My take is:I know 2 programs now that look as good as MSB and both are easy to learn.  This does not seem to be the key to blowing all other programs out of the water. Its the contractors who spread the word  to the insurance carriers and the Utah sales teams that convince these same carriers that "their" data base is the King Orem version and is the  infallable word. Beside's it cannot be modified. Seems that the key to sales.

Tom,

They used to have a program like that.  They called it Boeckhs.  It was easier to use than Integraclaim, took far less time to write up a claim, and was relatively accurate.

Last year at an industry trade show I talked to a VP over at MSB and he told me they had 50 PEOPLE dedicated to their pricing database.  I just had to laugh. Every tiime I see a new estimating system try to enter the adjusting space the owners think the market is just going to drop what they have been using and trusting for the last decade.  DDS tried it.  Powerclaim tried it.  Symbility is currently trying it.  And now MSB wants to re-invent the wheel - I hope they can do it before they lose all their major carriers. 

I am not knocking these companies, you should be proud of the work you and your team put into them to get them to market but, come on, it's really a jungle out there and insurance carriers move very slowly.  I just returned from an insurance technology show where the next generation of Claims Management Systems were being presented.  Many carriers are still in the AS400 and COBOL language world.  Before any next generation of estimating software is adoped by insurance carriers on any widespread basis, the carriers will first have to adopt the new generation of CMS so their computers can "talk" to the new generation of estimating software.  And, in my opinion, it will be years before this shift happens.

It is sad to see the industry blindly accepting Utah's pricing just because so many contractors use it.  However, I do see a need to somehow try to standardize restoration pricing for the common items (roofing, drywall, paint, etc.) or at least an acceptable range of 5-10% in any given area.  I just ran a report from our data warehouse that contains almost a million estimates and our users stay with our database pricing approximately 91% of the time.  6% of the prices have been raised and the remaining 3% were lowered by our users.  I think that is a great reflection on the Craftsman database, its 3-digit zip location factoring system and the work of our cost consultants (considerably less than 50 I assure you!).

Time will only tell if there is a better "mousetrap" out there for property estimating and I look forward to seeing MSB's new version.  However, from what I am seeing out there in the software trenches every day, if I were upper management at MSB, I would sell all my estimating clients to SIMSOL and stick to what MSB knows best - underwriting valuations (and they better bar the door there because Xact just released a product called "360Value" which is a valuation tool combining XactValue and ISO statistics.  Very impressive demo but they wouldn't release the PRICE).

As for our shop, we have some very cool applications and new features coming out at the end of '07 and first part of '08.  The business and competition is still fun and we will keep plodding along, keep an eye on "Utah" and play golf every chance we get.

Just my 2 cents....

I agree with all of you. MSB is sorely lacking in the California fires and not enough items in the database. I am with John on standardized pricing, particularily on everyday items, ie, drywall, paint, etc. I commend John and Simsol for their fantastic achievements. Simsol is a good program. As far as MSB creating a new wheel, they have a long way to go to achieve that and they must do it hurridely, as Utah is gaining momemtum everyday.

Tom that is my understanding from talking with a MSB rep in like 2006 yet timing can be hard for Sales to nail down. Do not ask me how I know. As to blowing way everyone I have to say John’s experience is in line with ours at HRI.

The adjusting industry does not get overly excited about a new mouse trap even if it is better. Boeckh got out in front because they started with a package a couple adjusters had developed initially on a Tandy computer and then ported it to DOS. Xactimate came on the market and then Simsol I think. Boeckh was a strong player with great databases I understand but they moved to Windows 3.0 (16-bit) and the version had issues and they never bother to move to Windows 95 (32-bit). To save some large accounts they licensed DDS as IntegriClaim and then when Boston Ventures rolled Marshall&Swift and Boeckh together they picked up DDS who owned the code to IntegriClaim. They called the new company Marshall Swift/Boeckh or MSB and flipped it to MDA out of Canada.

From my point of view Xactimate continued to gain ground over time and Boeckh lost ground. Simsol went on to become best know in the flood claims market. Xactimate is impressive in a marketing sense as to how after gaining the upper hand over Boeckh they have never had a player that offered serious competition. Xactimate continued to grow by finding new accounts and often at the expensive of the other earlier market players. Well there are Best (west coast) and Vedders (north east coast) that are old line companies. In fact Steve Vedders software was the bases of the Marshall and Swift package called AccuPro he related to me but I never saw AccuPro because it was not active when we got into developing estimating software in 1995/1996.

DDS (engine in IntegriClaim today), PowerClaim and Symbility (I can not remember the name of the founder of Symbility first estimating software package that he sold to Prism that was owned by Crawford) came out of the 1990’s and most on CADO know their history. I know there are other developers working to get to the market place with a better mouse trap. Who knows the future? Will ISO drop the Xactimate ball like in 100% of historical cases in our industry? No estimating software package has thrived in the market place when its founder was removed from the company. ISO will be the first owner to break this pattern if they can keep Xactimate a viable estimating solution for the next 20 years.

We all know estimating today has become dependent on supplied materials and labor cost databases and the engine that drives the software matters little if it works at some level. I do not expect this will change in the life time of any reading this. The sad part is the adjusting skill sets of yesterday year are being lost at a fast pace each year. All of the estimating software packages on the market to day are backed up with web solutions that can track and report pricing deviations from any ‘Norm’ given. Yet where the pricing info comes from Xactnet, ComCentral, Simsol’s ClaimWire, PowerClaim Net Services or the Symbility solution it still can not take people off of the street and make adjusters out of them.

What is the answer today? Technology can NEVER replace the human element but if the human element is not there then the carriers have little choice as to try to manage claims using technology. How many of the top tier of carriers trust the ability of their adjusters to price out the damage repair cost of a risk they have insured? Most carriers today only use adjusters to manage a claim file and leave the pricing up to the contractor it seems. We estimate there are at least 10,000 staff adjusters with NO access to property estimating software and are basically totally dependent on the local contractors for pricing information. It is a system that actually works for all parties from the best I can tell. This practice is not only used by the second and third tier carriers I personally know.  

For the most part Gale has the history of estimating systems correct.  And thank you for your kind comment about us being the best flood program.  We have always been the most popular among flood adjusters because that was my entry into the storm business many moons ago.  In my opinion we became and continue to be popular among adjusters who have a say in what estimating system to use is because of ease of use.  If it wasn’t easy back in 1984 adjusters simply would not have used it.  Actually the first 100 or so copies of our first version were given out to numerous flood and wind adjusters during Hurricane Hugo

People, who don't know us or have not used us in the past, sometimes take pot shots at us for basically using the same scoping method my brother and I came up with in 1984 and have not made it “flashier”.  Windows made it look more modern but it is still basically the same design.  Back in '84 we had only 46 materials and 414 operations in the basic residential database.  Now we have 10 times that number.  The reason we have not changed what we call the "Virtual Scope Sheet" is that it is the fastest way to scope a loss that I know of.  Over the years in other programs I have seen number and letter codes, bar coding, optical scanning of paper sheets, scoping from graphical images on the screen, drawing diagrams and dragging items into rooms - you name it.  Those of you who know me if there was a better, easier, faster way to scope a loss it would be in our application. 

It doesn't matter whether the damages were caused by wind, flood, fire, hail, VMM or whatever - estimating is still estimating.  It doesn't matter if the drywall was damaged by any one of these perils, it still has to be removed, replaced and painted.  There are peril-specific scopes, indeed, and they are also in the databases of the most popular systems.

Pricing databases, like software applications are never truly fully done.  New methods of restoration, new materials and new terminologies come along and eventually find their way into all the major systems.  Pricing is and will always be a bear.  We update our pricing every quarter using Craftsman's reference data and our own research.  It's not perfect (no database is) but it gets our adjusters close enough to get the loss "adjusted" and the claim settled.  If it didn't we would not have been around for going on 21 years now and I wouldn't feel comfortable appearing or speaking  at conferences, trade shows and property adjusting events.

On these boards I have heard adjusters speak highly of their systems of choice such as MSB's DDS and Powerclaim.  They talk highly of their tech support and customer service.  That's good for all of us who work in the claims business.  We get enough grief from the carriers, insureds, public adjusters and contractors every day and don't need more from our software suppliers.  I honestly feel sorry for adjusters having to use X.  I hear their complaints every week.

Will the lawsuit pending in LA change anything?  Probably not but it would be nice if some of those first tier carriers wise up and see the X/ISO mix is probably not very good for our industry on so many levels.  The carriers do have credible options in the software they give to their adjusters.  But, based on the recent article from LA, the big carriers seem to be traveling in packs for the moment.  Sure would be nice to “turn one out of the herd” and show them how easy estimating software can be.

That's my blog for the day.....back to work now.  Thanks for reading.

Tim,

Totally agree with you.  Even a lay person knows that any time you want something done construction wise around the house contractors will differ.  I don't care if it is a roof repair or a paint job.  Why is it then adjusters seem to be held to a higher standard?  It is not the adjusters job to write initial estimates and then try to bully contractors to work for that amount.  It is the adjuster's duty to write a good sheet, compare it to the contractor the insured wants to use and work out the details (with all parties being reasonable). The adjuster's initial estimate is for comparison purposes to show the company is paying the right amount for the work - not a penny more or a penny less.  If the adjuster's estimate is no where near the contractor's (and assuming the contractor is on the level), it is usually a  difference in scope, not price (if the adjuster is using one of the mainline estimating systems).

Having viewed my AE statement, I see now we are paying $1,600.00 for this piece of junk. I griped years ago about having to pay $800.00 per year. Am I getting screwed or is everyone having to pay this much. This is supposed to have a discount due to Cunningham Lindsey affiltiation. This is becoming the joke of the year. I am not aware of how much other programs are but I am seriously about to abondon MSB. After having lost a lot of money in the Katrina event because claim central would not work properly, you would think those in charge of MSB would be concerned about their product. Apparently not. This estimating arena is becoming a joke.

What does it cost for other estimating software?  Simsol runs between $65 and $100 a month depending upon several criteria.  Without a signed license agreement (1year minimum) the 3-month-at-a-time storm lease is $125 a month.  Many adjusters have a gun pointed at their heads and told what software to use and they get no discount even when they mention who they are using it for.  What a crock!  I feel for the adjusters that have to pay premium prices for software they don't like to use.

Simsol has several carriers that mandate the use of Simsol if adjusters want to work their claims.  When this occurs we offer the adjusters the same price as the carrier pays because in 100% of the cases the carrier has alot of adjusters and signs a multi-year agreement which means they pay alot less than a single adjuster would pay.  It upsets me that the two largest estimating software vendors do not do the same.

I don't understand why carriers don't see this and tell #1 and #2 to reduce the fees for the IA's and cat adjusters who work for them.  I don't understand why they would want to upset the very people they depend upon for the handling of their claims.  They may not even know this is going on.  I hope some of them visit Roy's great site and begin to see the writing on the wall.

John while I agree with your last sentence I do not think all carriers are as concerned about service and customer support as they are getting the management reports they want and when they want them. Yes the small to middle size carriers are often sensitive to providing their staff adjusters with an estimating software solution that is backed up by good training and customer support because in many cases the VP of claims has adjusted claims at some point on their way to the top. National carriers seem to be run more from top down and if they get the digested claims reports they want then the other factors can be sucked up by those down line.

I heard from a reliable source that the new Integra program will not be out until December of 2008. I hope it is a vast improvement over the existing mess they have created. The database is not what it should be and termonolgy continues to change. They seem to think we like change, but they are wrong. DDS was a good system and they have mutiltated it. They want more money for less product. I doubt that will change.

John the years may be just moving faster than we are.

The end of this year will be at least three years MSB has been working on this new software package. I was 45 when we got into this industry and tomorrow I will be 57 so I know time is moving faster than I am. The kids had not been born then and Clinton was in the White House.

Correction: 24.42 sq with 9 sq  2 story. Job is in Seattle WA

THX...John B

Ps. I pulled 17 xactware claims from 8 different claims from 6 different adjusters / carriers and they are all with 250.00 of mine

This is kinda on topic. Ah this history of adjusters and contractors agreeing on a set of unit prices that would be a real benifit to policyholders who could get their dwelling repaired for the estimate by the adjuster who moved on days, weeks or months ago. The estimates are not useless as they do outline the scope of damage, and this is a very big point to get to the bottom line figure.

This is a general statement, but I would say 90% of all contractors who do restoration work will agree with the adjusters estimate. In the auto crash estimating field 99% of the repair shops will agree with the insurance auto appraiser; however, supplements are very common, but do not require a reinspect as a help desk is available in the call center for these justified supplements.

The repair people require a profit to do very good work and are entitled to make more than the handy man. The dwelling repair business has to police themselves or this will spiral out of control like health care cost in a hospital. Both sides need each other to survive. "Can,t we all just get along"

We just got the 1st quarter data base from Integraclaim.  We have worked a number of claims and the problem is, it keeps saying, no zip code recognized for that area. Damn, Little Rock, AR and they cannot recoginize a zip code. Something bad wrong somewhere. I have no idea what database they are using for a specific area. I just hope they are right.

I called tech support about that twice when I started using that software a few months ago (I am fairly new to MSB) and they just said "don't worry about it - disregard the message". But if the pricing is off, it doesn't give you a warm and fuzzy feeling that the message doesn't mean anything just cuz someone on the phone told you so.

I have been on the phone with them frequently and some of the tech support people would also say their database doesn't have labor by various trades (extra time to "tie in" to existing) but then you get off the phone and find it hiding in another part of the database. So if their own people don't know that... can you trust them on the zip code thing... People get religious about their estimating software, and I know some adjusters throw rocks at Xactimate. But I know right now I have 3 price lists downloaded for my specific area, and if I go south a bit to Santa Barbara, CA it is just a matter of using that database when I set up the estimate, and it is done.

When I get an estimate from another contractor in my area, the first page of an Xactimate estimate has a code that tells you the state, what county or city, what year, and what quarter. On the other hand, with MSB, I will face East and have divine faith that it is recognizing the address I input, and the sausage coming out the other end better taste good to the people receiving it. Maybe they haven't eaten in a while and are hungry...

Larry, is that dealership one of those combo/franchise things?  Last we heard you were bouncing at the massage parlor.  Around here we have the combo TacoBell/KFC's...so are you at an Earl Shibe/Mindy's Massage type of place?  Would seem to be a natural, and something worth looking into.

Glad they are working with you - sounds promising.

My grief when I tried to use MSB was finding the repair item I was looking for.  Getting used to the concept "here is a door, do you want to replace it, paint it, detach it, or clean it"

With Xactimate,  the door items are strictly what a door subcontractor would do - remove, replace, etc. 

With Xactimate, the paint items are all together.  You go there to paint doors, walls, whatever.   It is grouped by trade, not by the object being worked on.

With Xactimate, the cleaning items are all together.  You can clean doors, floors, cabinets, etc.

I suppose it is just what you are used to.  If I had been using MSB for all these years, I could do it in my sleep.  After the 5th estimate with MSB, I found out how to get the repair items I needed, but still preferred the Xactimate database and how it is arranged.  One of the bummer's with Xactimate is the database is SO HUGE it is like a needle in a haystack, but the search feature works very, very well.  And within a category, like framing or whatever, you can hit F2 and search just within Framing, and find what you need very quickly.

MSB has that "advanced search" feature, but so far it has tended to make me wade through 10x more wrong items to find the one I want than Xactimate does.  But I've been using Xactimate for 15 years so I suppose you get comfortable with it's flaws as well.

That works most of the time for me - but occasionally Xactimate doesn't call it the same thing you do. You know it's there but cannot find it in the database.

When that happens to me, I click on the column for item description, so that it sorts the items by their description (not the cryptic code for the repair items).  It's amazing to see what happens when you do that, all of the "seal and paint" items are grouped together instead of scattered, etc. 

The more I stumbled around with MSB the more I missed the ability to "hone in" on what I was looking for.  Of course the reverse is true for someone migrating to Xactimate.  It's hard for an adult to learn a new language...

Bob,Thank You for your support. Allstate settled their differences with me by giving me everything I asked for. They liked the fact I run MSB through Xactware.

THX.

John Blakesmith

Seattle

After having lost thousands of dollars in the Katirina fiasco because of Integriclaim, I felt inclined to take legal action for their comcentral issues, but decided against it. A number of you wanted to take a class action against them because of this. Now, after working for hours on files and having problems again, they resolved the problem of file export/import, but, the files were lost, even after a backup was made, per their techs advice. Their answer, "I guess your just gonna have to do them over again". 10 hours of work down the tubes because of their inferior product.

These software companies that go up in price every year are failing us. I intend to take some type of action against MSB and possibly the entire spectrum of adjusting software for their inferior products that cost us thousands of dollars a year. They are not supplying us a program that works and with prices in the database that are not current. If any of you wish to join this, please advise.

Gayle, your rationale is correct, sometimes we lose at the courthouse, sometimes we win. So you think we should pay $1.600.00 per year for an estimating system that may cost us hours in time and money we could have earned because of their inferior product? I don't, and I am sure most don't. IC was a good system when presented as DDS years ago. Thats the product I would like to see come back. It was dependable, good data base, allowed us to change to the today prices, and reporting was flawless. So you think we should never challenge inferior products!

Gale, I agree with your analogy, completely. However,  I will not roll over and play dead like they would want me to. Monetary loss is monetary loss, anyway you look at it. I understand that estmating systems are complex and problems do arise, however, yoou do not sell that program do an audience if it does not work correctly. They are still having problems with comcentral, ever after four years of knowing there is a problem. I don't accent food being forced down my throat. I can assure you, there is a listening audience out there somewhere, and I will find it.

Thanks Roger, I had heard that, but was reluctant to believe it. I will address that issue also. If we are forced to use a certain product, by a vendor and the vendor is the culprit, then they should be dealt with also.

We have our own claim service in Arkansas, so we are MSB Integraclaim users. You are right that when we work for a vendor who requires IC, then they are the users. In any case, MSB owes, to whomever uses their program, as does Exactimate, a program consistant with prices and ease of use without failure. We pay a ridiculous price for these programs and have every right to expect them to work as the provider has promised and indicated in their literature.

Tom,

In my former position, I was working extensively with MS/B for years attempting to share data between IntegriClaim and a proprietary system.   While I had some say in the matter, the integration went slow because of my requirement of real-time testing.  I relished the opportunity to crash the system because I understand that once it is released to the masses, they will not follow precise directions.  That authority was removed before Katrina and a new crony was hired specifically for that purpose.  The rest is history.  

Since leaving that job I have been using/training on the other system. 

Roger, I understand part of your comment, but not all. Could you elaborate a bit more.

Not sure this is the right forum or thread ( not a blogger) but I just spent 4 weeks trying to fix the commercial valuator in Integra.  Seems the old Borland files will not allow overwrite (error 1714). I ran a Microsoft installer clean up/ select borlans installation and delete. Then run MSB installation SUPPORT and select BVS. For those handling alot of commercial claims this is an easy fix to a most frustrating upgrade to the 8.2

I used this download for the installer clean up utility. I cannot validate the website and I ran it at my own risk.

http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...-us;290301

James W. Simmons

Adjuster

Dallas, TX

James, you were not the only one with this problem. I did, however, take a different approach. I wanted MS/B to fix the problem, so I gave them control of my laptop and watched them do it. At least they had one good tech, a very nice lady, that knew the problem and how to fix it. Paying them as much as we have to, I want some return on my investment by making them fix their own problems.

Thanks Roger for the information.

Still waiting on that super dooper program from MS/B. With the money we are having to pay those people, they sure need too make improvements, big improvements. Anyone heard anything about the new and improved, as seen on TV, program?

Tom back in March at  PLRB in Boston Scott said it would be out in August to some and a mass roll out at the end of the year. He said it will be nice. Maybe you will be getting some reports from the field in a few weeks if the beta version schedule has not changed.

I think Eyeq is too little too late. Since DDS was purchased, this program has been on a steady trust worthiness decline ever since then. We can't get the database updates unless we call them, yet we are advised that they mail them out when they become available. Now they are going to charge us $25.00 to have it overnighted to us. If you can tell that I am quite upset with the MSB organization, you have assumed correctly. I am hoping that the company we work mostly with will change estimating platforms. We pay them a huge amount of money each and every year and now have to pay to get the data base cd's, are you kidding me, MS/B.

I know of another way to get their attention and of other software estimating companies, The congress of the United States. I am contacting one of my friends who is a Senator from Arknasas and suggest that a hearing  be held on these systems and their databases. Maybe MS/B will wake up then and quit putting the screws to the people who pay for their system.

I still like Integriclaim, however, as with some software vendors, their evolution has eroded. I wish they took the attitude of Power Claim and Simsol, it would certainly make life easier. This is an e-mail I sent to the CEO of MS/B. I hope to get a response from it.

<!--IncrdiXMLRemarkStart> FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 0.000000 ; In all fairness, I must post this from what appears to be a conscientous employee of MS/B. I applaude her for a response within minutes of my sending the e-mail. Thank you Ella.

Yep, and I have no intention of letting up.

I personally do not believe that MSB will be around in 5 years. It seems that 90% are using X-actimate

Mike B

I disagree with you Mike. They will be around for a long time. Hopefully their EyeQ program will give Exactimate some serious competition. From what I hear, it will.  Time will tell.

Posted By Mike B on 07 Aug 2009 09:47 PM

I personally do not believe that MSB will be around in 5 years. It seems that 90% are using X-actimate

 

Mike B

 

The first time I heard that it was only going to be Xactimate left standing was in 1996.  We will see when that prediction comes true. :)

Allstate is not small account nor do I expect MSB has ever showed a net profit on the estimating software side and may never do so. That is not their core business and never will be based on what I can learn about the direction of MDA. I expect the estimating software is a loss leader to gain/maintain the I2V accounts.

Posted By Ray Hall on 17 Jul 2010 01:46 PM

I dont think I have ever disagreed with you Rocke, but you hit it on the head, Iknow the market price makes it better for the buyer. I just think blind bids by contractors with line item estimates would result in 20 to 30% reduction in cost nationwide on insurance repair cost. I think the carriers can overlook this fact as the contractors are the ones who write the unit prices in x. This is called we need to keep a lid on these cost going in.

 

I have not been called to testify in a class action lawsuit by all the policyholders in one zip code (the whole USA) who complain about large premium increases ever year of 5, 10, 15% that is BECAUSE the cost of repairs is passed on to the consumer as the "estimate" is not determined by market, but  x in about 80-90% of all insurance estimates.  The fee bill adjusters go along and get along by keeping the status que and  their mouth shut. I really think all insurance carriers still try to make an underwriting profit of x % and underwriting profit goes up with the cost of insurance as we all know. I have never seen it come down because of competive bids to repair damage.

 

Why should the insurance carrierhave the only say what is owed, they have tried this for years on medical cost and what good has it done. If a policy holder selects a contractor and the three agree on the scope and cost, seems like the lawsuits will slow down. Whats unfair when three people agree like they can if they try .Then you could plug all this in x( or a less complicated-expensive program) and see if the adjuster and the contractor are between the ditchs beside the highway. I still think this is a honorable job it had made me a good living for almost 50 years.But standard prices for insurance policys is a bad practice, and standard prices for repairs is equally bad for the same reasons