Conference 35.181::insurance

There is a school of thought that believes Digital only needs the
    technology, and people will beat a path to our door. That's fine
    if you sell to IT people, but not much use in selling to business
    management; they like to see business solutions, which means working
    software from CMP's, CSH's, etc. 
    
    The insurance team here (NW U.K.) firmly believes that we need the
    applications, and we have spent a lot of time & effort in talking
    to software houses about VAX developments. I don't think District
    level is the best place to do this, but we've made some progress
    and got some prospects as a result.  
    
    Just thought I'd let you know: you are not alone!
    
    			....Gordon

    Bruce MacDonald, in the FISG organization is responsible for the
    Insurance Industry from an applications perspective.  He has people
    on his team who are looking at both Digital developed solutions
    (more likely platforms) and the third party solutions or applications
    which run on them.  Bruce works for Norm Goldberg who reports to
    Bill Steul, VP of CSG.  Both Bruce and Norm maintain a close working
    relationship with the FIMG insurance marketing folk.  In addition,
    Tony Dionisio of the Insurance "Industry Resource Center" part of
    the NEA SIC is also looking at solutions for this industry.  We
    know solutions are important -- the question the experts keep telling
    me is most relevant is which of the multiple old, batch-oriented
    solutions out there are appropriate -- either for the future of
    the industry or for our platform.  I would suggest you contact Bruce
    (he is located in the Williams Street facility in Marlboro which
    is location code PDM).
    
    Hope this helps you find out what you need to know.
    
    Regards,

    With all due respect, Lee, I am aware that there are SEVERAL groups
    within DEC chartered to develop a stronger competitive position
    in the insurance industry.  But, quite frankly, what I DON'T see
    is results.  Your response is esentially the same story I heard
    when I joined DEC 18 months ago.  If any progress has been made
    in that time, nobody is telling the field.  In fact, nobody is ASKING
    the field what we need.  All I hear about is EDGE and ADAM.  Sure
    these are good products, but it's a bigger world out there.
    
    So, while we continue plodding along, hungry vendors like SUN are
    growing stronger with APPLICATONS and SOLUTIONS that will eventually
    have them eating our lunch.

    In New York, your first line of defense should be Alan Withey, your
    Area Marketing Manager.  Since he does not have anyone on his staff
    covering Insurance, he is the de facto person to contact.
    
    However, since your original question dealt with who was responsible
    and not what they were doing, my original response stands.  The
    key person from your perspective in the applications space remains
    Bruce MacDonald of FISG.  If you feel he and his people are not
    listening, get your meassage directly to him.  I am aware of your
    frustration -- you are not alone.
    
    Finally, if you're looking for direct help on your account, contact 
    Mike Garner, manager of the Insurance Field Team.  He is of, by,
    and for the Field.
    
    Hope this helps,
   
    Lee

    Ok, since the ante has been raised, how about expanding this note
    to discuss exactly what IS being done and what SHOULD be done. 
    I open the bidding with McCracken.  Is anyone talking to them?
    What is the status?

    I am coming to this debate rather late-but I would like to echo
    Bob's remarks.  While you folks are debating which of the "old,
    batch oriented" software we should court, people are buying this
    "old, batch oriented" software to run on IBM.  Most of the customers
    I call on are, on a scale of 1-10 about at a 3.  They don't want
    a 10 solution, and probably couldn't assimilate it.  What is wrong
    with offering them  a 5?  Jefferson-Pilot and most other life companies
    are frantically looking for successors to LifeComm.  They would
    like an alternative to putting it on a mainframe for economic reasons.
    Even if the software isn't exactly what we think it should be, the
    customer will benefit from easier maintanance, less expense, and
    a better platform for future enhancements. 
    
    I am also concerned about the vendors we do have.  What is happening
    with Real Time?  I thought that software was good-yet I understand
    they are now considering porting it to an AS/400.
    

    As U.S. Programs person assigned to work with the Financial Services
    Industries, I am often as frustrated as you are.  But the battle
    you are trying to wage will not be fought and won in a NOTES
    conference.  Most of your Area Marketing staffs do not have
    an Insurance focused person on staff.  If you become vocal to your
    Area Finance Industry person or Area Marketing Manager, then they
    and I can help make your collective voices heard in the halls of
    FIMG and FISG.  There is power in numbers and in sales opportunities
    lost.  If the issue is that important to you and the frustration
    level in this NOTES file would indicate that it is, the elevate
    the issue within your own organizational structure so that your
    collective voices can be heard.
    

    
    I would like to add my perspective to the discussion of third parties
    as it has evolved in notes recently. I'll address a number of issues
    below, not necessarily in order of importance:
    
    1. The responsibility for addressing third party opportunities is
    spread across a number of groups whose roles depend on the which
    markets and customers the third party deals with, and on the strength
    of their business in general and their Digital leveraged business
    in particular. These groups are Industry and Product Marketing,
    Channels marketing and Sales. 
    
    2. Currently APEX is the only Insurance CMP. We spent a lot of effort
    on Real Time, but they did not formally qualify for the program,
    and were not approved. Basically they lacked any installed base
    in the U.S. The CMP approval group ( The Applications Review Board,
    ARB) would approve them if they get just two strategic installations
    on the VAX in the U.S. Real Time knows this. They do not appear
    to be aggressively pursuing this at this time.
    
    3. We know of no other third parties who are even CLOSE to qualifying
    for the S/CMP programs.
    
    4. Two candidates for conversion have been approved by the RIB board,
    and resources have been assigned to them. These are Arthur ANdersen
    for ADAM, and McDonnell Douglas, for a distributed health claims system.
    
    5. To date, this activity has been rather opportunistic. In the future,
    it must be based more on a strategy. The elements of that strategy
    are; focus on the largest companies; build a platform that fosters
    integration of the Insurance enterprise ( this is where EDGE comes
    in ); work with SWS, third parties and Customers to build on the
    platform. 
    
    6. We used an effort-year of work in dealing with Real Time and
    APEX in this group alone. These are larger companies with some chance
    for S/CMP relationships. Recruiting even smaller companies dealing
    in non-strategic markets and applications takes a lot of time. 
    When you look at the numbers, it's not crystal clear that we should
    be spending so much time on them. To date, these efforts have not
    yielded any new leveraged DEC revenue to my knowledge.
    So, there's the question of using our people most wisely.
    
    7. With regard to Mccracken, they should be on the list for recruitment
    and possible RIB attention. I would like to see that underway this
    quarter.
    
    These are just a few points, and I would invite comment from all.
    I could go on but this is getting long.
    
    Bruce