For dozens of years, agents and carriers have failed to seeeye-to-eye when it comes to technologies that enable them tointeract with each other more efficiently–and judging from recentcomments, that trend seems likely to continue.

If you want to find out how carriers and agents feel about theirtechnology relationship, the answers will often depend on whom youask. While agents tend to see the proverbial glass as half-empty orhalf-full at best, some insurers seem to think it isoverflowing.

“I think agents feel there has been slow progress being made ina number of areas,” according to Jeff Yates, executive director ofthe Agents Council for Technology, in Alexandria, Va. “There isextreme frustration with the rating area, because they're tired ofproprietary Web sites.”

He added, however, that there have been some encouragingimprovements. “There's a higher level of cooperation between agentsand carriers and vendors working on technology initiatives likecommercial download,” he pointed out.

“If you ask the average agent today, they are extremelyfrustrated about the rating area,” he said. “They feel we havetaken a step backward. Now, they have to log on to each company Website and do multiple data entry. Meanwhile, the technology allaround them is improving (in areas like billing technology), but inthe rating area there is no progress.”

According to Mr. Yates, the use of third-party underwritinginformation has made the process more complicated. He citedutilization of DMV information and credit scores, noting it isprimarily the latter that has “put a monkey wrench into theworks.”

Another area where there has been progress is in commerciallines download, he said. While the early experience of agents wasthat their data was being overwritten, “the last couple of yearsthere has been a major effort to improve the level of testing.That's where the opportunity for progress is,” he noted.

Mr. Yates pointed to a “big opportunity” for real-time,multiple-company rating. “This resonates with the grassrootsagents,” he said. “There are good, encouraging signs we canactually make significant progress on this for agents over the nextyear.”

That progress, he added, could take the form of more real-timerating through agency management systems and more real-timecapabilities available via comparative raters. “It's alreadystarting to happen.”

On the other side of the relationship, ease of doing business is“very much on the radar screen of carriers,” he continued.

Carriers are working to get rid of “pain points” in the process,he noted–citing “frustration at the carrier level that agentsaren't implementing new technologies for workflow and [for]real-time [transactions]. We tell agents that carriers arewatching, so it's important to implement real-time when it becomesavailable.”

“My impression is that things have gotten better [between agentsand carriers] from the communications standpoint on technology,”according to Stu Durland, vice president of The Durland Agencies,based in Warwick, N.Y. “The people that represent carriers thatcome to our office seem to be more knowledgeable. I see morewell-rounded individuals coming in, where it used to be just amarketing person. They can talk about underwriting aspects ofproducts and how it will interact with my system.”

He added that “we see that more with the regionals. They are intune with the products and the technology. They understand when Italk real-time and [IVANS} Transformation Station," a software thatallows smoother communication between agencies and theircarriers.

The same is often not true, however, with national carriers,where expectations are higher, noted Mr. Durland, who is also apast president of ASCNet, one of the major agency management systemuser groups.

After asking one such company about when he could expectreal-time transactions, Mr. Durland had a two-hour meeting with acarrier marketing representative on what was needed. "I ended upthinking, 'Don't they already know this? I am repeating myself alot here,'" he said. "There was good communication, but why are westill having this communication?"

In another case, "a carrier gave us a real-time solution, thentook it away because they were advancing their systems, but therewas no date for when we would get it back," he said. "It gets alittle frustrating with the larger carriers, but the regionals areimplementing the technology. If companies are providing that kindof support, the independent agent is going to do business withthem."

The toughest challenge with such technology, according to Mr.Durland, is the actual implementation. "Reps are not necessarilythe right people to get things done. Users groups, etc. may havemore force in getting change to occur," he said.

He noted his agency is doing real-time download with fourcommercial carriers--and despite some minor problems, things areimproving on the commercial side. "But I have no personal linesrating in real-time, although they have some bridges out there.That's a little frustrating," he added.

Another problem is what Mr. Durland calls the "wait-and-seeattitude." Both companies and agents want to wait and see howtechnology implementation will go before committing dollars andpersonnel, he explained. "The frustration is in changing thatmindset. My thought is, just implement it--we're going to use it,"he said.

Mr. Durland added that his own relationships with carriers aregood, "because I know a lot of the automation contacts. They wantto do the right thing, but they all have constraints--monetaryissues, political issues. The bigger [an insurer is], the morepeople you have to convince that it's the right thing to do.”

Overall, Mr. Durland said he is optimistic about the future ofthe agency-carrier relationship–at least as far as technology goes.“I see it going in the right direction. It's going too slow, butit's going in the right direction. If you can make us moreefficient, we're going to make you more money.”

From a carrier point of view, Jim Griesing, vice president ofsales and market planning for The Hartford, said his company'stechnology relationship with independent agents is “good, and itcontinues to get better. Many agents are embracing the use oftechnology in working with our company. Carriers are making thequoting process faster and more precise, so it's not just a quotebut a bindable quote.”

According to Mr. Griesing, carriers must eliminate redundancy ofinformation in carrier systems that forces agents to submitduplicate input. “There needs to be fewer proprietarysystems–making it more convenient for agents to interact with you,”he said. “We need to enable agencies to get a quote via theiragency management systems.

Mr. Griesing said that at The Hartford, “we routinely talk withour agency partners and ask them what they need–that's certainlyimportant. We're also on industry panels about technology andstandards.”

He asserted that “automation and ease of doing business are atthe core of agency-carrier relationships, particularly in the flowof businesses in personal lines and small commercial.”

However, he added, “agents need to embrace the technologies theyhave. They have to make sure they have trained their folks to takefull advantage. They need to make it part of their workflows andbusiness model.”

Jerry Fox, vice president of James M. King and Associates Inc.in Bloomington, Minn., sees a problem in communication.

“In general, I think there's a group of [insurers] that arelistening to agents and a group that are not,” he explained. “Theproblem we're having is that agents as a group want real-time,connectivity to real-time and real-time quotes. We can share thoseideas through ACT and AUGIE,” the latter being an umbrellaorganization of agency technology groups.

“The carriers go through preferred agents clubs and hear we wanta Web site where we can get their information,” he continued. “Sothe companies say, 'We're listening to our big agent groups,' butthe ones in the president's club that go to the golf tournamentsare not the ones in the trenches. I always speak up, but I'm justone guy.”

According to Mr. Fox, “it's about 50-50″ in terms of thecarriers that listen and those that do not. “The lower 50 percentis regional mutuals that can't afford to be part of getting thewhole picture,” he noted. “ACT is too expensive for them to beinvolved in, and AUGIE, from a time standpoint, is too expensive. Idon't think those are the save-all organizations, but they are avenue in which the companies can get a consistent voice from agroup of agents in different systems, but with the samemessage.”

Mr. Fox added that “insurers need to hear it's not about Websites, but it's about real-time transactions. We cannot continue todo business as we are–the independent agency system will fail. Thecustomer is not going to be satisfied with the level of service we[currently] provide.”

Increasingly, he warned, future customers will be“technology-driven.”

In contrast, Patrick Gee, senior vice president of smallcommercial and personal lines operations for St. Paul Travelers,said “relationships between agents and carriers are as good as theyhave ever been from an automation perspective, and they're gettingbetter. That doesn't mean they're perfect.”

He added that “we're extremely excited about our progress in thelast few years on automation. Over the past three years, upward of30-to-35 percent of service transactions have been initiated byagency management systems, whereas three years ago, it wasvirtually zero.” (That figure, he noted, is a composite betweenpersonal and commercial lines.)

“In the next year or two, we're going to expand our offerings bysending alerts to agents any way they want them,” he promised. “Theindustry will soon utilize connections between agency managementsystems and carriers to improve transactions.”

While others point to the lack of automation progress in rating,Mr. Gee asserted that “comparative rating in our industry is movingto real-time. That's important, because carrier products today aremore complicated and more difficult to price. In the last year,virtually all comparative raters are coming through our gateways inreal time to get quotes, so they don't have to manufacture ratesany more.”

Where no comparative rater is used by an agency, Mr. Gee saidhis company has created the ability in personal lines for agents tobridge whatever information they choose from their managementsystems into the carrier platform in real-time, in order to fill informs. “It saves a ton of redundant keying,” he noted.

Among the challenges facing carriers is improvement in the quoteprocess, by allowing agents to use their agency management systemsmore, according to Mr. Gee, who conceded “that option is not fullyworked through.”

He added that the industry also needs to maximize the automationin small- and middle-market quoting. He emphasized the importanceof service transactions.

“For the first time, I hear that major agency management systemsare building a catcher's mitt for claims download,” he said. “We'reanxious to be a pitcher.”