1 / 16

W3C Workshop, Bedford, MA – February 2007

An Insurance Industry Perspective Making the Web of Services Real. W3C Workshop, Bedford, MA – February 2007. The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. Founded in 1810 One of the largest investment and insurance companies in the United States. Fortune 100 company 30,000 employees

aiden
Download Presentation

W3C Workshop, Bedford, MA – February 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. An Insurance Industry Perspective Making the Web of Services Real W3C Workshop, Bedford, MA – February 2007

  2. The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. • Founded in 1810 • One of the largest investment and insurance companies in the United States. • Fortune 100 company • 30,000 employees • Two Companies: • Hartford P&C – auto, home, business insurance • Hartford Life – investment plans, life insurance, group benefits

  3. Introduction to the three use cases • A non-technical problem: Achieving a shared-services IT model • Rules in a Web of Services • Dynamic UI’s

  4. Context The Web of Services needs to extend from a complex legacy base Complexity in the automation environment is a growing problem, requiring significant maintenance spend and hindering business agility and flexibility Business Functions Environment Complexity Tech Complexity 10+ Dev Languages • Value chain is comprised of 200+ unique business functions • Describing all discrete functions performed by applications in the portfolio • Business function redundancy across applications is common • Underwriting data capture is performed in many different applications Over 250 technologies and technical platforms • Hundreds of unique business applications in the eB&T portfolio • Complex automation environment requires significant spend for ongoing maintenance • Tightly coupled applications make it difficult to leverage and reuse existing business capabilities Multiple versions of vendor tools

  5. The Pushback Model 2 Scenarios that impede innovation: Biz/IT Wall Business Innovation Demand IT invokes Newton’s 3rd 1 Biz/IT Wall Supply Technology Innovation Business invokes Newton’s 3rd 2

  6. Services Information Management Future Platform Building the Technology Platform one rationalization step at a time … Foundational Architecture Application Rationalization Step The P&C Technology Platform: Common IT capabilities enabling business capabilities

  7. The Collaboration Model 3 Scenarios that foster innovation: Biz/IT Asset Business Innovation Demand 1 Biz/IT Asset Supply Technology Innovation 2 Biz/IT Asset Business Innovation Supply 3

  8. Use Case 1: Achieving a Shared Services IT Model • The Problem • SOA has been bottom-up • Technology availability and infrastructure implementation not the issue • Planning, governance and organizational issues • Why it matters • Business agility, TCO • The need is there, the technical solutions are there • How can we do this? • A decision support system for IT Planning and Strategy • Maybe the Semantic Web • Maybe an industry consortium

  9. SOA SEMCI UDDI Edit SOAP WSM SOAP WSM XML->AL3 SEMCI Orch ACORD XML WSM XML Security Appl SOAP Quoting Engine WSM WSM ACORD XML WSM AL3->XML WSM DMZ Echo SOAP

  10. Use Case 2: Rules in a web of services • The Problem • “Rules” have been applied by IT to solve many business problems • Some “rules” can provide business agility • “Rules” means many different types of solutions, esp. within an SOA, from business rules, to edit rules to metadata to governance • “Rules” can be and are implemented on many types of platforms without any specified criteria • Why it matters: TCO, Agility. • Possible Approaches: • A taxonomy of rules, and standardized (maybe automated) ways to deploy different types of rules on different platforms. • A platform-independent way of specifying rules • A distributed, secure architecture for rules

  11. Use Case 2: Rule types within The Hartford P&C Rule Definition: A “Rule” is a statement that defines or constrains some aspect • Event Rules: Rules that govern the User Interfaces and actions/events taken. • Syntax Rules: Rules that relate to presence/occurrence of data elements, their data type and structures. (Data Collection rules that may be executed with schema validation and/or XPATH ). • Conditional Rules: Rules that apply optionally or under the conditions/values of other data elements. (Data validation rules) • Relational Rules: Rules that occur across multiple conditions of a given process or transaction and may across multiple screens when exposed to a user interface. • Business Rules: Rules that the business is closest to and might have requirements for analytics (i.e. Risk Assessment/Scorecard, Underwriting, Product, Pricing, Claims Processing, and other rules in the enterprise decision management space)  • SOA Run-time Governance Rules: Rules that enforce SOA policies at run-time, such as SLAs, security, etc.

  12. SOA SEMCI UDDI Edit SOAP WSM SOAP WSM XML->AL3 SEMCI Orch ACORD XML WSM XML Security Appl SOAP Quoting Engine WSM WSM ACORD XML WSM AL3->XML WSM DMZ Echo SOAP

  13. Use Case 2: Rule Platforms within The Hartford

  14. Use Case 3: Dynamic UI’s • The Problem: Need to dynamically capture user information to provide insurance information or quotes. Rules based questions performed on the back end lower usability. No standards around rules based UI solutions. • Why it matters: Customer experience. Speed to market. • Possible Approach: • Standardize on frontend rules-based UI solutions • Tie existing standards together • W3C: XForms, XSLT, XPath, XML • JCP: JSR-168/286, JSR-94, JAXP • OASIS: WSRP

  15. Dynamic Data Capture Framework

  16. Q & A Thank You Balaji Prasad Director, Enterprise Architecture & Benjamin Moreland Director, Foundation Services Enterprise Architecture Group The Hartford Financial Services Group

More Related