure data management: the “truth layer” This is where many RMIS evaluations fall short: exposure data and asset/location hierarchies are messy. What to ask How do you intake and validate exposure data across locations/assets/lines? Can you handle cyclical/annual value collection? How are assets linked to location or policy records? Can you allocate premiums/deductibles/claims across divisions or sites? This is also an area where analysts frequently see differentiation, as exposure data structure and validation directly affect the reliability of downstream analytics and TCOR reporting. 6. Risk analytics & modeling: reporting is not the same as decision support Risk leaders need more than reports. They need analytics that help them anticipate costs, evaluate scenarios, and drive smarter decisions. What to ask Can you analyze claims vs. coverage/limits? Can you model policy changes and cost impacts? Do you support pattern detection, severity forecasting, CAT modeling, or geographic overlays? Can you get alerts for events impacting exposure? Analyst assessments typically prioritize decision support over static reporting, evaluating whether analytics actually influence renewal strategy, retention planning, and capital allocation. How to calculate total cost of risk (and what your RMIS should support) Many teams use “TCOR” as a headline metric, but keeping it consistent month to month is difficult. Without a connected RMIS, TCOR swings — not because risk changed, but because the inputs and definitions did. The result: quarter-to-quarter comparisons that leadership can’t rely on. One reason analysts place so much emphasis on TCOR methodology is consistency. Without standardized definitions and validated data inputs, TCOR becomes a moving target. Without a standard, TCOR is useful for storytelling, but unreliable for benchmarking performance across time or peers. A simple way to think about total cost of risk is: TCOR = Premiums + Retained Losses + Risk Administration Costs Where: Premiums cover insurance spend across lines. Retained losses include paid losses, reserves, and deductible/SIR impacts. Risk administration includes fees, legal costs, internal staffing, and safety program spend. But displaying TCOR isn’t enough. A modern RMIS explains what changed and why — whether the driver is premium shifts, frequency or severity trends, legal expense, or allocation changes. Origami Risk’s Verdantix-evaluated approach includes AI-assisted TCOR analysis and configurable dashboards that surface cost drivers quickly. Don’t Ignore Momentum: Roadmap Credibility and AI readiness Capabilities tell you what a platform can do now. Momentum tells you whether it’s likely to keep pace with what you’ll need next. This is why analysts assess not just current functionality, but roadmap credibility, investment signals, and delivery track records (not slideware promises). AI in RMIS: separate signal from hype If you’re evaluating enhancing your processes with AI-powered automation or analytics, insist on clarity and controls. What to ask What’s GA today vs. roadmap? What’s the data boundary (tenant isolation, retention, auditability)? Where is the human-in-the-loop? What productivity or cycle-time improvements can you measure? This is the difference between “AI as a feature” and AI that improves outcomes across claims management software workflows. The Value of Independent Research Advisory firms and independent firms can help you avoid two common traps: Feature checklist bias (lots of “yes” answers without proof) Marketing-led narratives (claims that aren’t consistently evidenced) What to look for in an independent methodology: Standardized demo scenarios (so vendors can’t steer only to their strengths) Structured questionnaires with consistent scoring logic Clear inclusion criteria (so comparisons are apples-to-apples) In practice, analysts act as a neutral third party between buyers and vendors. They pressure-test claims in controlled demo environments, apply consistent scoring logic, and document strengths and tradeoffs buyers may not uncover in a single-vendor evaluation. This allows risk teams to enter demos better prepared and with sharper questions. Best practice: Use independent research to shortlist and structure demos. Then validate fit with your own workflows, integrations, security requirements, and data realities. A practical way to run your RMIS selection Remember, the best RMIS decisions come from a repeatable scorecard. When you’re evaluating RMIS software, anchor on: Required outcomes (TCOR, claims cycle time, incident recurrence, coverage visibility). Core capability areas (claims, incident, policy/insurance, exposure data, analytics). Momentum and roadmap credibility (including ai-powered automation and analytics). Evidence-based comparisons (standardized demos + independent research). Fit validation (integrations, implementation approach, user experience). Curious how Origami Risk measures up against analyst-defined criteria for enterprise RMIS platforms? The Verdantix RMIS Green Quadrant provides an independent assessment designed to support your internal evaluation process. Access the report to see for yourself.