Proprietary Interfaces: Deluge On The Front Line

This was the beginning of the call for "single entry." It was clear to agents that their new in-house agency systems needed to be the main system. The vision was that the agency management system would be the primary "window" or user interface for the agency. And agency system vendors worked with insurers to make that happen.

Industry standards became a major part of the solution to support data exchange and provide single entry through the agency system.

Yet that vision was only partially fulfilled through the years. Some agents would argue that it was never fulfilled. A number of vendors did provide data exchange with insurers (and still do), but not for all transactions, classes or lines of business. And in some cases, the information was entered into a separate agency sub-system that was somewhat customized for the various insurers.

Various solutions were created to eliminate redundant data entry. Using ACORD standards for downloading data from an insurer into the agency system was one solution. ACORD standards used for download continue to be an important part of the landscape today. While standard download was not the original vision, it was and continues to be a practical solution to a vexing problem.

With the proliferation of insurer-specific Web-based applications delivered through the Internet, agents see nothing more than the colorful and graphical grandchildren of those green screens of days gone by. Once again, their vision of a single standard window or graphical user interface (GUI) combined with the single entry of data seems to have stalled. And when industry observers suggest proprietary systems are a "good thing," my telephone rings off the hook with calls from agents in protest.

Here is what the "proprietary is good" people say–that sameness or standard systems eliminates the competitive advantage technology can bring. They also suggest that a standard front-end from every insurer is not realistic or good for agents. They do not think anyone really wants plain vanilla systems without the differentiation that cultivates innovation and furthers competitive advantage. They say that the agency staff is smart and can learn how to use different software programs.

Although they claim that proprietary systems and GUIs are good, they agree with agents that redundant data entry is bad. So they fully support the single entry of data and the ACORD standards that enable it. They clearly make a distinction between "moving" or "sharing" information and "working" with information.

When challenged by agents for what appears to be inconsistent dogma, they counter that industry standards are intended to promote "single entry" and the exchange of information, and are not intended to produce standard software products and standard (industry prescribed) user interfaces.

In contrast, when I talk to agents, they provide me with a list of issues with insurer Web sites, even though they concede that ACORD standards do (or will) eliminate redundant data entry by supporting innovative ways to save, move and share data without having to re-key it. The agents say "single entry is not our only concern"–its also about those idiosyncratic differences I mentioned earlier. "We have gussied up front-ends to old legacy mainframes," they say.

Agents cite not only "look and feel" differences among insurer Web applications, but also the plethora of insurer lingo, formats and workflows. And even though we acknowledge that agents are indeed smart enough to learn all of these systems, they must also face up to the constant change (a.k.a. improvements or enhancements) that come along with technology.

So, let me dispel the notion that "proprietary" in itself is a bad thing. All the software developers that gather at any standards organization in any industry do not do so to create mirror images of the competitions software products. In fact, product differentiation is the very reason why software developers are drawn to support industry standards.

Im all in favor of software developers (insurers and vendors) doing something better and creating something new. There is a reason why ACORD has the support of over 200 vendors with regard to industry standards. Also, they understand that we are not asking them to clone each others products.

But we are asking them to work together to avoid building closed systems that wont work with other systems that co-exist in the market. But how then do we resolve the front-end problem?

Historically, it was done with standard forms. We have 450 different ACORD forms that have supplanted tens of thousands of proprietary paper forms. They are used every day, in paper form, as digital printouts and as data entry screens for capturing application information. ACORD licenses about 100 firms that incorporate ACORD forms into their software products.

Agents had the best of both worlds in the pre-automation era. They were able to send the same data to multiple insurers using the same form (single entry) and were provided with a consistent format (albeit a paper user interface) regardless of the number of insurers they represented. In fact, the advantage of having a standard user-interface was so strong among agents, that many software vendors used ACORD forms as data entry screens in their products.

As I explained, proprietary is not in itself a bad thing. I also believe that data standards (ACORD or all others) are not intended to be GUIs or user-interface standards. There was one attempt to standardize the green screens by getting insurers to agree (in general) about the placement of data on the screen and the use of function keys. To my knowledge at least one insurer took advantage of them in the 1980s.

However, this should not be a case of "either/or" but rather a "both/and" solution. While it does not seem realistic to think all insurers would agree to build identical front-ends for their systems, future solutions are not out of the question. And it doesn't make sense for agents to work with dozens of dissimilar GUIs.

In addition to new services from agency system vendors, new vendors may emerge that serve as aggregators, not unlike what yodlee.com and others do to help consumers combine and view all their financial accounts in one place. Consumers also find working with dozens of online financial sites extremely difficult. Another thought would be to have a software product that enabled the use of templates for customizing screens–in essence, creating an agency-specific GUI.

There are no quick fixes available and I hesitate to suggest a 20th century solution to a problem that can be resolved with 21st century technology. Besides, short-term solutions end up having longer tails and unintended consequences. But this does not mean that nothing can be done now. We can agree to establish the building blocks that will lead us to solutions to these kinds of challenges.

As we deploy ACORD XML standards for making data self-describing and platform- and technology-neutral, we will open the door to a new era of data handling. It will dramatically increase data flexibility and that alone will drive innovation in how we share, exchange and, yes, view information on a computer.

It makes no sense to reach too far into the future for solutions because its difficult to focus everyones attention on that distant goal for long. But vendors are in business to solve such problems (and make money doing so). As long as there is a market for the product, it will be available.

But vendors will never be able to provide solutions without the building blocks that enable them. So while we take a longer view on a specific solution (like GUIs), we must also focus on the short-term goal of driving ACORD XML standards, because standards are the building blocks for e-commerce.

I do not believe that we will see the end of all proprietary GUIs because many are well designed and useful. But I do believe that concerns about the front-end deluge of GUIs that overwhelm all of us, not just agents, will ultimately be resolved when the standards are in place to do so.

Gregory A. Maciag is president and chief executive officer of ACORD, the non-profit industry association based in Pearl River, N.Y., with offices in Belgium and the United Kingdom. ACORD develops and maintains standards for the insurance and related financial services industries and promotes effective use of technology to facilitate e-commerce and reduce costs worldwide.

Reproduced from National Underwriter Property & Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition, August 27, 2001. Copyright 2001 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.

Contact Webmaster