I came across this article from Insurance and Technology that describes, "UIs need to be crafted not only to meet the task at hand but also the type of user." Really?

QUOTE: In developing the various UIs within its product set, StoneRiver has identified three different personas:

• the internal insurance professional or administrator;
• the external customer, including agents; and
• the systems administrator.

Aren't all of these just people and aren't they all using the same application?

QUOTE: For example, internal insurance professionals understand the concepts and terminology of insurance, Griffin explains. They are looking for speed and efficiency and can deal with more complexity.

So insurance "professionals" understand the insurance we buy better than we do or are superior in their processing capabilities?  Complexity = speed and efficiency?

Now, we didn't hire a Human Factor Specialist to design our UI, but I also don't think we need to complicate things with 3 (or more) different UIs.  Sure, different users have access to different screens and information in the application, but do they each need a custom design?   I'm not trying to pile on the company mentioned in this article and truth be told, I'm the litmus test for new features and layouts for SCOUT.  If I can't figure out how to use it we go back to the drawing board. 

Required training is minimal, barriers to entry low, adoption rates high.  We promise not to make our client's lives more complicatied.  Quite the opposite.

One of the biggest obstacles we have to overcome is proving Return on Investment for our products in the SIU.  The reason it's difficult to have exact numbers is because the exact financial impact of the SIU itself is sometimes in dispute.  I've read several studies and talked at length with clients about how SIUs prove value and ROI to the company as a whole and the consensus is there is there is no consensus!  Everyone knows there is some and often great benefits to a carrier having a department devoted to investigating and thus deterring fraud, but the specific financial impact is hard to discern.

Attached is a recent article by Robert Horst and Mark Rosenberg: The Business Justification for Special Investigation Units

"While these units may often be expensive, the proven effectiveness of SIUs in uncovering incidents of fraud and deterring future incidents of fraud ensures that they are one aspect of an insurance company's operations that is almost certain to pay for itself over time."

The Business Justification for Special Investigation Units.docx (16.14 kb)

Security is something we are very aware of, and it is only going to become a larger issue as technology is integrated with more and more of our daily routine.

CBS News is reporting that many modern copy machines now have internal hard drives that hold copies of all scanned documents.  Most users aren't aware of this taking place, and surprisingly enough, a lot of these copy machines don't even support the ability to erase these scanned files.  Worst of all, few people know that this is even taking place, so many companies are returning their leased copy machines with hard drives stored with scanned files of nearly every document that has passed through the device.  These used copy machines are essentially gold mines for data thieves and people looking to gain access to private information.

It is always important that you know who is handling your data, and what exactly is going on behind the scenes.

Take a look at the video report by CBS News from April 19, 2010:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6412572n

"You can walk through the door where you treat the customer like your guest, operating by the rule that the customer is always right. Or you can be cutthroat. The first door is the door of kindness. That's the one I decided to walk through."

Bob Moore was a middle-aged retiree when he launched his second career. He nurtured it into a $70 million business -- and then gave it away to his employees.

How I Did It: Bob Moore, Bob's Red Mill