SOUND INTERNET SOLUTIONS
Three industry technology pundits debate the right process to solve SEMCI, carrier Web sites, and other interface problems
By John Ashenhurst
Author's note: I recently discussed interface issues with Rick Morgan, executive vice president of ConfirmNet, an online certificates utility; and Steve Anderson, editor of TAARReport, a monthly newsletter providing insurance technology information that independent agents need to more effectively manage and grow their agencies.
John: Rick, it seems that the interest level in interface--SEMCI as well as alternatives--has risen a bit lately. That might be a good thing. At least it's better than the lethargy we saw a few years back.
Rick: I'm not so sure. The noise level has increased, certainly, but I'm afraid that those speaking the loudest have the least understanding of what's possible and what's valuable. They're energetic, certainly, but not necessarily acting in agents' best interests.
Steve: You have to understand that the frustration level among agents is high because of the proliferation of carrier proprietary Web sites that require substantial multiple entry. Agents complain, and rightly so, that this is a throwback to the days of multiple carrier terminals in the agency. They feel they've taken a step backward, not forward. This frustration is what's driving the increase in the "noise level."
John: Rick, Steve points to justification for the noise, but you've suggested that the noise may result from lack of understanding. If I remember correctly, more than 15 years ago, we faulted the preoccupation with interface generally--and SEMCI in particular--for failing to see the real opportunities technology offers--that is, not to paper over an obsolete distribution process with electronic data transfer but to completely redesign it. At that time we called our proposal "Agency Issue." The core idea was that technology should be used to allow agents to complete the entire insurance process--without the intervention of the carrier. Now that idea is called "once and done" and it actually shows up here and there.
Rick: Exactly. That's the "new things, new ways" principle--but SEMCI is simply old things now done with new technology. I simply can't understand the point of focusing on data transfer when the real issue is how you provide better service to customers and how you significantly reduce costs in the distribution system. So I agree that SEMCI is the wrong industry focus. It sucks attention and energy away from what's really important to agents. That's why I called SEMCI a vampire a few years ago and suggested it was time to drive a stake through its heart.
John: Overall it's really not possible to say exactly what "SEMCI" means--since everyone seems to have a definition that suits his or her own purposes--the core point seems to be that multiple entry of data is bad--real bad. In fact it's the "baddest" thing there is. Looked at in isolation, double entry is sub-optimum, but I think it's more realistic to look at it as another potential cost of doing business.
Steve Anderson
Being successful in business means making decisions and choosing among alternatives to maximize customer satisfaction and retention, employee commitment and efficiency, reasonable profits and so on. So, for instance, it can make a great deal of sense to accept double entry if it brings you some other benefit that more than compensates for its inefficiency. And, of course those are exactly the decisions agents make today when they choose to use or not to use a carrier Web site to place new business. Doing so is sub-optimum from the SEMCI point of view but can save 30 days of calendar time and can eliminate the tedium of the follow-up and corrections process. Yes, double entry may cost extra time at the front end; but in the larger picture, perhaps the agency saves time, satisfies the
customer, and makes more money.
"If the Internet hadn't come along and the proliferation of carrier Web sites hadn't ensued, maybe SEMCI would be further along."
--Rick Morgan, ConfirmNet
Rick: I don't disagree with that analysis. SEMCI has been promoted to the front of the agency technology priorities line when in fact it should be viewed in a context of total agency and carrier operations. But to go back to the "new things, new ways" idea--current technology really makes interface itself irrelevant. It just isn't really necessary any more. Interface was intended to solve the problem of the duplicate storage of data--in agency systems and company systems. Because it was housed in two places, each location had to be synchronized, that is, made consistent with the other. Originally that was done by paper going back and forth. That seemed crazy, so interface was supposed to take care of the synchronization--with ACORD standards being the vehicle.
Well, John, as we predicted years ago, it hasn't turned out as advertised--for a variety of reasons. It's just too hard--from a business, technical, political, and momentum point of view. But lo and behold, it's no longer at all necessary to maintain policy data in two places. The Internet, XML, remote Web services, ASPs and so on make it possible for people to share the same data anywhere on the planet--from one source. The answer to the interface dilemma is simply to quit pursuing that dead end completely and simply make it easy for agents to have access directly to company systems.
Steve: I have a different point of view about SEMCI and interface, and it's not that it's misdirected, irrelevant, or now unnecessary. Instead, I think that one of the problems is that there hasn't been a consistent message from agents on what they want from the carriers. This was brought out loud and clear in the AUGIE meetings this last year. Company people kept saying that when they asked their agents if they like the proprietary sites they developed, the answer was almost always yes. Proprietary company Web sites are not bad, as long as they don't require multiple entry. Groups representing agents, including user groups and associations, need to create a consistent message for companies.
John: Rick, I think you're right about interface not being ultimately necessary. It doesn't make sense to perpetuate double storage, and without it there's no need for interface as we've understood it. On the other hand, I think it will be years before all or even most carriers will be in a position to support agents as users into their systems--and then also get vendors to change their systems. And Steve, you suggest that the problem isn't SEMCI per se or even carrier Web sites. The problem in the process is understanding what agents really want. Let's retrace our steps.
Rick, you and I agree that a preoccupation with SEMCI diverts industry attention from technology initiatives with higher payoff. It perpetuates the status quo rather than replacing it with something better. It distorts agency business decisions. And it tends to hide the fact that, in theory anyway, the need for interface at all is now moot.
Nonetheless, as Steve points out, agents do face some significant issues today and they deserve relief. Download works pretty well. Edited upload is less common but is being touted by IVANS (WebSEMCI) and Applied, and some real-time rating is now operational via Transformation Station. But even though AMS, Applied, and DORIS have signed up, my take is that the process is on life support.
Steve: I don't think the picture is that dark. It won't take years for the kind of interaction we are talking about to take place. I have been surprised how fast agents' attitudes about the ASP model have changed. It was not too long ago that agents would hardly discuss storing their data off-site using an ASP. Today the discussion is "how do I protect access to my data stored off-site?" Customers' expectations are going to drive the change, both at the company and at the agency. Companies that don't respond quickly to customers' wants and needs will simply not be around.
Rick: What's going on, of course, is that companies are putting up Web sites and the Web sites have better services than agents can get through any kind of current interface. Agents are responding pretty favorably, that is, they're using the sites and that motivates companies to do even more with their sites--which they need anyway for their agents who don't have management systems. Some sites let agents rate and issue business, genuine once-and-done, and basically what we recommended years ago. Companies let agents make policy changes directly--no more delays and errors. Agents can get billing, claims, commissions, markets, and other information. If the Internet hadn't come along and all of this hadn't happened, maybe SEMCI would be further along.
But if we're going to look at near-term possibilities, I think SEMCI is a non-starter in the face of the success of company Web sites. So here's the problem I see: if agents continue to insist on classic SEMCI and refuse to accept management system/carrier Web site bridging on the one hand, and carriers don't adopt SEMCI but continue doing stand-alone Web sites on the other hand, agents are going to end up in a world of hurt. They won't have SEMCI, and they won't have connections to company sites--the worst of all possible worlds. SEMCI is a dead horse walking. Agents can sit on that dead horse and complain, or they can change to, and champion, the hybrid interface horse, and actually get someplace right away.
John: I'm not sure that the situation is quite that simple but I agree that carrier Web sites aren't going to go away, so agents would be best off if carriers and vendors found some way to provide connectivity between agency management systems and carrier Web sites. Doing so could eliminate double entry, difficulties in managing log-ons and passwords, and improve usability. I've been calling this kind of interconnection "hybrid interface" because it does involve data transfer but it doesn't hide the carrier Web site and instead makes good use of it. And it's not all that hard to do. It can be accomplished with few or small changes to agency and carrier systems. It's a win for everyone.
Steve: There are examples already working that demonstrate what you have called hybrid interface. One such carrier is Progressive. An agent can access policy information on the company Web site by sending policy information in real-time from their management system to the company Web site. The user simply logs into the site and is taken directly to the policy information. This is very easy to accomplish, especially for inquiry functions. This is a real advantage for an agency.
Rick: But the question is, who will pay any attention to the practical value of hybrid interface. From what I can see, John, you stirred up the SEMCI hornets' nest by challenging the SEMCI dogma, but the partisans aren't going to want to discuss the issue. They're more likely to want to shut you up. I'm not sure that any number of articles--like this one--or any others are really going to make any difference. The SEMCI boosters will continue to do their thing, companies will do their Web sites, and there won't be a meeting of the minds--or data.
If I remember, we had a situation a bit like this about 1989 or 1990. Upload wasn't going anywhere, companies were promoting proprietary terminals via PCs, and agents were really frustrated. CUGL, the Congress of User Group Leaders, got together and came up with the suggestion that maybe download should precede upload. It would be easier for carriers to do and could provide synchronization back from company terminals and so help with the double-entry problem. It wasn't a perfect solution, and some of the SEMCI enthusiasts were against anything that looked like a concession to proprietary terminals. But CUGL got ACORD involved and ACORD convened some industry meetings to discuss the idea. The result was a much better understanding among all parties, and general--though not universal-- agreement that download should be the short-term goal. That process set the agenda for the industry. I think we need something like that today.
John: To go back to the value of articles and other general education initiatives--I'm not as pessimistic as you are about their value. One problem in the industry today is that agents are told what to say and believe about interface but are not provided with an adequate education about the details, the problems, the alternatives and so on. I think anything that helps agents understand and think through the issues is a good thing. They've been spoon-fed answers, but they really need education. So I'm doing what I can.
But I can't say that I'm generally encouraged about the prospects for interface education. SEMCI has such a rabid following that its proponents accuse anyone who disagrees with them of disloyalty to independent agents, and worse. Consequently, "thoughtful voices" tend to be silenced and are afraid to take any position that will inflame the SEMCI true believers. Discussion of important topics has to take place in hallways and at dinner rather than in industry meetings. In one sense it's all amusing, I guess, except that this attempt to crush free speech and thought in the industry works to the detriment of agents' welfare.
Rick: You just made my case. I think we need to convene a genuine, open-minded, informed, broadly represented industry forum, go through the facts and the issues, and then come to common understanding as we did with the download issue. Maybe ACORD is the right group to organize such a forum. It did well with the CUGL ideas. On the other hand, the AUGIE process, though well run, really didn't result in any new information or move the industry forward one inch. Whoever sponsors this forum needs to be willing to take some heat and to provide imaginative leadership. Otherwise the process will be a total waste of time.
Steve: It's too early to pass judgment on AUGIE. The AUGIE survey has been criticized for not providing any new information. Yet the company personnel we've talked to are very pleased that they now have hard data about what agents want that they can use in their planning process. The key for AUGIE will be determining what they do next.
John: I guess we'll see who's willing to step up to the plate. The SEMCI folks will say, of course, that no forum is necessary. They already have the right answer. They don't need any more information. No new industry discussion is relevant. Everyone should just knuckle down and do what they're told. So in the meantime, I'm going to continue to encourage education about interface generally, as well as about alternatives to SEMCI.
Rick: Good luck. I guess I won't hold my breath about my forum proposal. Nonetheless, I think it makes a great deal of sense and could put the industry on the right track. I wonder what any readers out there think.
To make comments or ask questions, Rick Morgan can be reached at rmorgan@confirmnet.com, Steve Anderson can be reached at steve@taarreport.com and John Ashenhurst can be reached at johnashenhurst@soundingline.com. *
The author
John Ashenhurst's 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.