| Author |
 Topic  |
|
johnpostava
USA
35 Posts |
 Posted - 08/12/2003 : 08:25:31
|
I've been reading the MSB thread regarding anticipated and delayed improvements to their adjusting software and thought I would break away with some comments that apply to all software vendors (not just MSB).
I belive all of the adjusting software vendors want to make their systems work for as many adjusters as possible - both staff and IA's. We all want to load our packages with all of the most popular features that adjusters want (even if the initial idea came from one of our competitors).
However, the most steady and reliable income for any vendor comes from the carrier level clients - the Gorillas. IA.'s and their firms (if they have one) are usually small and they come and go depending on what clients they have and what software they want their IA's to use.
All software vendors have "500 pound gorilla" clients who can ditate want features they want their respective software vendor to work on and when those features should be ready. Carriers spend a lot of time, money and effort getting their national staffs up and running on an estimating platform and don't change very often (unless the software vendor really drops the ball). The comments and suggestions we get from IA's are very important to us and all the suggestions are given a lot of thought and the good ones do "go on the list". However, when that features and suggestions list gets prioritized it is the wants of the Gorillas that come first. They put the most bread on the tables of the software vendors.
Eventually, all the suggestions make it into the applications but it is a slow process. And the more Gorillas a software vendor has in their jungle, the slower the changes and improvements come. Just my opinion as a former adjuster and current software gorilla wrangler.... |
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 15:39:42
|
| John thanks for your post. You nicely put in words what I have been wanting to say for some time. Without question the IA's give the critical input needed to make software more functional. Our carrier accounts year after year permit us to keep our doors open. Both groups are critical to our success as adjusting software vendors. Since we need both we just have to try very hard to balance the needs of both groups. The nice part is if done well all parties benefit, staff adjusters get better software because of IA input and IA's get software because we vendors get to keep our doors open. At least that is my take on things. |
 |
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 19:29:28
|
What if the IA gets fed up with sitting on the back seat. After all, it is the IA's that work for the gorillas. If there are not enough bananas to go round, then the vendors will have to go on a diet, as the IA's may just say the heck with it and work for someone else. If the IA's are going to have to take the back seat to the gorilla appetite, then we need to get together, hire a good programmer or two, (making sure they never worked for Microsoft) and develop our own estimating system, which sounds like a good idea anyway. Sure would cut estimating program expenses.
Any of you boys and girls out there programmers.
We just discovered a little prune in I/C. When you are using the roofing estimate, it shows as a breakdown of material and labor, and then a total of the two. Now, if you go to calculations and re-enter it, it shows up on the screen as a one line item, but it is allowing more per square. That means, someone has convinced I/C not to allow the waste factor on labor. To me, that is not kosher. That is shorting the insured and the roofer. Apparently the entity that has insisted on this has never been on a roof. If you have a 10 or 15% waste, it takes time to cut off the shingles, or style the shingle. So, why are they cutting off the waste factor on labor. If I am wrong, you won't hurt my feelings by giving me an explanation of this. |
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 21:58:27
|
Nope, As usual the Gorillas have the plan and they are force feeding the software vendors.
The latest is Big Blue, who now allows the exact squares that the roof measures, regardless of type, (Hip,Gable,Dormers) and NO WASTE is figured on anything, not materials or labor.
Guess these brain children never have had to lay up a roof, including, starters on the eaves and gable ends, woven or cut valley's, hip or ridge shingles, or cut and fit dormers or any other different type of roof.
They need to get a life! How in the heck can a gable roof with two (2) starts, front and rear, be the same as a cut up 9/12 folding into a 14/12 that meets a 8/12 and the roof has 16 to 22 starts?
We all need to teach these people a lesson in reality, make them carry 25 squares of 300# dimensionals, up a two story ladder, onto a 8/12 pitch roof and TRY to figure it out. (Then they can apply the correct numbers to the materials and labor, which will be about 200% more than what they are willing to pay.)
Seriously, how can anyone with a smattering of roofing knowledge, NOT allow a waste factor? That IMHO is pure and simple, not acting in good faith, and i await the day they are proven wrong, and in the meantime ALL Of the roofs that this old timer measures will include the proper waste factor, regardlesss of the % necessary to do the job. |
Edited by - katadj on 08/12/2003 22:01:44 |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 23:57:33
|
Tom I think you have read something into what John and I were trying to say that “just ain’t there”.
As long as I have the final say at Hawkins Research, Inc. PowerClaim will never force an IA to adjust in an unethical manner as defined by the industry at large. That is a lack of integrity issue, not an adjusting issue and don’t confuse the two. Estimating software may (does) have options to handle adjusting issues in different ways and one carrier may instruct their staff adjusters to use method X and another method Y but those decisions can never made by the software vendors. I bet you will find these are options in the version of IC that is sold to IA’s.
A staff member of one carrier told me that one software vendor indicated they could save up to $12 million a year in payout if they went with the prices shipped within that vendor’s software and forced the IA’s to go with the same software vendor. Since we use the Craftsman NRI for residential and mobile home and the Craftsman NCE for commercial I immediately called Craftsman Book Company.
Here is what I learned. Some database vendors that cater to the contractor market will price to the high side and some that cater to the carrier market will price to the low side. Since Craftsman’s goal is to try to be in the middle of the road on prices it does bite (short term) those software vendors that use Craftsman as our base source of line item prices. Having prices that are inline with what the contractor or carrier would like for them to be sounds off key to me.
Tom if you want to develop a software package that will stand on its own two feet in a usage/business sense you best start with $3,000,000.00 to be somewhat on the safe side. One vendor name that was quite popular with IA’s may have spent about $5 million based on a conversation with its last president before their investors reportedly walked away with only a fraction of their investment being returned upon selling.
You better know that was a wake up call to some of us that likewise were trying to focus on the IA/CAT market. I give applying that one bit if info to our company’s market focus as being key to us surviving long enough to become a viable company.
Tom you may think your profit margin as an adjuster is on the decline but so is it for adjusting software vendors. What do you think the ROI (return on investment) needs to look like on $3 Million to attract investors? In the old DOS days a cat adjuster with a little knowledge could hack together a software package without capital during his down time and then next storm season test it in the field and repeat this year after year until they had something like CMS, BlackCat, E-Zbid, etc. Tis ain’t so today.
|
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 13:06:10
|
KatAdj... you couldn't be more wrong about how "Big Blue" estimates waste on roofs. There is a waste factor of 8% figured into the material cost on all roof estimates. It is written into the unit cost, so you don't see it out front. You should also consider that, for staff at least, ridge is estimated seperately so there is no need to account for that waste.
And as always, adjusters have the option to adjust the waste if the roof warrants it, just make sure you document it. In Texas for example, a guideline given was 12+ valleys and you increase the waste to 12%. And as to not paying enough to replace a roof... I think the thousands of roofs paid for and replaced using the amounts estimated by Allstate prove that as an untrue statement.
I am not saying that there aren't changes that could be made to estimating protocol, but KatAdj you can not set forth lies about a major carrier without expecting to be corrected. And as far as waste on materials is concerned, you know not what you speak of.
Jennifer
(For the purpose of disclosure to those who don't already know, I am a Senior Staff Catastrophe Adjuster for Allstate.) |
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 14:06:37
|
5D,
Thank you you for YOUR opinion, as always we are entitled to ours as are you.
After 50 Years construction experience and 30 years adjusting experience, im sure i can still learn, can you?
Big Bully Blue, will get what they deserve when the time is right.( How come of the 1620 P&C companies only BB does it tis way/)
Perhaps a little deeper insight to the real world may defuse this situation. Perhaps Not. |
|
|
|
Jgoodman
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 14:37:37
|
I'm a programmer.
I have an estimating system.
It is a multi-user system, if you have a network, wired or wireless, to facilitate the use of an assistant, or a data entry staff.
It allows an unlimited number of coverages per claim.
It allows an unlimited number of reports per claims. First report, twenty-two status reports and the final report can all be saved and accessed and stored sorted by date the report was filed.
It allows the creation, modification and distribution of as many price databases you desire. They can be built on the fly. They can be emailed to your adjuster buddies. It does not, however, come with a priced one.
It can produce any report required to close a claim. It allows you to change the format of the report and save the information you have entered. The report format can be changed from an exact replica of the GAB 139 to the Ward/THG GT-90. I can add new report formats easily.
It produces building, APS, and ALE estimates, and as many of each as you want per claim. Estimates can be cloned within a claim.
Any building or APS estimate can be saved as a template to be used to create a new estimate for a different claim. Templates can be used in their entirety or a room at a time.
All estimates are integrated into the property report, statement of loss and Proof Of Loss.
It does the NFIP forms, although I have not gone over them with a fine tooth comb recently, so they may not be exactly current.
Even the estimate itself can print in a variety of formats. In fact the data structure of the estimate is such that is could be used to print any type of estimate, be it boat, plane or car. Basically it adds line items, depreciates and sorts into trade codes anything you care to build a database for. Similarly, I can make the estimate print in any format you require.
I do custom modifications by the hour, so any report or feature you want added I can add. Updates are posted on my web page, so you can access the modifications in a matter of minutes from when they are finished. Any modification made to the system gets posted on the web page so all can benefit.
I have over three thousand man-hours in this adjuster claims management system and the adjusting company management system that shares its database structure. These are not perfect applications, but they do what they have been developed to do.
Of course, the adjuster claims management system has weak points as well as strong points.
The fact I am a one-man company and have no interest in producing a price database is a weak point. The fact that the system is based on Microsoft Access has its a weak points, image management among them.
The fact the system is free is a strong point.
I spend most of my time as a custom programmer for applications far removed from the insurance industry. I also provide IT services for several businesses here in Southeastern Virginia. I work on the insurance apps as spare time allows since I have found most adjusters want excellent software, they just are not willing to pay much for it. And I gave up working for peanuts in September of 1999 when I devoted myself to my computer services business full time.
And I have been in this business for a long time. The only time I have ever run Simsol was in John Postava's presence on his tablet computer at a Technology Expo at American Banker Insurance Group in March of 1992. I was there selling my estimating package as well. We had just brought it on line in December of 1991 when I installed my first client on Cape Cod.
As an aside, it is the fact the I ran that Simsol package on a tablet computer, and it ran quite effectively, over ten years ago that make me think the industry wants to talk about a shift to tablet computers more than they actually want to change to them. I am guessing that John P. has put way more resources into producing the tablet app or a hand held app than he has ever gotten out of it. And I unabashedly support him for continuing to try. If it weren’t for people like him continuing to try to make things better, things would stagnate much worse than they are now.
I have written estimating packages for steel buildings, boats, cars, and network deployments. I have close to ten commercially deployed applications in the market place.
I see this package as a package that can set the lower bar on adjusting software. It can produce all you need to close a claim. I would not want to write a huge estimate on it, that's why we have dedicated estimating systems. But the license to use it never expires. It can handle multiple instances on a single computer, meaning you can have one database with the May hail storm files and one database with the September hurricane files, or as many as you wish. And if you can access these databases today, you will be able to access them as long as you computer runs, or you have backups. The system never shuts off. You do need Microsoft Access. I do not like the way it runs under the run-time version of Access.
While the system, called StormCentral.com's TheAdjuster, is far from perfect, it is functional. And it gives us a starting place without the huge initial investment Gale talks about above, if you choose to take advantage of it.
Post here or email me if you want more info or have questions. I am in the middle of a big IT re-structuring here in town and I am very busy at the moment, but I will get back to you.
I hope everyone has a profitable storm season.
Jeff Goodman
Goodman Enterprises
www.stormcentral.com
One Man's Software
|
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 15:36:03
|
| Would it be possible to make your system open scource? A system where knowledgeable IA's could contribute. |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2003 : 17:27:56
|
A few years ago I saw Jeff's package and it shows that he has put in the hours of development he states. Download it. As Jeff states it is a starting point and perhaps even be your end point.
If it does not work for you by this hurricane season try ours in the mean time. It is designed from IA input over many years. It is $75, $189 or $599 depending on monthly, quarterly or annual and comes with today's standard features plus residential, mobile home, commercial, contents and PV databases. http://www.powerclaim.com |
|
|
|
DACARE
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 11:19:29
|
I have read this forum today due to sheer boredom. Once a older adjuster told me when I asked why the rules change constantly from storm to storm, Company to Company, software changes, updates and even the color shirts, he simply replied "an Adjuster needs to adjust"
To blast one company for a precieved unfairness issue based on their software choice is obsurd and biting the hand that feeds you no matter how many years you have or what you think your level of expertise is.
No estimating program is perfect, no claim file is perfect. The estimate, what ever program is required, forms etc. are simply the tools in which you use to close a claim. As always, if there is a pricing, waste or scope issue, you will hear about it. All companies are very aware of this and that is why there is clean up. This business is so objective that, trends in the industry and whoever is reviewing your file, it is impposible to have the "Perfect System". Ultimatly, the software choice is made by the company, you just have to deal with it. The key is staying so busy that you do not have the time to sit here and chat on cado. |
DACARE |
|
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 14:01:55
|
| DaCare, I agree with you to an extent. But when you advertise that Joe Blows esimating program is complete and the adjusters answer to expeditious completion of estimates, then Joe should furnish it. Beveled T & G, OSB decking, etc., should be in the system. It is not a question of sitting around mulling over it, we just want what we pay for. $595.00 all the way to $1,620.00 per year for a product that is to help the adjuster be expeditious in adjusting and with correct prices is just not too much to ask. I always find time to read CADO and post when I can. Janice and I have been busy 17 months out of the last 19, so we don't have time to stew, we just proceed. I still feel it is an injustice to not provide a GOOD tool to assist the adjuster, whether he or she be staff or independent. We loved DDS, but since being sold to MSB, it appears to be going downhill, just like Boeckh was. Simsol, right now, is a much better product for the buck. Gayle's product is better for residential and light commercial, and the price is right. |
|
|
|
deward1
USA
11 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 07:42:30
|
I remember the first program I used was Imanet. It was simple to use and the database could be added to. Cat fees started declining with this program. The high tech versions available now require more input information, therefore more time is required per claim and the fees have gone down again. Small losses can be hand written today in a fraction of the time that is required to enter all the data the companies want, and they already have, for todays software.
Of all the programs out there I still say the best ever was Pilot's program which they never got from dos based to windows based. I used to love to write 10 or 12 estimates and go to dinner while it printed them and the checks. Come back and mount photos and sort paperwork. Todays programs require at least twice the time and maybe three times the time we used to require. I especially liked the feature of creating your own "code" for any operation. |
|
|
|
johnpostava
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2003 : 15:32:55
|
Deward1:
"Pilot's" program was written by a friend of mine (back in the early 80's) by the name of Gene Stillwell. Way back then I was talking with Davis P. about using SIMSOL's DOS version but they (the Pilot's) were looking to "buy" rather than "license" and Gene's program was available. Gene, a true estimating software pioneer, wrote a terrific program and was a terrific adjuster (probably still is). I met him on the flood circuit. I don't know what he is doing today but if he is reading CADO I sure hope he responds to this thread.
Just a little bit of computer history for all of you. |
|
|
|
jcc1138
12 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2003 : 11:23:25
|
I have used a variety of estimating packages over the years and I enjoy working with Simsol at the moment (for two different carriers), but I have noticed that some of the issues with software packages are not from the packages, but from the management chain, from file reviewers on up.
There seems to be a desire to force the adjuster to hew very tightly to the item amounts and that changes are verboten. I specifically call to mind minimums. I change minimums as needed for the type of work that might be done (i.e. a shingle repair for two tabs at the edge versus 5 tabs scattered on a 10/12 pitch roof), but I am constantly challenged and files degraded for using my experience on pricing and construction methods.
The latest from Simsol is the data warehousing, which has had an interesting result. I was praised for having a large amount of pictures in my files (because I am paranoid and I like to be able to double check things), while adjusters who were out on CAT duty were being blasted for not having any pictures in their files (while handling 100 claims in 2 weeks). I know that they were taking the photos, but they were worrying more about the settlements to insureds, while I was working in the office every day.
I will be fascinated to see where this goes, since I will be ranked against other people who are in different territories, with different issues and concerns. I wonder if they will come out and state that I am replacing roofs 35% of the time versus national average of 31% and why am I buying more roofs than others and what am I going to do to get down to the average:) |
|
|
|
johnpostava
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2003 : 20:38:01
|
We are working with several large carriers with regards to data warehousing and data mining. At this writing we have over 1/2 a million settled estimates on the system which we can slice and dice for analysis. All of the claim managers that are looking deeply into the data in no way are trying to second guess their adjusters. Although multiple price or quantity overrides in an estimate might indicate an adjuster is "paying" a claim rather than "adjusting" a claim, is not always the case - and the managers know that (at least the ones I am working with). When adjusters make changes to a cost database, override a quantity calculated by a estimating system or create a custom item not found in their construction repair database it may be perfectly justified. But if the adjuster does not document the file/estimate, the file reviewer has nothing to back up the adjuster's actions.
It is my sincere belief that the data mining being performed by all the major estimating systems will utimately make all of us better adjusters. I do not belive in LOCKING databases. Adjusters need to be able to "adjust". If an item's unit cost is consistantly being overridden in zip code NNNNN, it may be a database problem which we (SIMSOL/CRAFTSMAN)have to correct. If an item's unit cost is consistantly being overridded by one adjuster in zip code NNNNN, it may be the adjuster's problem. He or she is not a BAD adjuster - it just indicates that more training is needed.
Data mining flags these anamolies and managers can now dig deeper into these anamolies and get to the root cause of the problem (software, adjuster or a training issue).
Yes, adjusters and their companies can now be compared against each other. If one IA firm or adjuster does a better job than another (I am still not sure what constitutes "better".) they will get more work from that carrier.
Back in 1984 when my younger brother and I designed and wrote "THE ADJUSTER 1.0" in DOS, we never thought it would lead to this. The system had 51 repair items and it handled every claim I handled (flood, wind, hail, etc...). We printed the estimate and it went into a file. No longer - now we are electronic and data mining can look at everything.
If I can give all adjusters one piece of advice (take it for what it is worth), notate and document anything and everything in your estimates. Anything out of the ordinary needs to be explained. It is the out-of-the-ordinary items that get flagged by the data mining systems being sold to all the carriers. Explain what you are doing and you will have less problems with examiners and managers.
In the end, we will all learn a great deal from the data coming back from our closed estimates. Whether or not this knowledge will make us better adjusters, lower the average claim paid or ultimately improve loss ratios is still unclear.
Data mining has worked for auto - now it is in our backyard and it will not be going away anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Truth about Adjusting Software
Forum Locked
