| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 28.1 | Some Ideas | POBOX::MCDEVITT | Everybody out to the field! | Thu May 05 1988 19:28 | 47 |
| Linda:
This is an excellent question, and an intriguing problem. Let's
start by saying the the policies are different all the time in jumbo
accounts. Royal would be, in a sense, duplicating functions in the
CICS system, but making each funtion totally flexible.
I assume that they would want us to propose automating the entire
process, sales through issue; and I assume that the normal billing
and administration process would take over after issue.
So any proposal should include the following.
A Proposal Subsystem
Multi-line rating
Multi-line risk analysis (if not on mainframe)
"What-if" rating (to present multiple options)
Publishing capability with
Text
Graphics
Illustrations
Typesetting
An Underwriting Subsystem with on-line access to the proposal,
to the rating system, to policy form documents (probably
some form of image processing or a workstation with access
to multiple data media - CICS databases, vtex, spreadsheet,
etc.).
A subsystem for the Legal Department to write the contracts,
revise them, review other contracts, etc.
An Issue Subsystem which would probably handle all issue for
the account forever. This would likely require a forms
creation and storage system for standard pages, WP,
and many of the same things as the proposal subsystem
would need, especially typesetting.
I suspect that System for Sales and Marketing could handle some
of this, but certainly not all.
These are just my random thoughts which, I hope, can give you a
place to start.
Ed McDevitt
|
| 28.2 | (a Caddy | HOCUS::OHARA | Notorious Bagman | Fri May 06 1988 10:02 | 22 |
| Re. 1
Ed makes a lot of good points and that seems to be an excellent
start.
But don't assume the normal systems would take over after issue.
It appears Royal has not improved their Special Account processing
since I was there, so their administration systems may not be able
to hande endorsements and renewals too well either. Why not a complete
policy administration system to front-end Royal's Stat and Billing
Systems? Written in a 4GL like Oracle, they can have a completely
flexible system to handle all the creative nuances their underwriters
can dream up. And being isolated from their main-line CICS
environment, other than data comm, modifications and enhancements
needed to keep up with client needs won't effect normal production
systems. Food for thought....
Also, you should consider a direct link to ISO and ISOTEL for the
Proposal sub-system. This would give you current rate and coverage
data on-line.
Good luck with John K.
|
| 28.3 | Please, not Oracle! | MERIDN::RITCHIE | insurers are risk aversive | Fri May 06 1988 15:32 | 11 |
| RE: 28.2
Sounds like a good approach, but why not use our products rather
than Oracle. For a good discussion of how losing the database leads
to disaster, please reference the RDB_VMS_COMPETITION notesfile
at node BISTRO. Keyword=Oracle will give you a great reading list.
At The Hartford, an Oracle shop, we have been unable to size systems
effectively, offer consulting services, tuning services, etc. Yes,
we are deploying hardware, but don't give away the software side
without a fight.
|
| 28.4 | Take a tip from manufacturing systems | ODIHAM::MOSSMAN | A Master of the Universe | Wed May 11 1988 13:13 | 33 |
| If I may be allowed to add a little bit of cross-industry
experience here, this problem doesn't seem too much different
to that encountered in a manufacturing environment for the
purposes of Contracts and Estimating. We have solved this in
at least one major UK customer with a tailored ALL-IN-1
system.
How much actual compute and print support we put into the
system depends very much on (a) the existing systems and (b)
the amount required in the particular customer environment.
The real value we can add would seem to be around the area of
helping to pull together lots of ideas and information and
eventually ending up with a policy document.
ALL-IN-1 has already proved itself as the ideal medium for
the loose sort of transaction processing needed in this
context - there are also superb communications links to pull
stuff out of an IBM system. The tailoring of the individual
screens and features is something that can readily be done by
a competent District support person.
Why not go along the lines suggested by Ed in .2 but make it
quite clear that the amount of computing detail to be built
in (as supposed to paper-pushing capability) depends entirely
on the results of a more in-depth study.
The other thing to bear in mind is that most underwriting at
this level is all about discussion and sharing of ideas.
Isn't that just what we are doing right now ? Why not offer
NOTES to the Royal ? I am convinced this could be a powerful
tool for any underwriting group.
Regards, Mike.
|
| 28.5 | Correction to .4 | ODIHAM::MOSSMAN | A Master of the Universe | Wed May 11 1988 13:21 | 5 |
| Sorry. Before you all jump down my throats, I was of course referring
to Ed's .1 reply and not .2 as stted in my previous .4
Mike.
|
| 28.6 | More fuel for the fire | SIMVAX::BAKER | | Thu May 12 1988 17:11 | 25 |
| One of the key reasons why there is interest in Oracle, and similar
packages, in the insurance industry is because they are portable.
In other words, if the comany makes a mistake in their selection
of hardware they can shift to another vendor. This is a double edged
sword, but we should keep in mind that the industry does not like
making a commitment to anything unless they are very confident that
it will be a success. Hence, Oracle lets them hedge their bets.
Perhaps we should spend some time finding out more about Oracle
(I hear good things about it but have never used it), so that qwe
can size and estimate better in an Oracle environment. I think we
will encounter more of them as we get deeper into the insurance
indutry.
On a different note, there are some reasons to avoid All-in-1 if
you are looking at a full processing (rather than text processing)
system. Witness the lamentation on this notes file about the claim
system designed for Wesfield Insurance under All-in-1. While All-in-1
is an excellent vehicle in many settings, it does have a habit of
consuming a rather high proportion of a system.
Regards
John Baker
|
| 28.7 | PORTABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUM | MERIDN::RITCHIE | insurers are risk aversive | Thu May 12 1988 18:01 | 36 |
| RE: Oracle
Dear Associates:
I am attending Oracle training in Boston during the week of 6/13.
My intent is to learn as much as I can, both in a clssroom and account
setting, to be able to discuss the Oracle topic intelligently.
I will post things that I learn to the RDB_VMS_COMPETITION notesfile.
A critical missing link in my education is knowledge about Rdb and
RALLY, both of which have been improving very rapidly. Nevertheless,
I agree with John that the appeal of Oracle is it's portablility.
Regarding that topic, my account reports (privately) that the
portability issue isn't all that it's cracked up to be. For example,
Oracle performs so much worse that DB2 that there is no intention
to port mid-tier applications to the mainframe. Also, because of
different VAX and PC physical limitations, like screen lines,
applications must be groomed after porting. Oracle does not enforce
uniformity of application design across this boundary.
Tuning an application to the environment by separating I/O, making
additional modules resident, etc varies greatly by platform and
is not "portable". Also, performance of Oracle on the PC was so
bad that our account is deployinmg only on VAXen, even though they
had hoped to use PC's in their small offices.
In short, Oracle is providing mid-tier portability only. If we
can show Oracle marginal costs of software and performance degradation,
we will be able to show the "premium" that our customers are paying
for "portability insurance".
Joe
P.S I promise no more Oracle-bashing in this forum.
|
| 28.8 | The Missing Westfield Note . . . | POBOX::MCDEVITT | Everybody out to the field! | Fri May 13 1988 01:01 | 6 |
| Re: John Baker's reference to Westfield Insurance's ALL-IN-1 problems
No, John isn't making it up. There was such a note. It has, however,
been deleted. John's other observations about ALL-IN-1 should be
borne in mind and discussed, especially the issue of A1's hogginess
in an application environment.
|
| 28.9 | Stand up for what we believe in | ODIHAM::MOSSMAN | A Master of the Universe | Fri May 13 1988 05:44 | 15 |
| re .6 and .8
Come on, chaps, what's all this gloom and doom about ALL-IN-1 being
a resource-gobbler ? When was the last time this worried that other
well-known manufacturer of Intensely Blue Machines ? Their customers
just shrug their shoulders and go out and buy some more power.
Maybe we are getting off the original subject but this is important.
If we really believe ALL-IN-1 (or any other product) is the
best solution, let's go out and sell the benefits. It's time we stopped
being apologetic and hyper-sensitive over techy issues. We're in
the Corporate Systems mainframe market place now and we need to
be more aggressive in our approach.
(Flame off). Mike.
|
| 28.10 | It's the SOLUTION that counts | HOCUS::OHARA | Notorious Bagman | Fri May 13 1988 09:14 | 7 |
| I agree with Mike (.9).
Let's get out there, find out what the Industry WANTS and NEEDS,
and build (or acquire) the BEST solutions. Forget about hardware
consumption. Hardware technology is advancing faster than software,
and is fast becomming the cheaper part of the equation. Let's not
suffer from the NIH syndrome.
|
| 28.11 | Thanks all, but I just Sell | AUNTB::KNIGHTLI | | Mon May 16 1988 11:29 | 21 |
| Thanks for all the technical recommendations on designing a system
for Royal's Special Risks Division. My original search was for
an unsolicited proposal or RFP on such a problem. The range of
solutions is almost endless, and whether we recommended All-in-1,
Oracle, Rdb, etc. is not relevant at this point. I am looking for
a jump off point, a framework to work from. Being merely a salesperson
who happens to know insurance but not technically inclined, I am
continually frustrated within Digital in my search for solutions,
as the recommendations seem to be based on technical elegance rather
than what a customer will be happpy with. This is not directed
at the respondees of my original question by the way. I appreciate
all ideas. I would however like whatever written ideas or proposals
out there that would be of help, rather than reinvent the wheel
each time as I seem to be doing.
How about some white papers for univeral use in the field on different
subjects-written to describe conceptually why Digital has a better
solution in a particular area. We did one on office automation
for Royal, and although they have not purchased anything, it was
well received. .
|
| 28.12 | Power to ALL-IN-1 and Rdb is power to Digital | CHEFS::COLLINSP | | Fri May 20 1988 04:40 | 27 |
| I agree that we all ought to look to build some statements as to
why Digital is superior as a "total solution".
I would like to make a couple of quick points on the earlier discussion
though:
1. Oracle and INGRES are reasonable products BUT Rdb is also good
and getting better fast. It is also integral to our future. The
portability argument doesn't hold: users can take Rdb and then use
4GL products like FOCUS (or PRO IV) which are totally portable yet
with the advantages of running on the "native" database of both
Digital and IBM.
2. We have, historically, not understood ALL-IN-1 as a product.
If used in the way Mike suggested it is extremely powerful. Furthermore
the "performance issues" can be addressed amply by sensible configuring
and by running on-line business applications on a separate node
yet still logically embedded within ALL-IN-1.
I strongly believe that ALL-IN-1 as a tailorable environment not
a product is the key to providing Applications Integration which
is the key to major Insurance business.
Phil Collins
UK Insurance Marketing
|
| 28.13 | What was the question? | POBOX::MCDEVITT | Everybody out to the field! | Wed Jun 01 1988 18:49 | 28 |
| We have learned a valuable and amusing Digital fact in this note:
if you want to find someone with expertise in a Digital product,
say something (even mildly) critical of it . . .
The points made about A1's power are well taken; but some of the
heavy transaction-processing systems developed on this platform
were developed in a recent past when we hadn't much to offer in
hardware transaction-processing capability; and let's not act
as if that power is there yet! So A1's power in this environment
might well have been overwhelming, and there are good reasons for
approaching the use of ALL-IN-1 in such an environment very carefully.
Let's not let our enthusiasms overcome us. The reality is that we
have not been in a position to handle (for example) an application
such as a claims payment system to process thousands of claims (each
with multiple transactions) per day, even with a wonderful product
like ALL-IN-1.
The other problem - more difficult in the short run - is that our
insurance sales and support people are, for the most part, new to
either Digital or insurance. So their sophistication with
respect to the matching of customer needs and Digital capabilities
is growing, but is not as perfect as that of some other folks. That,
by the way, is at least one reason for this notes file.
So much for this (maybe). Perhaps we need to start a note in this
conference just for ALL-IN-1.
Ed
|