SOUND INTERNET SOLUTIONS
A proposal for agents, carriers, vendors, and customers
By John Ashenhurst
What about real-time quoting and interface in general? It's just not going to happen, at least right now. Most carriers simply can't cope with it ...
Recently I had occasion to take a hard look at the interface picture. I wanted to understand what was really happening with upload, download, real-time quoting, carrier Web sites, SEMCI, and other interface arcana. Over the past year I'd talked with a number of agents, vendors and carriers and what emerged was more fog than clarity.
In May I decided I really needed to do some homework, then write up an overview of the interface landscape. The resulting paper, "The Truth about Interface: What It Means and What to Do about It," is available gratis for download from my Web site, www.soundingline.com. If you want grounding in the history of interface, ACORD, IVANS, and SEMCI and why the old vision is no longer relevant, this 10-page white paper is worth a read.
The following discussion is a specific proposal to the industry that follows from the findings of the white paper and may be a bit easier to understand with that paper as background. Overall, I'm convinced that the industry is operating with a vision that was appropriate 10 years ago but which no longer fits the facts, problems, and opportunities of the present. Rather than beating what is clearly a dead horse, I think it's time to create a new, shared vision, do a little work, then harvest some real, practical industry interface benefits.
As I asked questions, listened, and thought about what I'd heard while researching the white paper, a picture emerged of what interface could become--rather quickly--that could actually serve the interests of agents, carriers, vendors, and the forgotten party at the table--customers. The short way to describe this view is to call it Hybrid Interface, a process combining agency software (management systems, comparative rating, etc.), carrier Web sites, bridging (with security) and download (immediate, perhaps, and batch).
Overall, the idea is that agents would be able to move reasonably effortlessly between their management systems (also rating) and relevant carrier sites--with the management system providing information to the Web site so that it could "pre-navigate" the agency user to the right page in the carrier Web site--with the data from the agency system pre-filling (when relevant) the form on the carrier site.
So, for instance, an agent could comparatively quote a new piece of business, choose where to place it, and then be taken transparently to the right page on the right carrier's Web site--with the quoting information automatically filled into the carrier form(s). Or a CSR who needed to change a policy could call it up on the agency management system, key in the changes, then click a link that would go to the carrier's (appropriate) policy change area--pre-filling and reconciling changes with current information. (In both cases, the changes to the carrier system would be synchronized with the management system via overnight download.) Or, again, a CSR who wanted to know the direct bill balance for a policy would go to the management system area for account balances, click a link, and then be taken to the right area of the carrier site--with the balance for the policy displayed immediately.
The exact details of how this hybrid environment would work aren't as important as its purpose--namely:
* To allow carriers to provide rich, deep services to their agencies through a channel they can control (their agency portals) that also allows them to reduce internal processing and costs.
* To allow agents to continue to use the technology they prefer to orchestrate workflow while completing insurance transactions right now, enjoying single entry (in a multi-carrier environment)--and also extending some of this point-of-sale/point-of-service functionality and data out through the agency Web sites to their customers (out-facing services).
* To allow vendors to continue to improve their systems to more fully satisfy their agency constituency--while at the same time taking advantage of the good work carriers are doing--and without having to spend excessive time and money pursuing a plethora of alternative interface approaches.
* All-in-all, the hybrid environment would support competition (carrier to carrier and vendor to vendor) and at the same time would be to the advantage of agent and customer.
What about upload? It made sense 10 years ago, perhaps, but it doesn't provide enough benefit to either agents or carriers, and it's not easy to do. Upload doesn't cover policy changes--what agents do more frequently than new business or maybe even quotes. The upload model is one of transferring edited and complete forms to the carrier for processing--and thus is a perpetuation of the old division of labor between agents and carriers and not something that reforms the distribution process the way once and done can. Wouldn't it be better to really reform the insurance process and just take the agent to the carrier functionality rather than try to imbed the carrier process into the agency system (environment)?
What about real-time quoting and interface in general? It's just not going to happen, at least right now. Most carriers simply can't cope with it and without a critical mass of carriers participating, it won't be valuable to agents. When carriers have limited resources (almost always the case), they're much more likely to choose to do an agency portal than real-time anything. That allows them to serve agencies without management systems as well as those that have them. And though agents object to carrier Web sites, these sites provide resources that just can't be visible from within the confines of a management system.
What about SEMCI? Hybrid Interface isn't SEMCI (as initially conceived), but it serves the same goals--single entry and multi-carrier--but in fact goes it one better because Hybrid Interface provides once and done as well, thus finally serving the customer. And, by the way, the AUGIE survey seems to indicate that agents don't have in-principle objections to carrier Web sites but they do want convenience and they do want single entry.
What about the ugliness of Hybrid Interface? One could say that it's a clear example of a chewing gum and bailing wire solution. But it does have a number of virtues. Hybrid Interface can provide real benefit right now without much work on the part of carriers (with good Web sites) and vendors, and it's consistent with the interests of all parties. I think it's absolutely crazy to pursue utopian schemes that seek someone's idea of perfection without considering the costs, time, and probability of completion. Too much interface talk and effort in the past has been utopian rather than practical. Let's take incremental steps, get benefit and then go on. When the time is right, Hybrid Interface can evolve into some wonderful arrangement of transparent remote Web services but we don't have to do that today.
Why not just add Hybrid Interface into the mix? Then agents, carriers, and vendors can all just do whatever they want--upload, download, real-time, carrier Web site, etc. But an over-abundance of choices isn't helpful to anyone concerned. It saps resources; it's confusing; it's debilitating; it's irresponsible. Wouldn't it be better to provide a single, practical focus for industry efforts?
My sense is that agents, carriers, and vendors are confused right now about what to do with interface, Web sites and so on--so they hang back waiting to see what's going to happen. I don't blame them, and nothing will change until they see a clear picture. But neither carriers, nor vendors, nor individual agents are likely to be able to provide the leadership it will take to help the industry understand and converge on this new vision--appropriate for 2002 the way the old one was for 1992. It requires the efforts of a producer group or other industry group to turn the supertanker of industry thought.
That group, whichever one it is, should provide clarity and leadership. It should say to the industry: "Here's a pretty good plan. Here's how it works. Here's what you need to do. Here's how you're going to benefit. Now let's all get to work."
What would this group need to do?
* Understand, embrace, and evangelize the concept.
* Research problem areas and make recommendations (cross-carrier security is one obvious area).
* Sponsor and publish case studies that cover development, use, and ROI.
* Vigorously lead agents.
* Educate carriers and vendors and get their buy-in.
* Provide a continuing forum for research, sharing, and discussion.
If Hybrid Interface seems to you like a promising approach as a successor or refinement to SEMCI--not perfect but practical, useful, and actually doable-- what should you do about it?
* Let your user group know what you think.
* Let your vendor know what you think.
* Let your carriers know what you think.
* Put Hybrid Interface on the agenda of local trade group and user group meetings.
* Send me an e-mail with your thoughts.
From my point of view, events have conspired today to create a great opportunity to accomplish even more than the industry intended for interface 20 years ago. It would be a shame to squander this opportunity because we didn't have the imagination to adjust our course just a bit to take advantage of it. *
The author
John Ashenhurst is editor of Sounding Line, a monthly newsletter covering insurance and the Internet. For more information see www.soundingline.com. His company, Sound Internet Strategy, provides consulting, Web site evaluation, and seminar services to independent agents and their trading partners. He can be reached at johnashenhurst@soundingline.com or (360) 376-1090.