How do the vendors stack up?
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
NOTICE: We are no longer using this forum for discussions. Please follow the links to the new forums.
Catastrophe Central-The Adjuster's Forum : Community Center- Forums
New Site Registration : New Site Login
Login  | |
|
How do the vendors stack up? - 2/28/2005 9:29:13 PM
|
|
|
johnpostava
Posts: 170
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Orlando, FL
Status: offline
|
You all use one of us. Some get to use what software they want. Others must use what their employer or carrier demands (or both). If YOU, THE ADJUSTER, had a choice (and most of you have used multiple software systems) which one would you use if you had a choice?
Let's hear the good, the bad and the ugly. Likes and dislikes. Pet features and pet peeves. For those of you that respond, it will make ALL software vendors better. Last time I looked this was an OPEN FORUM. So, let it out, what do you guys (and gals) want? This vendor is listening....and I am confident the others are, too...
My goal, as it has always been since 1979 (man, I'm old), is to make software easier, to enable more adjusters to be more productive and to get claims dollars in the hands of more policyhoders faster and fairer.
I have been watching the posts on this CADO forum and only a small fraction of visitors ever SAY ANYTHING. You, and you know who you are, are important. SAY SOMETHING!
We are all LISTENING...
_____________________________
John A. Postava, R.P.A.
President
SIMSOL Software, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/1/2005 7:45:55 AM
|
|
|
Russ
Posts: 96
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Saint Petersburg, FL
Status: offline
|
John,
As I have stated before, I have tried to get The vendors I have worked for to use SIMSOL. They all tell me you're too expensive. I think if you sent someone to visit each them and showed them what the program can do, they would be sold.
I dont know the politics of Software enough to know why a vendor chooses one over the other. I do know what I like to use, but unfortunately I dont get to choose. I use whatever the Vendor tells me to use.
I have used most software and can close files with any of them. I would only use SIMSOL given the choice.
My opinion only, every adjuster has their favorites.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/1/2005 7:55:13 AM
|
|
|
okclarryd
Posts: 616
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Oklahoma City, Ok
Status: offline
|
John,
I have limited experience with Simsol so I really can't speak with any authority as to it's good and bad facets. Sorry.
However, I have used Xactimate and Integraclaim for years and I would really rather use Integraclaim. Through using the program extensively, I have found some of the short-cuts and other features to be quite friendly and time-saving. Now,...... if they would just leave it alone.
An insurance company here in Oklahoma chose Powerclaim over all that they tried and in speaking with the claims manager, he really couldn't tell me why but I would bet that it was cost. He and upper management are very, very conservative. So conservative, in fact, that the company has began using computers and estimating systems in the past year. Prior to that, every property and auto claim had a hand written estimate in the file.
I wonder how many companies are still doing that?
_____________________________
LARRY D HARDIN
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/1/2005 9:20:18 AM
|
|
|
mlburrows
Posts: 11
Joined: 12/4/2004
Status: offline
|
I have used both Integraclaim and Xactimate in the field. I prefer Integra due to the fact it is user friendly and you can find what you need on it faster or so it appears. Also, the picture download on Integra is so much quicker. Rumor has it though that the new Exactimate is going to be a lot like the Integreclaim as far as the picture download and the ease of finding shortcuts and just things in general. We will wait and see, I am still sold on the use of Integreclaim and I cringe when a carrier wants Xactimate because I know it may take twice as long for me to write the claim, but hey this is just my opinion. You all have a good day and start doing your HAIL DANCES it is that time once again.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/1/2005 1:49:44 PM
|
|
|
Charlie
Posts: 19
Joined: 2/23/2005
Status: offline
|
I have found the Integra Claim system to be the best. Its the easiest to learn and very adjuster friendly. It was designed by a person with an adjusting background. I especially enjoy the final product. When using you won't find yourself with numerous extra pages like xactimate has. I have been sold on it for 6 years now.
Some may not know this but the largest client of Integra (I believe) is Allstate and they have a version for their reps only, considerable lower in pricing but then they tweak the overhead and profit margins.
The program does a lot more from an adjusters standpoint than any other program I have seen.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/3/2005 4:25:49 PM
|
|
|
johnpostava
Posts: 170
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Orlando, FL
Status: offline
|
Russ, thanks for the kind words. Charlie, the adjuster who got together with the moneymen behind the original DDS software was a long time user of SIMSOL back in the DOS days and used SIMSOL for years. Ron Pylant, wherever you are, and I go back to the days of Hurricane Hugo. Ron was in a hurry to get to the Windows interface and SIMSOL had too many clients to move that fast. He built a great product and always gave us a run for our money. A couple of years after DDS was released we released our windows-based, graphical interface and we continued to butt heads on almost every account. MSB eventually bought out DDS and re-branded it INTEGRACLAIM.
Ron, if you're living on a private island somewere in the South Pacific, send your jet to pick me up and we can recant our adventures in the "Glory Days" of estimating software :)
_____________________________
John A. Postava, R.P.A.
President
SIMSOL Software, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/3/2005 9:54:19 PM
|
|
|
Gustbuster
Posts: 10
Joined: 1/16/2005
Status: offline
|
Charlie.......you gotta be kiddin'. I am currently being forced to work with Integriclaim and i can say that it is like riding a bicycle after owning a Porsche. Compared to Xactimate it is like using a DOS program. The fact is, the changes that would need to be made to make it even "user friendly" would not take much, however, they choose not to make them. I would list the issues here, but it would take to long and those that have used both already know. But if you would like, please illustrate one thing that Integriclaim can do better than Xactimate. I Double Dog dare you......lol
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/3/2005 11:06:41 PM
|
|
|
Wes
Posts: 622
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Deerfield Beach, FL
Status: offline
|
One of my Integri favorites is the extremely easy to set up and use room duplication and macros. I know Xacti has macros but the last time I used Xacti (4 years ago) they were much more difficult to set up. Word of caution, if you use macros make sure to double double check your work because you always run the risk of having something in your macros that you need to add or eliminate from your final individual estimate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/3/2005 11:10:45 PM
|
|
|
Wes
Posts: 622
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Deerfield Beach, FL
Status: offline
|
Second favorite Integri feature is the "report packages". You can set up your reports per the instructions of your vendor/carrier and after the initial set up its one push of a button and all your reports print to .pdf in the correct order and ready for email.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/4/2005 7:23:23 AM
|
|
|
tphillip
Posts: 4
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Lubbock, TX
Status: offline
|
Integra's roof drawing is much easier then Xactimates. That's why most people that use Xactimate still hand draw the roofs. Very few know how to use their complicated drawing program.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/4/2005 7:43:31 AM
|
|
|
Russ
Posts: 96
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Saint Petersburg, FL
Status: offline
|
All Software seems easier once you have used it for a while. All do basically the same things. Simsol has drawers that you set up by Vendor or Carrier. All the info is stored in each drawer. In DDS if you are working for different Carriers you have to set up each file to each Carrier. In Simsol you just put the claim in whichever drawer you already have set up. In DDS, I have to have a PDF writer to send PDF files. Simsol has 10 file types (including PDF)you can print to. Drawing program in Simsol is very similar to DDS.
All software has it's drawbacks, I just find a lot less drawbacks with Simsol. My opinion only and I have no stake in promoting Simsol. If you get a chance to have someone show you the program, you will be hooked.
Ya'll have a great day!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/6/2005 8:23:30 AM
|
|
|
CCarr
Posts: 288
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Toronto, Ontario
Status: offline
|
Let me give you a personal view from the other side of the coin. For the past 25 weeks I have been reading and reviewing estimates for condo, commercial, or multi-causation losses; in an attempt to fairly pay covered losses.
I'd like to go back to John's opening post to refresh some of the things he said and some of the questions he asked; and reflect on them with my personal opinion from my personal experiences.
The platform for this software forum is the "main four", "the big 4" - MSB IntegriClaim, Powerclaim, Simsol and Xactware - and John says, ".... you all use one of us ....". Well, unfortunately, it is not so. Following John's Monday night post, I kept his thoughts in mind the next 5 days as I looked at files and recollected things from the previous weeks that are relevant to this issue. I can tell you that over 10% of the files that I have seen did not contain an estimate from the "big 4". In this level of exception included old Boeckh DOS 1999 formats and truly homemade Excel templates on spreadsheets. Really, the surprise and disgust of that wore off months ago. There is truth to the statement that, ".... some get to use what software they want ...."; even to the ridiculous.
However, it is within the parameters of John's purpose of the thread, ".... identify the good, the bad and the ugly ...."; that I offer my thoughts from the personal viewpoint of being on the receiving end of the estimate. I am sure I have forgotten and / or not seen a number of things that the "big 4" software can or can not do; but the following is what has left an impression with me.
MSB IntegriClaim - best thing from my side of the fence is that it tells me what version and data date is being utilized. Almost as important, it tells me when there is a "write-in" or a "modified" item. I also like that the system allows for a clean write in of an explanatory line item note. I feel that the first two items noted should be mandatory on all estimating software, and a desirable feature for the third item.
Powerclaim - It is easily readable, and I like the recap page layout and short form report template. It seems, or is perhaps coincidental, that a higher ratio of new or newer claims people use this system. Perhaps it is because of ease of use. Asking a few times, the answer has always been the cost of the product. If the former thought / observation is valid, this software could strengthen the credibility of the estimates made by newer claims people if it had the "write-in" or "modified" warning / notice as part of its features.
Simsol - seems like a complete package - letters, reports, estimate, diagram, activity logs - when properly and fully utilized by a claims person; it is quite readable.
Xactware - I don't like the amount of paper that is used to print an estimate, loss dollar to loss dollar, compared to other software; it is an absolute waste of trees and time. I don't find it as readable as Simsol. Another irritant inherant with this software is the inconsistent usage or application of "base service charges". The "in" or "out" option should not be available to the claims person, i.e. it should only be a carrier's call on which to use. The goal of any estimate is also to create an understandable estimate / loss record for the insured. In that regard, BSC should be "in". There is far too high of a volume of questions from insureds when BSC is "out", as seldom an insured that reads their estimate can come to terms with it when BSC is "out".
Other than that, how does / why does one do all their "paperwork" - recap, summary, letters, diagram captions, short form report - all in Simsol and then attach and Xactware estimate? It is not a freak, seen enough of it for it to stand out.
Another anomoly I'd be interested in hearing an explanation for comes from multi-causation claims. First, but unrelated to this topic (and please don't bog this thread down for this), the claims industry will take a giant step forward when they more quickly progress towards the goal of the "single adjuster program". But, what is the logic of a "single adjuster" doing the flood estimate with one software and the wind estimate with another software program? Again, not a freak, it happened enough to stand out; and the wind carrier does not mandate a specific system.
In summary, on the overall issue of estimating software, all cat vendors and all carriers should mandate that only one of the "big 4" can be used; and further mandate and monitor that only the current version can be used. This should be a primary responsibility of the cat vendor; they should never allow anything other than that out of their offices. This may slow the carriers down in their mandate of a single specific system.
Wouldn't it be wonderful - at least from my side of the canal - if all software defaulted to a proper order or "convention" as to how damage in an estimate was presented? Until that day, cat vendors should mandate and monitor that damage is logically presented; there is far too much of a widespread freewheeling presentation of damage in estimates. Can software be tweaked to default an order and presentation of damage?
Looking back over these thoughts, I can see why a growing segment of carriers are placing a tighter grip on what software must be used and its content. It is all part of the issues associated with control and the proper quantifying of the loss dollars.
< Message edited by CCarr -- 3/6/2005 12:52:03 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/7/2005 12:36:57 AM
|
|
|
Gale
Posts: 739
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Murray, KY
Status: offline
|
Clayton, I want to thank you for your time/effort you put into your above post. While usability issues are a major concern to the guy in the field in the end it is the output that the examiner is presented with that determines if the file has closed or will be sent back for more attention. Those that get paid only on closed files clearly understand this fact.
Clearly the work of the adjusting software vendors will forever be ongoing but for us to get a review from a non-ego invested point of view from the angle of the carrier examiner is refreshing and gives us concrete areas that can help us know how to produce reports that is more meaningful to the examiner.
The strange part is in reality it is the carriers that are responsible for the chaos of reports you see, not the adjusting vendors or adjusters. While some carriers do mandate that only one software package be used for various reasons it can come back to bite them in performance and courtroom.
By performance I refer to the development related to 4 in 04 that pumped many new adjusters out doing claims overnight. Clearly the new adjuster who is required to use a package with 5-10X’s the learning curve of another software package is at a disadvantage when compared to the new adjuster who only needs 10-20% of the time to get functional with their adjusting software package. While the cost of the product is a concern but even with the range of the monthly leasing being from $75 to $200 in 2004 it still was financially a non-issue for the individual adjuster. Even if an adjuster worked six months paying $200 per month he would have only paid out $750 more for software than the adjuster committing month by month for $75. Of course if there were 5,000 or so adjusters doing that at some point in time then you would be looking at close to a $4 million dollar ($4,000,000.00) difference in software cost to the adjusting industry yet when looking just at the solo adjuster the $750 difference is doable.
By courtroom I refer to how easy it is for a carrier to be hit when they dictate the adjusting software source for the non-employee types by taking “Independent” out of the term “independent adjuster” and making them “staff adjusters” in the eyes of One or some. While we find carriers typically over pay there is some risk if a carrier dictates all adjusters that work for them will use the same source of pricing if it is generated by the carrier themselves directly or indirectly. The flip side to that legal issue is if two insured’s living next door to each other get paid different amounts per square for the identical roof the carriers are exposing themselves in a legal sense as well which can appear to leave the carriers in a no win situation with lawyers and governments.
The short answer is the reports at ANY carrier will look the way that the carrier request for them to look in format and detail when the carriers simply speak the word.
This will free the carriers from being in the software selling business and let them focus on making money for themselves instead unless they have a direct/indirect financial stake in the adjusting software vendor but I could not see any carrier’s legal department permitting that to be the case ever.
The only point to using adjusting software in the first place is to make the carriers more profitable but somewhere along the way the CEO’s of the major carriers outsourced their decision-making roles to the adjusting software vendors it seems in some cases. Clayton maybe from your position you can explain how adjusting software vendors have been given the power over the carriers they way they have?
With most, if not all adjusting-software vendors now importing and exporting their claims data using XML there is no reason for any examiner to be forced to look at any format of reports other than the format, which their carrier dictates to the software vendors. Carriers no longer have to “sell” brand “ABC” or “XYZ” for any software vendor to get the look and info they want on any report because if the software vendor will not provide this then the carrier can quickly and with little expense present the claims data to the examiner in any format that they wish.
The freedom of Open Standards is what the use of computers is all about or at least should be. In fact each carrier could create their desired formats and simply have their examiners to view files in that format once it comes in from the field. Getting the data from the field in a digital format is the only concern of the carriers because once they have the claim’s data they can have the files to all be viewed/printed/stored in the same format regardless of what “Brand” of property adjusting software is used by the adjuster. Digital outputting of claims data if not a “NO BRAINER” is at best a “LOW BRAINER” requiring a one-time of only hours and not days to format any report even at the carrier level.
The carriers would not even have to be bother with producing the claims report formatting utilities if they would just sit down with the property adjusting software vendors as they did with the auto adjusting software vendors and knock out some common reporting formats. While it would be a pain for each software vendor to set up formats that are carrier specific so the adjuster just stated what carrier was going to view the file but I expect the other “golden rule” which states, “He who has the gold makes the rules.” would kick in very quickly if the carriers made such a “request”.
Clayton, I have to confess I do not understand the mindset of some CEO’s of the property insurance carriers. Perhaps it is because our adjusting software package is the only one of the main four on the market today to come out of a software-developing firm instead of out of an adjusting or construction firm. What passes as the norm in the property claims industry (adjusting software vendors dictating to their clients how things will be), just would not fly in most other software markets?
I know this is not the case but sometimes it seems that the CEO’s at some of the carriers just prefer chaos when it comes to claims handling. It most likely is a case they just do not realize their power as CEO’s to solve these stupid issues by speaking the word that would forever make life better for claims examiners or at least when it came to claims reports as far as to their content and format.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/7/2005 8:21:50 AM
|
|
|
RobertV
Posts: 494
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Boerne, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Xactware - I don't like the amount of paper that is used to print an estimate, loss dollar to loss dollar, compared to other software; it is an absolute waste of trees and time.
Been working large losses since Charlie, using MSB, majority of these are being repaired by an outfit using Xact. When we finally get it it all negotiated out to an apples-to-apples estimate, MSB takes about 1/2 -or less- as much space to say the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/8/2005 8:13:41 PM
|
|
|
JimF
Posts: 1323
Joined: 4/19/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gale
The only point to using adjusting software in the first place is to make the carriers more profitable.....
Gale, surely to God you did not mean what you wrote?
If so, sooner or later you are going to be put on a witness stand somewhere in a case involving a carrier or vendor that accepts and allows the use of your software, and then have to defend your statement.
Please tell us it 'ain't' so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/8/2005 8:25:22 PM
|
|
|
JimF
Posts: 1323
Joined: 4/19/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gale
By performance I refer to the development related to 4 in 04 that pumped many new adjusters out doing claims overnight. Clearly the new adjuster who is required to use a package with 5-10X’s the learning curve of another software package is at a disadvantage when compared to the new adjuster who only needs 10-20% of the time to get functional with their adjusting software package.
Well, since these 'new adjusters' didn't know or bother to learn and know insurance policies intricacies and/or construction/ damage repair estimating prior to being 'pumped out overnight', then it seems to me that the software packages which only took 10-20% of their time to learn, allowed them to become more dangerous and incompetent faster than those newer 'adjusters' forced to used those estimating software packages which required 5-10 X's the learning curve.
Should the insurance industry thank or curse those software vendors who made these new adjusters more incompetently efficient and more quickly dangerous or not?
Your idea is, to say the least, an unusual application of the Peter Principle at work in adjusting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/9/2005 1:21:33 PM
|
|
|
Jack_Hodnett
Posts: 1
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: DeVille, Louisiana
Status: offline
|
In short, SIMSOL is the only way to go for an independent adjuster! I have used them all, on the bottom I would rank MS&B.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/9/2005 3:44:17 PM
|
|
|
Gale
Posts: 739
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Murray, KY
Status: offline
|
Jim, are you at it again. :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/10/2005 1:09:13 PM
|
|
|
Charlie
Posts: 19
Joined: 2/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Gustbuster-to each his own is all I can say. It would take far to much of your valuable time to make a list like you wish. For one thing, the integra ests are far shorter to describe the same scope vs xactimate. As far as the bicycle comparison is concerned, you gotta remember to mount the bike in the same direction as you would the Porsche-facing the front of the machine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: How do the vendors stack up? - 3/10/2005 1:15:24 PM
|
|
|
Charlie
Posts: 19
Joined: 2/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Yes I am familiar with Ron Pylant. He is not off to some island unless Texas is now an Island. Sounds like one great idea evolved to another. I feel its good that there are choices to be made on which system to use. I am sure it will stay that way as long as we have more than one insurance company to please. Hopefully we are all retired to some nice island by the time only one insurance company exists.
|
|
|
|
!! You are viewing a post in the forum archive.
NOTICE: We are no longer using this forum for discussions. Please follow the links to the new forums.
Catastrophe Central-The Adjuster's Forum : Community Center- Forums
New Site Registration : New Site Login
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
User Agreement | Privacy Statement| Contact |Copyright 1995 - 2006 CatAdjuster.org. All rights reserved.
0.969
|
Printable Version
