Producer associations, agency management system vendors, user groups, and publications (including this one) have decried the proliferation of agency self-service Web sites being fielded by carriers. The problem for agents is obvious.
When agency staff leave the standard work flow of their management systems to use a carrier Web site, best practices are abandoned and new inefficiencies are introduced into the agency. Even when download conserves data entered through the carrier Web site by inserting it into the agency management system, carrier-specific training, sign-on, user interface, and other issues drag the agency away from efficiency into a miasma that looks a lot like the much-despised carrier proprietary terminals of yesteryear. The more carriers offer self-service Websites, the worse it will be for agents. Or so it seems.
Some carriers, eager to do the right thing by their agents, want to give agents a choice. The agents can come in through the carrier site and then receive download, or they can stay in their management the whole time, with the management system talking to the carrier system via real-time XML transactions.
Who could object to a two-channel approach (carrier Web site or management system)? Isn't that what all carriers should do? Isn't that part of the purpose of standard ACORD XML?
It looks good on paper. The issue provides fodder for the feel-good "beat up on carriers" pastime. But apparently, as they say in Texas, that dog won't hunt - at least right now.
The Republic review in this issue describes a curious fact. Prior to the availability of that carrier's quote/issue Web site, 20% of its personal lines new business transactions were the result of upload from management systems. That is, they were part of the standard agency management system workflow. But now, with the carrier Web site available, only 3% of the new business transactions come from the management system.
How can this be? Why is access via management systems shrinking?
Other vendors report similar experience. One large carrier reports that after 18 months of two-channel access, thousands of agencies regularly use the Web site and a handful "quote/ issue" through their management systems.
Having spent millions of dollars on the real-time connection between agency management and carrier systems, this particular carrier is very disappointed. The carrier acted as an exemplary industry citizen. It spent money to implement the ideal. But where is its payoff? Why should this carrier (or any other) go to the trouble of integrating with management systems when agents don't seem to care and use the carrier's proprietary Web site instead? How will carrier good-guys justify these well-intentioned but apparent boondoggles? Carrier integration sponsors might even find themselves looking for other jobs.
As one carrier executive pointed out during a recent industry panel, many agents simply aren't equipped to use real-time management system integration functionality. The management system may not support it. Or if it does, it's available only in the most recent release and most agents don't make being release-current a priority. Or the agency hardware is inadequate, or firewalls and proxy servers get in the way. Or technological abecedarianism, old versions of Windows, or lack of broadband connections creates insurmountable barriers.
Or maybe other issues are at play. As another carrier executive pointed out to me, if only one carrier system can be accessed through an agency system, that carrier, in effect represents exceptional workflow, in much the same way a proprietary carrier Web site is exceptional and outside the normal workflow. If that's true, then having a second, third or fourth carrier available should create critical mass and make the management system integrated approach the new standard.
In the meantime, it's tough for the carrier pioneers. They have to spend lots of money and then see no results -- until other carriers start to play. But with poor results to date, why should the other carriers get on board. As usual, it's the classic chicken-and-egg problem we've seen for the last 20 years (earlier with ACORD batch upload and download.
But perhaps the problem is something else entirely. What if the carriers have done a better job making their self-service Web sites usable than vendors have done with their management systems? If so, agents will continue to gravitate to proprietary sites rather than use integrated, but harder to use functionality, and carriers that invest in integration will continue to be frustrated.
What's the answer? What's the question? Agency staff are practical people. They always follow the fall line, when they can find it. And the fall line often fails to conform to a theoretic ideal. The point is to continue to improve -- to become more efficient; to provide better service -- making a rational choice among alternatives. What's the answer? The game afoot is business.
© Copyright 2001 by Sound Internet Strategy. All rights reserved.