SOA misunderstood or misused?

This Monday morning “think” from the National Underwriter was cut short when I was posting this morning – and I left for an appointment laughing at the thought of encountering a system error in the NU server as I was attempting to post the link and teaser text for a technology article!

Given the scheme, I found this confirmation that  IT systems are talking more and better than ever of considerable interest.

Service-oriented architecture is today perhaps the most widely used, yet widely misunderstood structure for insurance industry computer systems…The insurance industry has, over the past four years or so, bought heavily into this concept in terms of quicker software development and a host of efficiencies that promise lower costs…”While it’s not as sexy as some of the loftier SOA hype, Web services and SOA in insurance have contributed mainly as a form of better ‘plumbing,’” said Jeff Goldberg, senior analyst at Boston-based Celent. Continue reading “SOA misunderstood or misused?”

We say yes, they say no – Renfroe and Rigsby respond to “say what” order issued by Judge Acker

Next thing you know, there’ll be pom poms in the court and supporters cheering for team Renfroe or team Rigsby; but, for the moment they’re not, so let’s examine the answers counsel for Renfroe and Rigsby filed to Acker’s duh-say-what Order.

If it wouldn’t totally remove what little logic there is to this process of Acker’s, I’d start with the “Scruggs” question (#3)  and the responses – both written and implied – that follow.  Not to worry, however, these first two won’t take long.

Acker’s First Question:

Is the court to understand that plaintiff is waiving any claim it may have to damages in the form of its attorneys’ fees except for the previously paid $65,000?

Rigsbys’ Response:

The Defendants have been advised by counsel for Renfroe that it will respond to this question. Defendants dispute that Renfroe is entitled to any damages in the form of attorney’s fees based on their breach of contract claim.

Renfroe’s Response:

No, Renfroe does not waive its claim for damages in the form of its attorneys’ fees incurred in pursuing its claim for breach of contract (excluding the $65,000 already paid)…They were able to stipulate to the “consulting fees,” but not to the attorneys’ fees..[and]…agreed that Renfroe’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees could be decided by the Court, as fact finder, on motion…Renfroe will file by January 30, 2009…

Ready for the next? Continue reading “We say yes, they say no – Renfroe and Rigsby respond to “say what” order issued by Judge Acker”

A Quick Thought on Recent Cottage Developments

This post is quick and dirty and I’ll leave it to those so interested to google up the stories at the Sun Herald, the Seacoast Echo and WLOX.

First the residents didn’t want them but now cognitive dissonance over the initial decision to ban them has set in. The perceptions are pretty simple to understand, people that are sinking $50K into just their flood mitigated foundations aren’t too keen on having a $26,000 MEMA cottage as their next door neighbor. Dr Mac didn’t help things speaking out at the BSL City Council meeting; too many people remember how much money he got from the Farm.

Meantime and with the deadline to vacate the cottages looming, a few former cottage residents have replaced their cottages with true modular housing. Whatever fears the neighbors had about the cottages have been replaced with the stark terror of having an elevated glorified trailer for a neighbor. Throw in a healthy dose of freeloaders and out of town residents who used their cottages as weekend getaways and the toxic gumbo pot is complete. (I know I promised no links but this loser seems to think he is entitled to a free house without the bother of a mortgage.) Continue reading “A Quick Thought on Recent Cottage Developments”

The future of Insurance & Regulatory Reform

The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.

Absent the dog, this future is evident in the present insurance industry – and, in that regard, the various proposals to reform the nation’s financial regulatory system fall short.

Financial Regulation: A Framework for Crafting and Assessing Proposals to Modernize the Outdated U.S. Financial Regulatory System and the related Testimony of the Acting Comptroller General; Natural Hazard Mitigation and Insurance:  The United States and Selected Countries Have Similar Natural Hazard Mitigation Policies but Different Insurance Approaches; and Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure collectively offer around 400 well written pages of bureaucratese.

Over the past few days, I’ve read or read over all 400  along with related news articles, blog posts and the like.  Without belaboring the point, I’ll add that I read all with the eyes of someone both trained and experienced in the design/redesign of systems of service.

The “official” publications propose to “modernize the outdated U.S. Financial Regulatory System” with the usual problem-based approach to system development/reform of government that results in the more things change, the more they stay the same. In this case, however, the proposed changes are based on a misunderstanding of the problem.

Among those in government or entities of or linked to the financial system, there appears to be almost universal agreement the problem is the patchwork of state/ federal regulatory oversight over a collection of entities that make up a financial system but that there is no real system.

The graphic below is from the Framework report. Continue reading “The future of Insurance & Regulatory Reform”