In past years, some carriers extended their mainframe systems out to their agencies, encouraging or "forcing" the agencies to use the services - often called "proprietary interactive interface." Agents with management systems objected because they then had to enter data twice - once into the carrier system, and then again into their management system.
Some carriers responded by creating download services from their systems into the agency's management system, so that it could be made current without key entry. Many carriers supporting download employed the ACORD AL3 batch standards.
But agencies had another objection. Having to use multiple carrier systems for input was counterproductive. It sometimes meant using single-purpose equipment. It often meant disruption of normal agency workflow. And it always meant additional training. Agencies wanted to use their agency systems and other cross-carrier software for all their processing - and then upload the results to the carrier system. In most cases, carriers haven't been willing or able to implement upload.
The Internet has allowed carriers to create a new generation of "proprietary interactive interface" available to agents through carrier Web sites. Carriers profit by substantially reducing communications costs. And since all the sites are available the same way, via browsers, some carriers believe they have substantially countered agents' past objections. The new arrangement doesn't require additional equipment, can be interleaved into agency workflow, and special training is minimized or even unnecessary.
Carriers also argue that their proprietary Web sites give them, the carrier, competitive advantage. Were they to integrate with multi-carrier technology and their beautiful technology become invisible, they would lose the advantage they worked so hard to gain.
What's right? What's the solution?
One school of thought says we should avoid calling these carrier Web sites "proprietary," even if they really are. If we use the term "proprietary," agents will just get too stirred up and it won't be possible to have a rational dialog.
Another school of thought suggests that these carrier Web sites are a substantial improvement over past proprietary interactive interface and that carriers are entitled to differentiate their products. Agents should quit whining.
A third school claims that the problems are only temporary. Once the new ACORD XML standards are implemented, carriers and vendors will have the environment necessary to integrate carrier Web sites and agency systems, so the whole problem will disappear.
None of these positions makes sense. Agents do have a problem with carrier Web sites, whether they're called proprietary or not. And yes, access through browsers is an improvement over the past, but the core problems of training and workflow remain. Finally, the ACORD standards won't automatically lead to integration. Carriers must make a business decision to allow vendors to integrate with their sites - and those that have a strategy of using technology to gain competitive advantage don't seem so inclined.
However, in the past, much of proprietary interactive interface was nothing more than carrier-controlled data entry. Today, more enlightened carriers allow agents to complete the whole transaction, not just start it. Single-step workflow can be a net advantage to agents, even relative to management system initiated upload. And that's where carriers can use technology to gain competitive advantage over more primitive and clumsy carrier arrangements.
Carrier sites aren't the only way to implement single-step workflow. It can also be done as part of a multi-carrier agency environment and probably most conveniently with ACORD XML. But that can happen only with carrier cooperation. Today, carriers offer two excuses for delay: 1) they don't have the resources right now, or 2) they can't give up their competitive advantage.
Time will tell about the sincerity of the former excuse. The latter position is specious, since carriers can retain competitive advantage and still integrate.
But nothing will change unless agents and their advocates - user groups, trade organizations, and vendors - bring agency perspective and financial motivation to the carriers.
© Copyright 2001 by Sound Internet Strategy. All rights reserved