Southgate Jones, Jr., is chairman emeritus of CSC Corporation and chairman/president of J. Southgate & Son Insurance Services in Durham, North Carolina.
SEMCI has been five years away for the past twenty years!"
Jack Payan, long-time independent agent from Illinois, uttered this caustic comment, framed by frustration, several years ago at an agent-company automation meeting. Jack bespoke the pent-up cynicism of all progressive agents to whom single entry, multiple company interface too long has been a continuing carrot-on-a-stick away, despite the means (finally) to achieve it.
Progress has been slow indeed, but proponents may take heart that forward movement in recent years justifies a new confidence in achieving SEMCI on a broad basis. But, they must recognize and resist a surging trend toward closed proprietary interface--an insidious threat that can move agency automation back to the computer Dark Ages, if not reversed.
Let's ponder briefly what we mean by SEMCI. First, however, a word about my perspective. To paraphrase the poet Browning, my technical reach exceeds my grasp but, as an agency principal, it long has been my view that personal knowledge of what a management system can do is obligatory--though it is not necessary to know how it does it. Agency financials require optimum performance, both for the machines and for the dedicated staff who use them. Therefore, logic and good business practice must combine to make this happen. SEMCI is vital to this equation.
As a term, SEMCI has been around since the early 1980s and stands as a rallying call for improved agency automation, in a defined form. To independent agents, this is viewed in terms of workflow processing, where data can be transferred from and into their own systems with single entry to their companies. Because of the strong asset value of data and other advantages, most agents wish to originate and retain controlled access to their data, whether on-site or in remote storage.
SEMCI is not technology, and least of all is it a sacrificial lamb at the altar of advancing technology. Rather, SEMCI is an integral part of this movement. Properly utilized, it lubricates the operation and is limited only by the technology to enable it.
So much for what it is. The fact is that SEMCI is not happening on a large scale. Why is this? Most vendors have versions of SEMCI modules, some better than others, and some carriers are cooperating admirably in making connect-points available to their agents. Yet, at the rate this is occurring, desirable momentum attained by large volume will not happen until bystanders become participants and, especially, unless those working against it relent and join the effort.
Obviously, insurance companies, vendors and agents (including their associations and user groups) are the principal players in this drama and all must be committed to SEMCI in order for agency automation to finally arrive in the 21st century. Each bears part of the burden, and all will benefit from logical improvements in the system. Omitting actual name and brand references, let's look at these participants.
"Many company systems are unable to accept change transactions. Those companies should bite the budget bullet and modernize."
Carriers
Companies vary widely in their level of support of SEMCI, and one can only guess at the factors involved in specific cases. However, there are some indicators:
* Demand -- "We hear very little clamor for it from our agents." Several years ago a comment such as this was more prevalent than it is today. Now, some companies are taking the message to their agents in an effort to build increased SEMCI activity in their agency plant. In an unexpected reversal last year, one such company offered SEMCI connections to more than 100 selected agencies and had difficulty persuading some of them to give up their proprietary interface with that company. However, other companies have had success in similar efforts.
* Loss of business -- Some company officials express privately a concern that SEMCI is a slick way for agents to move their book of business to another carrier simply by a computer click. An equally private retort emphasizes that, "If I decide to move your business, I will do so, whether by pushing a button or through other means." A variation of this came last year from a senior executive of a company with more than 6,000 agents: "Why should I cooperate with SEMCI when, in doing so, I'm actually helping my competitors?" Further discussion proved this to be rhetoric for there was agreement that, in helping his agents, he also was helping his own company directly, all other concerns aside. Smart guy, he, but it does indicate a mindset.
* Proprietary--As suggested earlier, this is the one greatest threat to progress in multi-company interface efforts. Some companies state frankly that their systems give them a competitive advantage and deliver greater satisfaction to their agents, at the same time fulfilling the specific needs of both. This self-serving posture might be called "SESCI" (single entry, single company interface), which does nothing to improve the agent's workflow. The agent's best antidote is to seek SEMCI connections with other companies and to participate actively in the automation efforts of IIAA/PIA and his/her own user group.
* Obsolescence -- The Y2K threat might have helped, but some companies continue to support outdated systems. Recently, I passed along a competitor's remark to another company's IT director that his company was feeding an antique system. Expecting a strong denial, I was surprised when my friend replied, "He's right." Companies that came out early with agency interface systems are to be commended for their initiative. They should be condemned for perpetuating obsolescence when it affects their agents adversely. A real irony exists with policy change processing capability, which agents struggled successfully to obtain from their vendors. Now that change processing is a reality for the user, it appears that many company systems are unable to accept change transactions. Those companies should bite the budget bullet and modernize.
* The Internet -- There is an optimistic view, seemingly justified, that the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for handling data transfer and other transactions, and that it can integrate smoothly with existing personal computer systems. This remarkable communications development is finding its way into everyone's thinking, and this is good. However, while program developers are at the drawing board, they should be aware that in addition to the Internet without SEMCI, it is possible to have the Internet with SEMCI. Users must push this point.
Vendors
Caught in a virtual crossfire, agency automation vendors seek to meet the needs of both companies and users, yet some find that neither knows--or accepts--what the other wants. Also, in the past, a company has been known to inform a vendor that, "We're not your customer; the agent is your customer, so talk to him." The point here is that all parties must work together because in the absence of meaningful dialogue, real progress in agency automation goes nowhere.
* Diverse interests -- Vendors are placed in a difficult position when requested by companies to develop company-unique programs that might not serve their SEMCI commitments to users. Understandably, prudent business considerations force them to respond.
* Improved capability -- With dwindling numbers of platforms and versions, technical support of SEMCI has improved. Integrated commercial lines capability has made progress but has a considerable way to go before wide-scale use can occur.
* Product development -- The vendor logically is the independent agent's R&D resource (and perhaps the companies' too?). Within bounds, the ultimate beneficiaries should share research costs, with consultation privileges along the way.
Agents
Where is the center of the SEMCI universe? Although the company/vendor/agent troika must move abreast in enabling SEMCI, the thrust occurs when the user first hits a key. Better than anyone else, the user knows best the needs of his/her management system to support sales and service of his/her business. Single entry of data to multiple companies is most desirable--and unequivocally possible. Several corollaries arise from this assertion.
* Leadership -- It's no new revelation that the user community must take the initiative in achieving SEMCI. This translates into leadership and, where notable progress has occurred to date, user groups and agents' associations have been the catalysts.
* Inertia -- These groups require a vocal constituency which, of course, is their membership. Although more than 75% of users consider SEMCI to be "very important" or "vital," many users have not been assertive individually with their companies. Is this because there's a fear of alienating a good market with a smooth "SESCI" operation or, perhaps, concern about momentary disruption of operations for installation and training? Reasons vary but they turn on lack of personal involvement of agency principals--if, indeed, they want SEMCI.
* Status quo -- It's very clear; the proprietary interface threat is here to stay and will continue to grow unless users force an end to it. As noted earlier, more and more companies are creating closed, double-entry proprietary systems. Is it overly dramatic to visualize that, in time, the revered independent agency system might degenerate into an aggregation of literally "captive" agents, each bound to a single company's screen for his/her conventional P&C business?
* Technology -- The personal computer environment needs and deserves single entry, multiple company interface. New developments should be viewed in terms of SEMCI, and users would do well to enter the arena in a timely manner, asking, "How can this innovation enable workflow processing in my agency?" Without this involvement, technology indeed might blow past its prime beneficiary: the user.
The central theme in these observations is the leadership role users must play in obtaining SEMCI as a continuum. Wise use of their leverage of considerable billions of premium dollars seems to create the way--if the will is there. I believe the proven resiliency and initiative of independent agents will prevail, as it has in so many previous crises. And significantly, some very good companies are committed to it, with indications of strong support from several vendors.
However, if the user community and its organizations stand by, blissfully unaware or blithely unconcerned about the consequences of proprietary proliferation, I'm afraid that my friend Jack Payan's militant musing just might not rise even to the level of wishful thinking! *
The author
Southgate Jones, Jr., chairman emeritus of CSC Corporation and chairman/president of J. Southgate & Son Insurance Services, Inc., Durham, North Carolina, served as president of the Independent Insurance Agents of America in 1989-1990.
From 1993-1999 he was a member of the AMS Users' Group Board of Directors, serving for several years on its Executive Committee, as well as chairman of the Communications Committee and Conference Sponsorship Committee. In 1997 he was asked to organize and chair a special Industry Affairs Committee, with the broad mission of taking concerns of the organization's 11,000 agency members to the industry at large in a timely manner, to be a positive influence in matters affecting user agencies. The committee's initial efforts have included pursuit of the single entry, multiple company interface (SEMCI) dilemma.
Contact Jones via e-mail at southjon@aol.com.
Phone: 919-489-5167.
Mail: P. O. Box 1211, Durham, NC 27702.
©COPYRIGHT: The Rough Notes Magazine, 2000