People by nature tend to look forward for the next big thing andbuild solutions accordingly. However, I think it's also importantto look back and ask key questions to gauge the usefulness of “old”technology because there are times when the past hinders thefuture. E-mail is a striking example.

E-mail started (depending on whom you ask) in 1961 with MIT'sCTSS (Compatible Time Sharing Program) during a time whenlong-distance telephone calls were expensive and other techniquessuch as text chat were non-existent. This system laid thefoundation for electronic text information exchange.

Over the next 50 years, e-mail went from a useful way toexchange information to little more than a distracting way to keepyour to-do list. E-mail has caused quite a few problems along theway, including:

• Creating distance between people because it's just “easier” toe-mail (although less meaningful).
• Causing confusion (or worse) when readers misunderstandwriters.
• Creating havoc in computer systems because of e-mail-basedviruses.
• Creating wasted effort removing spam.
• Opening up an entirely new form of legal discovery with somepretty dire results (the examples are almost endless).

What's worse, those in my sphere of influence fail to move tomore innovative solutions because e-mail is “good enough,” and inthat way, it's a crutch that stifles real efficiency.

Take the submission process between agents and MGAs as anexample. Instead of direct integration, e-mail with PDF attachmentsare exchanged and since it's inexpensive and “easy” (althoughinefficient and error prone), it continues to be the dominate meansof information exchange. If e-mail wasn't there, we'd beintegrating on the data level, eliminating redundancy in theindustry.

Interested inmore Frank Neugebauer Insights on Technology? ClickHere

What I'm saying is that e-mail is past the point of diminishingreturns. It's causing more problems than it solves and I'd arguethat the problems it solves (e.g., simple multi-person informationexchanges) are better handled using things like SMS and socialnetworks. So then, what should companies do?

I believe the answer is to admit that e-mail is causing moreproblems than it solves, but understand that e-mail isn't goingaway despite its shortcomings. Accepting those two facts can helpcreate a strategy to deal with it.

In the excess and surplus lines business, e-mail is a means of sharingpolicy information between agents, brokers, general agents, andcarriers. Instead of cutting off e-mail (since that's not anoption), innovate as if it wasn't there. Instead of trying to getrid of e-mail, simply recognize the crutch, throw it away, andfigure out how to exchange information from there.

If we as IT managers for MGAs, create strategies to exchangeinformation assuming there is no e-mail, we are compelled to getinformation from agents directly. Fortunately, the capability isalready there through various means, including form interrogationand direct agency management system integration. Such integrationis far more efficient than e-mail and, over time, far lessexpensive (consider the time savings alone). We first need to actas if e-mail doesn't exist, which breeds the impetus forchange.

On the carrier side, they need coverage forms and need to sharepolicy information—and receive policies, in some cases—betweenagencies and MGAs. Again, the technology is already there with theReal Time Campaign andseveral solutions offered by vendors. If they act as if e-mailisn't there, the drive to move forward manifests itself and thecrutch is removed.

As the drive to move forward compels the insurance industry toinnovate, it's equally important to evaluate “old” technologies toensure they are not hampering progress. E-mail is such animpediment and it's important that we innovate around it.