And it occurs to me this same skill set would come in very handy for a particular segment of our industry, namely, those who must make critical decisions about purchasing software and systems for their companies.

Just think about it. These men and women are faced with choosing among multiple technology platforms, options, and products that often cost millions of dollars when all the training and extras are thrown in. Or maybe they would be better off staying with what theyre using and saving those millions. The CEO, the board of directors, and maybe even the stockholders are depending on the tech buyer to make the right decision. The wrong choice could have a disastrous effect on the enterprise, perhaps even on the companys bottom line.

Putting myself in the unenviable position of such a technology buyer, I began to think about what I might learn from gambling lore that could be of some practical value. One thing I have gleaned from observing veteran gamblers is they pick their spots. They dont necessarily play every hand at poker or bet on every race at the track. Instead, they have a strategy based on experience and knowledge of the game.

Similarly, a company that wants to improve its systems needs to have a strategy that avoids wasting time chasing down rabbit trails. If the company seeks to improve claims processing, it needs a plan to accomplish that without making major changes to its infrastructure or its corporate culture.

Another thing that differentiates professional gamblers from average folks is they know their strengths and weaknesseswhere they excel and where theyre likely to get into trouble. An insurance company also must know these things, but more important, it must factor them into any technology decisions.

If a company has plentiful information technology resources, building a new system or developing its own software may make sense. Or maybe it would be better to purchase someone elses basic platform and build on that. Either way, the decision hinges on the companys accurate assessment of its needs and how those needs stack up against its resources, both human and financial.

Many insurance companies have such resources, and a surprising number still are opting to build their own systems or, at least, build around a vendors product. Several vendors are trying to sell complete administrative solutions to carriers. Such products are a good fit for a start-up or for a company that is completely revamping its systems, but these catch-all products dont make sense where there are discrete needs and a plentiful IT workforce.

One other thing Ive heard more than once from the lips of the pros is: Dont gamble more than you can afford to lose. The idea seems simple enough, yet a company easily could extend itself too far to get promised benefits that, in the end, fail to deliver return on investment. If youre going to pay $5 million for technology, be sure you can survive the hit if the new system turns out to be a bust.

Some software vendors have told me the proportion of insurance software buyers who buy solutions vs. those who build their own hasnt substantially changed in recent years. I think part of that has to do with the frugal nature of carriers, wanting to get the most out of even 20-year-old investments in legacy systems. But Id also like to think it is because insurers are very good at assessing risk and benefits. After all, thats the business theyre in.

So, when it comes to laying your companys money down on new technology, pick your spots, know your strengths and weaknesses, and always refuse to risk more than you can afford to lose. With that mindset, youre much more likely to end up playing with the houses money.

Your bet, Mr. Bond.

is technology editor for National Underwriters property/casualty and life/health editions. He may be reached at [email protected].