Change Commission en masse-is it possible

[Matthew Udovich]

Hey all, is it possible to change a producers commission in bulk? We have one that left and need to change all commissions to 0.

[Lance Bateman]

Nope - wish there were, as I'm having to go through an entire existing book for that also.

Hey all, is it possible to change a producers commission in bulk? We have one that left and need to change all commissions to 0.

[Lance Bateman]

What I'm doing - accounting posts DB commissions, and they check the "defaults" (which were cleaned up) to post the DB transaction.  On AB, I review transactions daily, and if there is an error, change it.

[Matthew Udovich]

  YUCK 

Thanks Lance!

[Bob]

This is prime example of poor table design/structure and the outcome..  Whether it's company commission change or producer, TAMs table structure is so OUTDATED that it's backwards requiring you to touch every record and change manually or if lucky a utility will automate this tedious task but no utility exists for commission changes.   This is why we have rename utilities for other tasks to automate this tedious task of touching all records.  To even use a utility to do this shows how poor the tables are in TAM.   Modern apps designed correctly, you would update the record in producer file or company file and that alone would globally change all the records at the billing screen saving you from touching each record.  This is where TAM needs more help above and beyond any enhancements.  Night utilities are not normal! 

If table structure were improved I dare say TAM would be a hit again.  It's the added work it makes as in this example that sets it back.  Not bashing TAM or Applied (enjoy both) but sharing the reality that one day needs to be addressed! 

[Matthew Udovich]

Hear Hear!!! This is my first exposure to this pain point and I'm deeply depressed that this situation exists within a 'market leading product'.

[Jeff Zylstra]

This is prime example of poor table design/structure and the outcome..  Whether it's company commission change or producer, TAMs table structure is so OUTDATED that it's backwards requiring you to touch every record and change manually or if lucky a utility will automate this tedious task but no utility exists for commission changes.   This is why we have rename utilities for other tasks to automate this tedious task of touching all records.  To even use a utility to do this shows how poor the tables are in TAM.   Modern apps designed correctly, you would update the record in producer file or company file and that alone would globally change all the records at the billing screen saving you from touching each record.  This is where TAM needs more help above and beyond any enhancements.  Night utilities are not normal! 

If table structure were improved I dare say TAM would be a hit again.  It's the added work it makes as in this example that sets it back.  Not bashing TAM or Applied (enjoy both) but sharing the reality that one day needs to be addressed! 

That would be nice, but it can also be very dangerous if used incorrectly or without prior knowledge of all the possible ramifications.  Out neighbor is a financial person for a large national agency, and she freaks out if even the customer's name is changed on a customer screen because it changes the name on all of the historical financial documentation.  Apparently this is a no-no in certain circles.  Especially in audit situations.

I can also see an issue if for example, if a producer's commission rate were changed at a certain point in time by changing the tables, and it changed the historical financial information for all of that producer's billings.  Just for the sake of safety I would rather see a utility have to be run against an existing database, than be able to change the producer's commission rate and have it change all of the existing financial records for that producer. 

[Bob]

I can't worry about the few.  Few hold back the majority in my opinion.  They can opt not to change globally and manually change each at the record level but don't penalize the majority who would embrace.. 

All my experience 1st hand using InStar for 3 years and what I was able to do all this.   As I recall some changes could be implemented by date for situation like this.

I prefer modern tables!   

[Jeff Zylstra]

If you can do it by date, then I would be on board.  I know that there's a lot we can't  do (and shouldn't be able to do) because of the ramifications to past financial statements and because it may throw other accounts out of balance.  That would be my only concerns. 

Other than that, modernizing the databases and maybe whittling down the number of different DB structures between products would be a GOOD thing. With TAM, Epic, DORIS and Vision all having different database structures and data engines, I would think that it would have to be a programming and support nightmare.   Sooner or later, you KNOW that they are going to phase out at least one of the 4 systems.  Why not start now?

[Paul Dodgson]

There was a company in Toronto that could do this at one time. I do not know if they are still around but they were former TAM people and you could do almost anything you wanted with the data

Sorry I do not recall their names

[Jeff Zylstra]

There was a company in Toronto that could do this at one time. I do not know if they are still around but they were former TAM people and you could do almost anything you wanted with the data

Sorry I do not recall their names

Was it Teisch Data Services or some such thing? 

[Judy Means]

There was a company in Toronto that could do this at one time. I do not know if they are still around but they were former TAM people and you could do almost anything you wanted with the data

I remember them.  I bought their disk when we first started in TAM.  It would also do mass changes of CSR's and such and not affect history.  It was a nifty program...but then as I recall it ceased to work on future versions.  Version 6 or something was the last version it worked. 

I'd love to be able to mass change commissions.  We have one company that "rewards" our production by changing our commission amount every year...up or down.  Major pain to work with.  I have it stored in the company file, but some CSR's don't check for commission changes on renewal. 

Judy 


ps... nice to see you here Paul.  You were missed.

[Hans Manhave]

Contact Randy at randy@teichdataservices.com or 512-426-7769