By John Ashenhurst
More than once this year, people who should know better have told me that when the ACORD XML standards are implemented, proprietary carrier interface (or Web sites) and other perennial problems for agencies will disappear. Technology and, in particular, ACORD XML will (finally) be the salvation of the independent agency system.
Unfortunately this just isn't true. XML in general and ACORD XML in particular should prove useful to vendors and carriers providing technology products, but the standards don't imply anything particular about the form those products will take. That's part of their attractiveness and strength. A carrier could very well implement XML in its Web site yet refuse to allow vendors to connect into it (in fact, that is already happening), or a vendor could offer an XML-based system but not allow competing XML-based services to integrate with it.
The XML standards are one--but not the exclusive--approach to real-time system integration. But they have nothing to say about business issues that affect agents--for instance, carrier Web sites.
There's nothing wrong with the standards being neutral in regard to how they are used. ACORD is an industry organization, not a producer organization. ACORD cannot legitimately advocate for agents' interests or carrier interests or any particular
group's interests.
A problem arises, however, when people believe that the standards will automatically solve their business (as opposed to their technology) problems. And a related problem occurs when an agency group (AUGIE-ACORD-User Groups Information Exchange) teams up with ACORD expecting ACORD to advocate for agents. It's not going to happen. ACORD can advocate only for standards; therefore, that's the purpose to which AUGIE will likely be directed.
From my point of view, that's unfortunate. A congress of user groups should address agency business issues, create a vision for the use of emerging technology, and generally represent important agency interests. But with its connection to necessarily neutral ACORD, AUGIE will become preoccupied with ACORD's concerns--and they're not identical with agents' interests.
Although it appears that the purpose of this column is to criticize ACORD, it isn't. ACORD's charter is to create and promulgate standards. It appears to be effective in doing so but, in my view, may be a bit too enthusiastic and thus may be creating unrealistic expectations. Overall, however, ACORD isn't the problem. The problem is the way the industry processes information, develops issues, and seeks solutions. It has a tendency to seek simple definitive answers about complex issues--and then turn the simple answers into dogma.
What's true? What's realistic?
If you are an agent (or vendor or carrier, for that matter) you need to make decisions about the future. Since decisions based on reality are more likely to be productive than those based on illusion, understanding what is true and what is realistic is very important. But it's not necessarily easy.
Vendors send out press releases that often have little connection with reality. Industry magazine articles (excluding Rough Notes of course!) report what vendors and others say as if it were a description of reality when in fact it's blatant self-promotion. No surprises here, of course. In business, at least, we expect people to pursue their rational self-interest. Usually that means they're trying to sell us something. So we discount some of what they say and look for alternative and, we hope, objective facts and insight. Sometimes that's hard to find.
A venue for examining issues
Perhaps the most serious obstacle to understanding things as they really are is what is often called industry politics. In this column, industry politics means subscribing to and defending positions taken by a small group of people in one industry organization or another--without sufficient evidence or an inclusive thought process. In the past, a goal for (some) industry organizations has been to establish a single point of view and get everyone to adopt it. Typically, the position becomes dogma and to challenge it is to face some sort of excommunication from the industry country club. Unfortunately, almost certainly any single point of view will be inaccurate and ultimately interfere with required flexibility to deal with evolving reality.
One example of industry politics at work, at least until recently, was the promotion of SEMCI. Proponents heralded SEMCI as the salvation of the independent agent. It wasn't and isn't--but everyone was expected to toe the line. Carriers, vendors, or commentators who expressed reservations publicly were deemed disloyal, simple-minded, or selfish.
The expressed reason for demanding fealty to an industry position like SEMCI is that the good of all requires coordinated action. With the agent troops lined up, presumably carriers wouldn't have any choice but to go along. (Like a union demanding a better benefits package?) It's true that finding common ground is likely to be more successful than making categorical demands, but one problem with crusades is that they may be wrong-headed and do a great deal of damage along the way. Industry crusades have a tendency to subvert the operation of the marketplace
of ideas. Free discussion, representation of varied points of view, in-depth examination of issues, and being well informed are all ignored.
A more productive approach might be to foster a continuing dialogue that includes a great variety of points of view. Perhaps industry meetings should sponsor more thoughtful public dialogue and less regimentation. For example, smart corporations are bringing more minds into the internal dialogue. Command and control are giving way to the coordination of self-directed efforts close to the problem and customer.
What to do? Maybe nothing. Maybe most agents are eager to have the certainty of a formula rather than having to deal with the complexity and ambiguity of the real world--even if the formula is mistaken. But industry politics and the goal of getting everyone to think the same way haven't been very successful so far. Agents continue to decide what's best for them without much worrying about conforming to someone else's agenda. Useful discussion and challenge of orthodoxy takes place in private.
Maybe it's time for a change. With dialogue an accepted process, carriers, agents, and vendors could speak their minds and express ideas and points of view for consideration. Rather than enforcing one point of view through economic or social coercion, the process could lead to better mutual understanding and the discovery of areas of shared interests. Each industry party would make its own decisions--but now based on a broader perspective.
Today's industry has no really productive way to support the dialogue process I'm suggesting. Perhaps ACORD, IIAA, another group, or a combination of several could create a venue for public industry dialogue on the productive use of technology in the independent agency distribution system. Papers could be presented and defended--perhaps at an annual meeting with interim discussion in a quarterly publication. A Web site could host discussion groups and white paper archives.
Some might claim that the venue for the exchange of ideas already exists--in meetings sponsored by ACORD, IVANS, IIAA, user groups and the like. That's true in bits and pieces, but the larger community isn't systematically included and the presentations are casual, scattered, and usually superficial. Agents, vendors, and carriers should all have a chance to participate equally in the process.
It's important to note that a formal marketplace of ideas isn't a substitute for advocacy. Agents will still need a voice and influence whose strength is consistent with their numbers, that the advocacy should be well informed about the interest and needs of carriers and vendors.
Summary
If we think the ACORD standards will solve all of our problems, we're wasting our money, time, and precious energy. Will we take the next step to improve the thought process in the industry through organized dialogue?
I've tried to point out that it's hard to find accurate information on products and services. I've suggested that industry politics and regimentation interfere with agents, carriers, and vendors finding out what's real and then making informed decisions. And I've recommended that some group in the industry sponsor an ongoing, rigorous, documented public dialogue. The dialogue can provide a venue for finding common ground in ways that dictated orthodoxies can't. *
The author
John Ashenhurst is editor of Sounding Line, a monthly newsletter covering insurance and the Internet. For more information see www.soundingline.com. His company, Sound Internet Strategy, provides consulting, Web site evaluation, and seminar services to independent agents and their trading partners. He can be reached at johnashenhurst@soundingline.com or (978) 318-1944.