| Author |
Message |
Eric Carlson
Registered User
Username: Ecarlson
Post Number: 10
Registered: 6-2000
| | Posted on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 2:47 pm: | |
RW, thanks for reviewing our product. I think this thread has gone far beyond issues that can be addressed by a software vendor so I'm signing off. We will continue to attempt to provide a good value to the industry so the adjusters can provide a good value to their clients. |
JOHN A TURK
Registered User
Username: Jatstorm
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 1:54 pm: | |
Why should we all be amazed anyhow?
Like Ghost says, overpayments and unallocated expense, yahoo.
Claims are the "red headed step child" they are a negative in any company operation and usually the first place the "axe" falls. Cut and cut some more do it more cost effectively. "Not a profit center".
On the other hand marketing and other support issues, more money, yeah no problem its a "profit center" Go figure..
We all have something to say and from reading all of the input there's a lot of savy folks in this peer group. Let us all stay tuned and up to date.
By the way Ghost, is that a tall box or a lowboy and is it waxed lined?
|
Clayton Carr
Member
Username: Clayton
Post Number: 62
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 9:37 am: | |
Well folks, there you have it - there is "coverage proof" software, at it will only get more refined (aka idiot proof) as time goes on.
I suggest our epitaph be inscribed sometime in 2003 - 2004 to read as follows;
"Served an industry where incurred excesses were tolerated
Fell victim to the scrouge of Unallocated Expense scrutiny
They were called a Stormtrooper, those that blazed the trail
Eternal thanks is offered by those that follow
For the immunity that has been established
Cause / coverage software is our successor"
Perhaps a new thread should be established, as the last few days of posts seem increasingly off the topic of the heading.
I, for one, am not ready to rest in peace.
John Postava has - like many before him - eluded in their own words to two of the major causes of the changing claims environment - value and cost.
The insurance industry chugs along 365 days a year primarily focused on day to day claims issues and their effect on profit. Cat events come and go with varying levels of severity every year, but they are not the key factor giving rise to the stereotypical example John illustrates.
To slow the erosion of available claims to be handled - day to day, or cat type events - by independent contractors, we must not only examine "value and cost", but stand up and start explaining to our industry what "value" really is and how it can be acheived for a reasonable cost. We must convince the carrier managers that there is a large segment of available claims that their proper resolution is dependent on the application of our professional value added services. We must convince carrier managers that our cost of providing professional value added service is fair and reasonable and that it provides a favorable return to their pursuit of profit.
Therefore, to the list of things I feel should be examined, in addition to the concept of value and the economics of the cost of that value, is what is the professional image that we are perceived as?
I suggest as a whole, as a wide encompassing group, as an overall one line assessment made by our peers - it is not good.
I suggest you can not "sell" value if the "entity" is perceived in less than a professional image.
There will be people who may respond to this post or sit back with the attitude - ".... I'm working, I'm doing okay, I'll take care of myself, etc ...." I once again suggest as I have said before - we are judged by the actions of others in our community.
How are we going to create a professional image as a community of independent contractor adjusters - not elevate it - create it?
Someone - presumably within our own community - the other day posted a horrific "bulletin" of their wishes and dreams for the types of catastrophic losses they wanted to fall over the continent. I suggest that does little for our image.
Aside from the regulatory situations that mask incurred claim cost excesses and allow unallocated claim costs to be perceived as the disease of the industry - how can we with some unified professional message illustrate the value of proper claims resolutions?
I suggest that if you obtain a measure of success at those two previously noted issues, that "cost" selling will then become a soft issue.
Ladies and gentlemen, next year is too late to think about this and attempt to correct our place in the industry.
The mason is out scouting for our stone. |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 294
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 2:08 am: | |
Thank you, John, for providing our epitaph. 'Gross Overpayments, Yes! Unallocated Expenses, No!'
If you will pardon me, I'll just be over here digging my hole and here is an old cardboard water heater box that'll fit my carcass. |
John A. Postava
Registered User
Username: Johnp
Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 1:56 am: | |
Mr. Flynt:
I sincerely hope that your comments for "DDS" (which doesn't exist anymore - it's now INTEGRA-CLAIM, a MSB product) to develop mold-related graphics where all tongue-in-cheek. You are too serious a professional to think adjusters can "adjust" from graphics. But, if you were serious, let's take it one step further. Why not let inside reps working for carriers handle mold claims? They can quiz the homeowner about what the mold looks like (Is it green? Is it BLACK?) and write the estimate accordingly.
The dumming down of the adjusting process is alive and well and habitating in company staffs (and some IA staffs) all across our industry. Is software to blame? Yes, definitely to some degree. The biggest factor, however (IMHO), has been the rise in fees for handling claims from some of the best known national IA firms. Why give a $2,000.00 water loss to a national IA firm who will charge $400.00 plus dollars when a telephone staff adjuster can settle the loss for a 2-hour fraction of a $35,000.00 salary. So what if the claim pays out at $2,500.00. There's a big difference between a $500.00 claim overpayment versus a $400.00 "unallocated" claim expense.
Many of the safeguards alluded to have been in SIMSOL's programs for years. I know your program of choice is using Xactware but hear me out. For example, if an adjuster is handling a flood claim in a basement and s/he selects an item not covered under the SFIP, the system lets them know that the item is not covered. No other software does that and we have been doing it since DOS-days. That's why our adjusters (in our cat division) do alot of flood claims (even the best adjuster screws up once in a while and it never hurts to have software back you up).
And maybe that is what we are both striving for - software that helps a newbie but also, and more importantly, PROTECTS a seasoned adjuster from making senior-moment flubs.
Just my thoughts at this late hour... |
mark salmon
Registered User
Username: Olderthendirt
Post Number: 192
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 10:34 pm: | |
Would you like paint with your order of drywall sir? |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 293
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 7:36 pm: | |
Nice try, Jimmie. I feel, (as in,'I feel your pain'), that your concept is still too complicated for a 10th grader. What would work is the press the screen symbols like they have at McDonalds. You know, pictures of a hamburger, fries, sodawater, this is what would make the fresh meat out there into truly seasoned adjusters.
Face it folks, this is the insurance bidnez, where common sense is not carved in stone. As the need for experienced problem solvers, (that's us in case you didn't know), dissolves in favor of the latest, greatest, whizbang computer toy, the only thing carved in stone will be our epitaphs.
And the prophecy of Guru Clayton echoes thru the ruins. |
rw morris
Registered User
Username: Rmorris
Post Number: 6
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 5:33 pm: | |
Eric:
I was not aware that you didn't have anything to do with Xactware.
But,
To be fair I just downloaded Powerclaim XML because a vendor mentioned it and there is a possibility that I would be using it.
1. I was able to download the program over the web in about 1 hr and 15 minutes with a 56k modem
2. I was able to register it in about 5 minutes.
3. I statrted playing with it and was able to punch out practice diagrams quickly and they looked great.
4. I just started playing with the estimating part of the program, it was easy to use.
5. Your interface is easy to understand, and the tutorial is straight forward and easy to follow.
6. Last but not least under 500 bucks per year, with no 250 set up and 100 bucks or whatever deal xactware cut with whatever vendor.
I did some practice estimates with a past version of Powerclaim, and it was easy to use also.
In closing, I have never had to turn a claim with Powerclaim, but I think your company has the right Idea. I see no real problems getting going with it.
If you have had a hand in designing Powerclaim, it is a step in the right direction.
|
Eric Carlson
Registered User
Username: Ecarlson
Post Number: 9
Registered: 6-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 2:36 pm: | |
There may be a misunderstanding here. I am a software developer but not associated with Xactware. I have posted here in the same vein as John Postava, that being that all software developers face similar challenges and I would like to be a part of the dialog to help overcome some of those challenges. I guess we should put disclaimers at the bottom of our posts if we are posting in another vendor's forum. Since I would rather discuss the more general issues surrounding this topic maybe Roy could put this in another thread.
I have seen someone from Xactware post occassionally so maybe someone from their organization can answer some of the specific questions in the last couple of posts.
In response to Russ' question about open source, I don't think any of the current adjusting packages fall under the category of open source except for the one fellow who has developed the Access based system whose name I cannot remember at the moment. We did open up our data format and removed the copyright from our reports so others could use them as standards if they wished. However, our code is all developed in-house or purchased as commercial components. I think the same holds true for Xactware and the others.
Eric Carlson
Lead Developer
Hawkins Research, Inc.
|
Russ Lott
Registered User
Username: Russ
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 12:18 pm: | |
Eric when was the last time you hired someone to mow your yard and you required them to only use a Snapper mower? Or you hired a plumber and they could not use Stanley tools, or hired a carpenter and they could not use a Plumb hammer? We are independent contractors. Does Xactware supply you with the compiler for your program? I did notice that you are using some open source in your programs, where is the source? Maybe we can all help you develop what we need not what you think we need. |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 343
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 12:00 pm: | |
Thanks for your comments Clayton. As you point out, it would not be all that difficult to write a software program which would go through the "decision tree" to encapsulate all the intricacies of coverages and sub-coverages as well as extensions and exclusions to determine if there is coverage. And if so, how much and/or are there sub-limits which are applicable. All of which could be neatly wrapped up within a progressive estmating software package.
(Hey, if any estimating software developers need help with this: CALL ME!!!!!)
But just to keep the attention of the youthful adjusters who seem to crave the fast paced video game sounds and sights, can you not just imagine DDS having a POP UP screen which appears when the 10th grader/adjuster wants to add TREE REMOVAL to an estimate. DDS could have the POP UP Screen showing a video graphic of Paul Bunyon chopping down a tree or a tree crashing down across a roof ridge while a distant voice hollers: T-I-M-B-E-R. You can bet your boots no 10th grader out there would ever miss catching whether there was tree removal to be included in the claim!
Just think of the possibilities for sound and graphics features that DDS could add for vehicular collisions with a risk as the peril or an airplane crash into a risk as the cause of loss. Would not that keep the attention of these otherwise flighty kids while making the ones who aren't adjusters salivate?
Why we might even solve the crisis in education in this country with the same broad stroke: Kids would be dropping out of school in droves to get in on the fun!
(Message edited by jimflynt on June 13, 2002) |
rw morris
Registered User
Username: Rmorris
Post Number: 5
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 11:46 am: | |
In response to Eric's post:
1. A resistance to the rapid rate of change caused by technology vendors trying to deliver “the latest and greatest.”
2. A backlash at attempts to automate a process that is seen by seasoned adjusters as being more dependent on personal skills and professional knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge than it is on the technology or tools used to accomplish that process.
It isn't technology's fault that your program is hard to learn, difficult to run. I have used both the Dos 4. something and 2001 versions.
It was easy to run the DOS version, but that was 8+ years ago, and we can forget about it being ever used again unless we can get away with it.
As for 2001 it was a pain in the rear. I think software should be easy to run. I believe that an adjuster with minimal building experience should be able to open the disc, put it in, enter data, print or transfer the claim over the web.
Why doesn't Xactware set up some consistency in their products?
Answer: "Because we are the big game in town and we have locked up the big insurance companies, and if you don't like it work somewhere else".
Here's our "Technology"
Does your boss or vendor tell you if you can run a certain program you can go home?
Are you forced to bear the cost's of doing your job? Software, Lodging, Food, Air Fare, Car Rentals ect.
Do you lose any part of your salary because your computer crashes, guys like us call up your comapny and lie about you?
I have a freind who is a staff adjuster for one of the big 3, He was a cat adjsuter, he loves the fact there are problems with Xactware, he gets to sit around while the problems get sorted out. It doesn't work that way for us.
We are mostly islands to ourselves, and it would be nice if the biggest and probably the most succesful software company as yours could at least try to make a user friendly product.
We are tough. We go out run like maniacs, stop all kinds of suprises in critical situations. We then have to contend with puting this information in a form that the vendor and the carrier will accept.
Your products do this, only after trial by fire, phone calls or another adjuster lucky enough to know the answer we need.
At least admit to the fact that XACTWARE is trying to get up to speed with the web, paperless file transfer situation.
What is going to happen when the XML standard comes into play?. Will we be forced to learn "New Technology"
Other than that, Be careful out there 
|
Clayton Carr
Member
Username: Clayton
Post Number: 60
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 10:45 am: | |
My God Jim, your last post made me laugh. I swear that about 22 years ago I sat with some adjusters and helped develop a cause / coverage sheet for residential property. A template form with some checkoffs and multiple choice selections. It was clearly intended for the rise in telephone claims usage by "Juniors". As they talked to someone - if they followed the form - they couldn't help but gather the "required info" and steer themselves to a proper conclusion on coverage. It was a requisite piece of paper in the file, much the same as bodily injury worksheets were / are to gather data and consider reserves. I had to have such a sheet implemented, volume versus level of staff dictated that a "tool" was needed both for the competancy of the claim resolution and the emerging confidence of the handler. If any "box" / question could not be clearly answered, the handler was not allowed to complete the file and usually meant there was a cause / coverage issue that remained unclear that needed a staff or IA task assignment to clarify.
I don't doubt there is a carrier still using some form of this today, and don't doubt that the software application of this "control mechanism" is not far off. |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 342
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 10:17 am: | |
Ghostbuster you Old Fogey.
Why I am grand mind to send you a tin can and some waxed string by Fed Ex but that would mean kow-towing to progress. And besides, the Pony Express doesn't stop by here any more.
It seems to me that Xactimate, DDS and some of the other software vendors/developers should consider the following suggestions for improving their programs so as to make it possible for insurance carriers to hire 10th graders to start adjusting claims:
Suggestions For A 10th Grader/Adjuster Version of Estimating Software:
Xactimate or DDS Software should have a check off box which lists highly specific perils, which then triggers a question or group of questions which POP UP or DROP DOWN to determine coverage automatically without any claims training or education.
Example: 10th grader/adjuster TYPES in WATER LOSS or selects Water Loss from List Of All Known Perils:
Xactimate would then automatically have a pop up screen which asks for further Loss Cause INPUT:
Pipe Rupture
Wind Driven Rain
Flood
Collapse
Interior Damage with Opening
Supposing the 10th grader types Interior Damage with Opening, Xactimate then has another drop down screen which demands that the 10th grader/adjuster UPLOAD photo of opening in wall or roof.
(At this point, Xactimate will not allow 10th grade adjuster to write, print or send estimate without photo of roof or wall opening photo*)
(* Xactimate expressly prints a Disclaimer on Estimate Report that it takes nor bears any responsibility for 10th grader/adjuster uploading a falsified photo of roof or wall opening and that it does not have the digital means to guarantee accuracy and authenticity of such photos)
Should the 10th grader/adjuster type in Pipe Rupture as a further example, Xactimate would then be programmed to ask the inherent questions relating to policy considerations:
Was house vacant at time of rupture?
(Yes or No)
(If Yes, please Upload photo of interior to prove your answer)
Was house heated at time of rupture?
(Yes or No)
(If Yes, please Upload a copy of most recent utility heat bill)
Just think of the many other wonderful Drop Down Screens which could be added in anticipation of automatically determining policy provision compliance relating to specific perils which would insure that Policy Knowledge and Application are no longer an impediment to acting as an adjuster. Adjuster would need know no more than how to open and color a coloring book in order to be an adjuster. (Think: Service to mankind from such an innovative tool of capitalism)
DDS would need to develop new room graphics which would include such items as:
Mold damaged Bedroom
Mold damaged Kitchen
Mold damaged Dining Room
Mold damaged Bathroom
which the 10th grader/adjuster could choose as visualisation for what mold and a mold damaged room looks like; and from which to choose the estimate items which are only one mouse click away from Replace or Repair.
(DDS might even consider an additional grouping of rooms for the novice 10th grader/adjuster to select from, such as:
Mold Damaged Bedroom - 30 Day Florida Variety
Mold Damaged Kitchen - 30 Day Florida Variety
Mold Damaged Bath - 30 Day Florida Variety
Of course, these rooms would show up on the computer screen as completely black. (Just think of how this could be designed and set up to protect the adjuster from the health effects from toxic mold)
Finally, DDS or Xactimate could add Adjuster game features such as Solitary, Tic-Tac-Toe and Monopoly for the 10th grader/adjusters to play while they are waiting on their Holdback checks to arrive in the mail.
Just think of how close we came to not figuring out what to do with all those thousands of high school drop-outs who could not find gainful employment until now!
|
Eric Carlson
Registered User
Username: Ecarlson
Post Number: 8
Registered: 6-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 10:13 am: | |
This post started with a specific complaint about a particular software package but seems to have brought some general concerns to the forefront. I can see two major topics:
1. A resistance to the rapid rate of change caused by technology vendors trying to deliver “the latest and greatest.”
2. A backlash at attempts to automate a process that is seen by seasoned adjusters as being more dependent on personal skills and professional knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge than it is on the technology or tools used to accomplish that process.
For my take on the first topic you can refer to my previous post. Technology is growing so rapidly that it is difficult for anyone to keep up. Although technology is not about to stop advancing any time soon, I do believe that some aspects of technology will mature to the point that this rapid change will become less of a problem.
As for the second topic, I tend to agree with those who have posted on this topic. As we help prospects and new customers evaluate and learn our software, it is easy to tell if the person on the other end of the line is “an adjuster” or just someone trying to learn a piece of software. I wouldn’t demean anyone trying to learn a new profession but trying to learn the profession by learning a piece of software is like picking up a hammer and saying you’re a carpenter. There is definitely an advantage in having year’s worth of knowledge encapsulated in a software program but unless you understand all the implications of that captured knowledge you’ll most likely hit a wall sooner or later. |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 292
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 8:35 am: | |
To further illustrate the generation and philosophic gap, this curmudgeon is putting his money where his mouth is.
I am scouring the flea ,markets, yard sales, and old pawn shops for a rotary telephone, preferably in avocado color. There ain't a gonna be no more 'press 1' and there sure ain't a gonna be no more 'press 2'! When I deign to make a business phone call I want to help keep an employee on the payroll and not a computerized answer box!
How's that for being an old fogey, radical revolutionary? |
Tom Strickland
Registered User
Username: Toms
Post Number: 39
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 7:14 am: | |
After considerable study, the bottom line is that if you have "not" been in the field, it is difficult to provide any type of "good" advise, service,or programs for the adjuster. I love it when a 3 year wonder (supervisor) lays out these grandiose plans about how to handle a claim, but forgot the key ingrediant of contact with all those people you have to deal with.
Xactimate has the game now until someone puts something out there that these carriers will allow us to use and get a better easier product. |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 340
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 11:35 pm: | |
Clayton, I enjoyed reading your post, and you are correct, we are seeing eye to eye on this topic.
I measured the top tier in size as the vernacular that most would speak and understand, and like you, I do find it regretable that the top tier is not measured in professionalism, service and quality. Were it the case of the public demanding such measurement, it is my opinion that none of the top tier in size would be in the top tier as measured by elements of service and quality.
There will be the ultimate day when the informed consumer will dictate professionalism, service and quality, and that day portends a brave new world of everything about this industry being turned upside down and inside out.
That world is approaching much faster than the industry so blindly ignores or fails to see, given the same computer technology of measurement, standardization of data, comparison of services/features, and the instantly available interchange of ideas through the World Wide Web.
The irony will be the disability or death of some providers by the self same instrument they saw as the sanctity of their survival.
I think you, like me have the capacity every bit as much as any of the kids to learn new estimating programs, but surely none of us should have to learn, purchase and use each and every one of the top few out there. To then have to relearn each and every updated version dictated either by the software developer or the underlying computer operating system every few months just adds insult to injury, as well as a wallop to the wallet.
Can you imagine the disaster and havoc that would be created if just once on a large catastrophe there was no power for a couple of months and no one could buy batteries? What in the world would most of these adjusters do without their laptops and estimating software?
You and I and Ghostbuster and Russ and a few other fellows would just keep chugging along with our time tested but true handwritten estimates while they sent the kids home for a long vacation as they wouldn't know where to start.
(Message edited by jimflynt on June 12, 2002) |
Clayton Carr
Member
Username: Clayton
Post Number: 59
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 11:10 pm: | |
Excuse me Jim for opening your post, however you have hit on an issue that I believe is at the root of the attempt to "standardizing software".
It is true the next new widget for carriers is the XML open standard. In one form or another it has been in place on the underwriting side for a few years and there is total committment to it for claims. My understanding of its' early expectations was that it would allow agents and vendors with their various systems to "interface" with the carrier system.
As the "white shirts" watched and discussed the evolution of this technology they came to realize that lateral but greater gains could be met in productivity and quality control (aka monitoring) if their vendors all used the same system.
You measure the "top tier" in terms of size, which may be right, but I tend to measure the top tier more by their professionalism and their committment to service and fairness with their day to day claims activities. However, I think it is important to re-emphasis the point you made that I strongly agree with being the experience and quality of staff adjusters found below the largest 3 or 4 carriers.
Companies with a large but light claims staff must create a uniformity in claims handling and establish a template that people with little construction AND claims experience can follow. Failure to create this framework would require interpretations and decisions to be made far too often, allowing the "error" rate to rise way past acceptable levels and fester disaster in a claims department that failed to have an appropriate mix of trained and experienced staff.
On the other hand, I agree that generally the 2nd tier carriers have a higher accumulative "average years experience" (AYE) in their claims staff. I don't know the "why" answer to that, but I have often thought it came down to human factors - compensation and being treated like a person and not a "number". It is much easier to create openess and a learning environment when the claims manager truly knows the people and vise versa. With a branch or regional claims staff of 20 to 40 that is a lot easier to accomplish than a floor of 70+ claims types.
I don't generally agree that the older .... adjuster are anymore reluctant to learn a new estimating software than they were to abandon the old dictaphones and adopt the handheld microrecorders. etc. The "older types" have seen and lived through a lot more change than the new people in claims with 5 to 7 years or less at it.
I am an exception to that thought. I am personally sick and tired of all the systems - not for what they can or can not do, but for the grief in getting up to speed in their utilization. Personally it will likely shy me away from this type of claims work, if it gets much worse.
True, as you say, there is software out there now that even I can learn to use, almost as quick as someone starting out in the claims world and 30 years younger - but it is only as good as the input. It is in this area that carriers and others have lost sight of what they are creating.
As Jim Lakes so concisely wraps up the function of the adjuster - cause, coverage, cost - explain and document those items and things should go well. Carriers are dwelling on the costs of claims, both the actual cost and the expense factor. It is a sad day in our industry when otherwise good people but with little experience or training - other than indepth IT utilization, are manning claims phones a/ o going to see a policyholder. I have argued this with Claims Managers who tell me "wind is wind, waterdamage is waterdamage" etc. It is all numbers and units of closings. There is little regard for exisiting previous damage etc etc. I'm told they will see some of it and get better at it in time.
Carrier claims staff, both telephone, examiner, and field types must get back to what claims are all about - dealing with people and then the 3C's. Claims issues have and are going to hell in a handbasket long before a slick template estimate is prepared - and this is not limited to carrier claims employees.
In a nutshell, all the computer estimating program should do is create a framework for the estimate and carry appropriate regional specific pricing. If an adjuster can not extract from the insured and the facts at the sight what the actual cause was and then measure that within the context of the available coverage - the loss is doomed. If the cause is not properly interpreted within the context of the coverage - the loss is doomed. If coverage is properly interpreted but the extent of damage is not accurately or properly captured in a proper scope - the loss is doomed.
So, it is easy to see I feel there is far too much reliance on an estimating system in the total claims picture. If half the time and cost were re-invested into people skills training and real claims training, I suggest there would be a positive measured benefit to carriers both in day to day claims and cat events.
Looking back at this, and your post, it seems we are ringing the same warning bell.
However, this "standardization" will mushroom this year and next, contributing largely to my previously stated belief that "cat adjusting, as we know it, will be dead in two years". Now just a year and a bit. |
Jim Flynt
Registered User
Username: Jimflynt
Post Number: 339
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 1:01 pm: | |
"The industry is very rapidly moving towards a completely digital claims handling process."
(Eric Carlson)
Eric, I agree with you and I understand well the point of view you reflect.
BUT:
Until they can come up with a digital adjuster, the adjuster will be the strongest or weakest link in the claims process, depending on your perspective.
Having just one human element in a digital process leaves the process open to human failure and inadequacy, and I believe is one of the driving forces behind standardizing software to make all ducks appear to look and quack alike. But as we all know, there are many ducks not suitable for the same ponds of water.
If we closely examine the forces, which drive estimating software technology and “improvement”, I think we can find that it is the larger if not largest carriers which have been behind the advances (?) in Xactimate. State Farm has no doubt more single-handedly been responsible for many of the changes and features which make Xactimate so unpalatable for Ghost, Russ, myself and others.
Once we move past the top tier of the three or four largest carriers out there, then the 'demand' that an adjuster use only Xactimate or MSB or any other program quickly evaporates.
Further, in honesty, the second and third tier carriers have a long way to go before they even have their own staff adjusters computerized with estimating software of any standard.
One would be almost amazed at how some of the better known large commercial carriers allow their staff adjusters to rely almost completely on contractor estimates, and in fact, do not want their adjusters writing large commercial loss estimates.
I do personally believe that the quality of the staff adjusters employed by the second and third tier carriers is superior to that found among the larger carrier staff pool; and I wonder sometimes if the carriers are not pushing for more exacting standards with their proprietary software and sole source vendors in an effort to compensate for the lack of quality among those adjusters.
I also find and believe that many of the older experienced and knowledgeable adjusters are more recalcitrant in adapting to and adopting the use of each and every new 'improved' software package that comes down the pike. The net effect is that the young whippersnappers, who know far less, are being sent in to handle claims well beyond their limits with disastrous effect. Witness it was a staff adjuster mishandling the Ballard claims which triggered the mold chaos and my friends working mold claims, tell me that it was the screw-ups by the novices, which in many cases continue to feed the mold frenzy.
I for one will continue to use Xactimate 5.8 as long as there is one carrier or vendor out there who understands that the bottom line is not how pretty the estimate layout is, but rather how accurate the scope, quantity and pricing of any loss is portrayed.
In my opinion, the software developers have provided products so easy to use without understanding, that any mere child or village idiot can now become an adjuster. And the reality is, that many of those now adjusting were previously village idiots and mere 21 year old children with such little life experience required for proper claims procedure understanding and application.
An estimating program and an adjuster's license do not an adjuster make. I can only hope the insurance industry learns that lesson before it is too late.
I don't have the answer other than a suspicion that much adjusting talent and experience will fall by the wayside during this crucial period while a handful of carriers mistakenly misplace their focus on software and standardization rather than ADJUSTING.
They can't say they weren't warned.
|
Jeff Goodman
Registered User
Username: Jgoodman
Post Number: 7
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 12:28 pm: | |
FWIW, at the Microsoft seminars I regularly attend, Windows ME is referred to at the "crappiest" product MS has ever produced. (Microsoft BOB gets mentioned too, if you ever heard of that). That could be part of Joe's problem.
It was very stable, until you installed anything. Then it wouldn't run.
At least Microsoft was upfront when they rolled ME out and said, "Don't bother with this operating system in a business environment". Problem is home computers are cheaper than business computers so all the small business (and do business get smaller than a single cat adjuster?) bought home systems with WinME installed.
Many problems followed.
The scenario Mr. Turk brings up with a standard reporting package that could be attached to an adjuster's software of choice is exactly where Microsoft is going with all this .NET stuff. Bottom line, .NET is all about XML, which is a standardized data format, which would allow disparate computer programs to share data. (I believe we have all read Gale's XML spiel, and in this he is right.) Basically to have the data be able to be manipulated by whatever software the adjuster uses.
This is the problem I have with what MS is doing with .NET:
WARNING **** MICROSOFT RANT TO FOLLOW ****
AT the MS seminar in May, MS told us techies that we would not see the .NET operating system (it is a server operating system, so us adjusters will probably never see it) for at least 18 months. As most know, the release date for MS software seems to be when they actually start fixing the bugs in it. I do not switch to an operating system until the first service pack (read MS bug fix) comes out. At that point a reasonable level of stability can be expected.
BUT, they are running commercial for .NET non-stop. The one that sticks in my mind is the couple buying the high dollar car. The couple tells the salesman that they want the car in red. The salesman punches a PDA and the car starts getting painted red. The man says, "No, wait, Black". The salesman punches the PDA, the car painting stops. The salesman says, "Black is my favorite color". The couple looks at the salesman's shoes, glance at each other and say "Red". The salesman punches the PDA, and car continues to be painted red. A voiceover comes on and says "One degree of separation, that's Microsoft .NET"
At the very least this raises the level of expectation for what computer software should do. And compare how this MS .NET vision squares with the reality we see in this thread where the current MS stuff is unwieldy to setup and unstable to operate on.
Not to mention, .NET won't be here till probably late 2003. Applications will take a year or two to follow. And for a scenario like MS uses for the commercial, WI-FI needs to get more reliable, more available and faster. So if a commercial-like scenario is implemented it will be at least 2006. And Billy Boy Gates didn't make all that money doing things for free. This stuff will be expensive.
Which makes it that much harder when the body shop owner, who is complaining about the $95 he spent for a new network hub, asks about the solution he sees in the commercial. I want to tell him, "It will be available about ten years at a cost of $150,000, so for you effectively never."
You see the separation Microsoft cares about the most is the separation of you from your money. And that separation will be greater that one degree of separation.
**** END OF MICROSOFT RANT ****
I will say this about Microsoft. They are the only game in town for the little guys.
I liked "Monopoly" better when I could own the good stuff, like Boardwalk and Park Place, instead of "the monopoly" taking an ever-larger portion of my money.
As always, to quote my man Dennis, "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong".
Jeff Goodman
www.stormcentral.com
One Man's Software
|
Eric Carlson
Registered User
Username: Ecarlson
Post Number: 7
Registered: 6-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 9:37 am: | |
Ghost, I think you're missing one important point. The industry is very rapidly moving towards a completely digital claims handling process. Those who don't get with the program in the near future may indeed get "left behind." I was just in Florida this past week working with one of our larger clients who have been told by more than one carrier that if they can't email their claims they won't be getting any business. I've always admired the old DOS systems for their simplicity but not too many of them can produce a PDF file with digital photos, etc.
Yes the constant upgrading of software is a major pain in the keester (sp?). Being a geek I hear about it constantly from friends, family, etc. I always respond with something to the effect that technology is in it's adolescence right now. Think of your favorite moody teenager and that's what we've got in both hardware and software right now. Someday it will be like Star Trek and you'll never see a computer but they'll be there and you'll interact with them in a more natural way but for now we have to hack through the rough trails so those who come behind will have it a little easier. Anyone want to trade in their motor home for a nice horse-drawn Conestoga? |
D Wong Whey
Registered User
Username: Dwongwhey
Post Number: 146
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 8:26 am: | |
Just because the grass is greener on the other side of the fence doesn't mean it doesn't need mowing. |
JOHN A TURK
Registered User
Username: Jatstorm
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 8:14 am: | |
Okay Ghost, what about this?
We all have a point of view and agree to agree and realize too that we are "independent". Hmmm,
maybe thats where the rub comes in? As Ghost is comfortable with his choice of programs so I am and everyone else; this should equal productivity and a finished product for the customer. This should mean something to the people we work with instead of stumbling through another learning curve which detracts from the inital goal of handling claims in an efficient manner.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the software programs we all know about have the ability to copy and price a data base for the customer we work for. So whats the problem here? Of course a vendor wants the ability of uniform work product so when processing/QC of the file it makes it easier to follow? Seems to me a room is a room is a room if it is measured correctly. Looks like this could be a more of a problem for how a report actually is laid out. Now if thats really the case when information is imported to these reports why can't there be a reporting format for that vendor that attaches to the adjusters program of choice?? It is in a windows environment so whats the problem with the import? Seems to me everybody comes out on the deal with the vendors consideration to this operation. (New can of worms here)Program compatability, re write computer code all if which I know nothing about except I have bought into how much better the computer and program is over the pencil and yellow legal pad
Of course this view comes from one side of the fence and to the benefit of Ghost,myself and others who are faced with the "Software Challenge". That other pasture always looks greener but most of the time it all chews the same and the trip over the fence sometimes ain't too comfortable but the cow still produces. (Ghost, I didn't mean to allude to your agreement with my comments) |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 291
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 8:17 pm: | |
Joe, I'm proud of you for nailing them down. You've earned an 'Atta-Boy'! Yeah, I've dealt with Mike before. He's a good man. Probaly deserves a big pay raise, too.
Now...to further beat the dead horse...in todays business section is the daily cartoon called 'Dilbert'. For those that don't know, Dilbert is an engineer toiling in his cubicle and dealing with the ongoing mysteries of corporate daily life. Today's strip coincides with our current discussion.
(Our hero, Dilbert, is being courted by the software salesman.) Salesman says, "Our new version is a step backward in quality and reliabilty. We're counting on your irrational need to have the latest version of every software product." Dilbert responds, "I hate your guts...But I'll take one for home and one for the office."
Does this not cut to the quick of the matter from both sides of the issue? They, (the software companies) can't resist selling their 'Value', spelled C-R-A-P, based products and we (the customer) can't resist buying it all because we think we might get left behind. (Behind what???)This is the kind of psychiatric revelation that many people in long term therapy spend thousands of dollars and years of time to discover. (You just got it for free!)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it works, don't replace it. Often, the best way to deal with a 'percieved' problem is to sit in a comfortable chair, imbibe strong drink, and wait till the panic passes. Or, the same effect can be achieved with a glass of cold buttermilk and a twenty minute nap.
Whether we're talking women, cars, our hot lil' bodies, or computer software, just because it ain't new doesn't mean it's no good. |
John A. Postava
Registered User
Username: Johnp
Post Number: 31
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 8:45 am: | |
You might think a thread like "Xactamate is Garbage" would be music to SIMSOL's ears but it's not totally true (well, maybe a little bit!). The problems expressed in this discussion could happen to any of the adjusting software vendors given the state of MS operations systems (How many are there now?). All software has bugs. Good software only has a few. It's not the bugs in good software that are the problem. It is how the vendor handles them once they rear their ugly heads. In time I am sure Xactware will fix what is broken and all will be forgotten so long as they respond with responsibility and with a sense of urgency.
Many cat and IA's are forced to use Xactware due to their carrier affiliations. Most of those adjusters would rather use their program of choice (which is usually not any windows version of Xact). Many of the best large loss adjusters I know (even some that post on CADO) make if very clear to their managers that although they will use whatever program they are told to use (we all have to eat), they prefer another "brand" and show them why. Companies don't change softwares as fast as they used to (the costs of retraining an adjusting force is in many cases too prohibitive)but if they get enough grumbling from the guys and gals that are on the front lines they may consider moving vendors to your program of choice. |
joseph m lombardo jr
Registered User
Username: Jlombardo
Post Number: 23
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 7:09 am: | |
John and Ghostbuster---#1-my laptop is a late model HP-pavilion N5270 wihich runs @770 plus I have upgraded RAM to 512 #2 operating system is ME with Office XP and Norton virus , etc. #3 IF YOU HAVE NORTON< TURN IT OFF WHEN LOADING OR DOWNLOADING.. #4-the folks at xactimate do respond to an irratated post on CADO.
Got a phone message from xactimate and called back--same routine--got hooked up with a newbie---got a little terse with him and spoke to a "manager"--explained that unless he was a senior tech, he could not help me..pushed him and finally got a senior tech-MIKE--terriffic guy and very knowledgable---we had to go into the REGISTRY--which is very dangerous, one mistake and you lose ALL on your computer...after several mods, the tuttorials were working. Apparently there is some problem with the auto start/read portion of the discs/program.
As far as the problems with sketch, there really was nothing he could do. I agree withDale and said basically the same thing to Mike--he said he would also pass that comment on to the engineers....and the beat goes on......well one nice thing about finding all the gliches now , is that if and when we get called out,at least we will have a system that works and we will know how to use it....
|
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 290
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 12:20 am: | |
AAAHH-HAHH! Our Mr Turk drills a Bulls-Eye! Ideedy-do the variants of Windows are another fine example of over complication, and for no good reason, either. Bigger, but not really all that better for us bunch of Joe Lunchboxes.
I still strongly suspect that the folks in Orem must have hired some defective ex-Microsoft software engineers to develop the windows based Xact 6.0 versions several years ago. It's been downhill ever since 1998 when I got my first Windows version.
Meanwhile...5.8 keeps, (Toot! Toot!), chugging along! |
Russ Lott
Registered User
Username: Russ
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 8:01 pm: | |
I agree with GhostBuster. One used to be able to print any document to a richtext format document and together with a cad document zip it up and email it anywhere in the world. The trouble with DDS and xactimate and the other all in one programs is that there compression is proprietary and no off the shelf programs can do anything with it. I am using MSB now and I find it wholly lacking in the estimating end, bulky awkard and an insult to my intelligence. Ever try to send just a status report with MSB without sending the whole damn thing unbelievable. I am a true blue xactimate 5.8 user and will try and keep using it till it dies. |
JOHN A TURK
Registered User
Username: Jatstorm
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 8:00 pm: | |
Yo Ghost,
Reading over comments on Xactimate no one seems to address operating system being used. Word has it there is some real garbage problems with the new windows xp conflicting with not only xactimate but other programs as well. I have xactimate, powerclaim inactive, dds inactive, timberline inactive, use simsol new product and works well. Of course nothing is perfect, but what about those operating systems and maintenance that has to be kept up keeping it all running smooth. Scan disk, defrag and internet crap out helps. Just a thought. |
Dale Strain
Registered User
Username: Catmandale
Post Number: 17
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 10, 2002 - 2:57 pm: | |
Ghostbuster,
I agree with you that the latest Xactimate DOS version (I'm running 5.9 and paying $50 a month extra to do so) is great. I use 3D Home Architect to do my CAD work (best $40 I ever spent! I tried no less than 10 CAD programs before finding it.)
The problem is that the people in charge want everything together in one place, and they are right to do so. Xactimate wants to provide a saleable product that meets their needs.
The problem with combining the two is execution. They COULD do the diagram separately from the estimate and simply append it as a printable file. But, being computer people, they seem to want to acheive the highest, best use of time and effort. If you are putting in sizes and dimensions, why duplicate your efforts?
The answer currently is the aforementioned execution. I have tried and tried again to teach myself to use the Sketch program, without obtaining an acceptable level of proficiency. I have toyed with attending one of their classes, but time is at a premium for me (and I generally disagree with the concept of needing to do so). The posts I have seen indicate I'm not the only one having problems using Sketch.
I keep going back to 3D Home. It works well. Like 5.8.
|
rw morris
Registered User
Username: Rmorris
Post Number: 4
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 8:23 pm: | |
Has anyone been trying to send claims through xactnet? I am curious to see if it works. I have a friend who is using DDS in a hotel with a lousy phone system, but because of the compression of files it isn't to bad.
Just curious to see if it is a good set up. I must admit I am dreading using 2002, if on top of it all you have file transfer problems.
What is going on with Xactware 2003, at least Microsoft tests their software before springing it on the public. We get to crash our systems (anyone remember Beokch windows) and spend time screwing around with the latest and greatest version of Xactware.
I think there are adjusters that are not speaking up and If we the ninjas of adjusting are having these problems, the staff guys have got to be hung up also.
i can't really throw rocks at 2002 as I haven't had to be forced to use it.
But if history repeats itself we are in for a big headache.
Other than that be careful out there |
joseph m lombardo jr
Registered User
Username: Jlombardo
Post Number: 21
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 3:44 pm: | |
Ghostbuster...Agreed...the only problem is the capability of electronically getting the results of the different programs to the insurance company in one file....I'm not a computer guy, but I suspect the above is a problem....What do you think??? |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 289
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, June 09, 2002 - 11:13 am: | |
This raises another point. There is a sick compulsion to make things an all in one contraption. Instead of making one thing and doing it really well, all kinds of bells and whistles are loaded on cheapening the basic product. An estimating program should stand alone in elegant simplicity, Xact 5.8 is a good example of this. A CAD program should stand alone. Mixing the two together and then adding other tidbits results in a multi headed Hydra that can't figure out which head is in charge.
Remember such resounding failures like the combo TV and VCR's? When the VCR crapped out the whole combo unit had to be taken in for repairs. Same for the Microwave/cookstoves and combination washer/dryers. It is just plain common sense to keep products simple and separate. That manufacturers persist in building products just because they can and not whether they should continues to amaze me to no end. |
Wray Decker
Registered User
Username: Wraydecker
Post Number: 6
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 08, 2002 - 10:08 pm: | |
As a former college Technology instructor I was involved with many CAD systems, which I was able to utilize,but I must admit Brand-X is a real test of my patience. |
joseph m lombardo jr
Registered User
Username: Jlombardo
Post Number: 20
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, June 08, 2002 - 7:44 pm: | |
GHOSTBUSTER---UNDERSTAND--I REALLY LIKE MOST OF XACTIMATE---2000 & 2001 WERE NOT THAT BAD...BUT THIS 2002 IS THE PITS---ALL THE COMPANIES WANT US TO USE SKETCH AND MAKE PRETTY DRAWINGS...I WOULD , IF I COULD FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THE NORTH ARROW AWAY FROM THE DRAWING!!!!!NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, IT IS IN THE WAY WHEN YOU GO TO PRINT...WHILE YOU ARE SKETCHING , IT IS IN THE FAR LOWER,RIGHT CORNER...BUT WHEN YOU VIEW IT OR PRINT THE SKETCH , IT IS IN THE WAY OF THE DRAWING........ALSO, WHEN YOU DIMENSION AND NAME ROOMS AND DO A FLOOR PLAN, THE NAMES AND MEASUREMENTS RUN ALL OVER EACH OTHER...EVEN IF YOU ADJUST THE FONT SIZES.......OH..THE LIST GOES ON ...AND ON.....TRY DRAWING A ROOF......HINT...HAVE PLENTY OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL ON HAND.......... |
Ghostbuster
Registered User
Username: Ghostbuster
Post Number: 288
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, June 08, 2002 - 5:01 pm: | |
And...to all those 19 souls that didn't like my post on the Glorious Orem, Utah Cultural Revolution, our pal Joe Lombardo illustrates why they should have stayed at 5.8 and left it there.
If they had, I'd be here flinging rose petals instead of horse apples! |
joseph m lombardo jr
Registered User
Username: Jlombardo
Post Number: 19
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, June 08, 2002 - 12:40 pm: | |
LET'S SEE--THE FIRST DISC ERASED ALL MY PHOTOS....POPS---THE TUTORIAL FOR SKETCH--- COULD BE ACCESSED , BUT XACTIMATE TUTTOTIAL COULD NOT.....
GOT THE SECOND DISC...NO INSTRUCTIONS....LOADED IT.... CANNOT ACCESS TUTTORIAL...CANNOT ACCESS POPS---TRIED TO GET HELP FROM " JOSE" AT XACTIMATE--BEEN THERE 5MONTHS...COULD NOT GET ANYTHING TO WORK...RELOADED AGAIN...STILL NO GOOD...SAID HE WOULD GET BACK TO ME....YEAH ...CHECK IS IN THE MAIL.........TRIED TO USE THERE E-CENTER TODAY AND TRY ON LINE CHAT-------WORKS AS WELL AS JOSE.......STILL WAITING |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page