Adding an Agency Questions

[Alice]

I would like to know if anyone has created another Agency in Tam and FUBAR'd it up so bad it was no longer usable? Is it possible to delete it and start over and can Applied do something if not?

Asking because I see trouble coming down the road and no one has told me what's going on. I was asked to give someone security access to add branches and maybe an agency and producer codes and marketing plans with very little explanation. I don't have a problem with the marketing plan - they can do what they want there - but I sure do have a problem with the rest. No Insurance people have access to Security Manager so I'm wondering about adding producers but not users. And the person I'm to give this access to does not have experience adding branches or agencies so I don't think she knows the planning that needs to go in to it. So many questions...

TIA

[Jim Jensen]

Proceed with careful planning and very clear intentions and look ahead to implications. I set up an additional branch some time back because of a cluster arrangement for a particular book of business. I ended up never using it and there is no delete option. You can revise it, but not delete it. I'm Applied can, or one might be able to by massaging the databases directly, but I wouldn't let that be the fallback to mistakes.

[Bob]

We're using multiple Agencies, branches etc..

If things get setup real bad, can have Applied edit records manually (might be a charge as tedious work, we did this a decade or so ago).   Not as clean but you could also recreate another correctly and set security so nobody uses the one setup wrong.  If any clients were added, move them to correct agency.  Just have to have all accounting items closed and reconciled.

I would not setup Agencies, Branches and Departments without a real thought out game plan.  Might even consider consultation with AB Solutions, AIS, Sue Good and other TAM experts before deploying again.  Lots to consider, reports, security Income/Balance sheets etc. 

[Lance Bateman]

Related to second part of your message - I'd NEVER give security manager rights to anyone other than person fully aware of TAM and impacts, such as Admin person.  Allowing multiple people into that just opens the system to abuse.  Would they even understand difference between granting rights by group, instead of screwing up program granting by user?

And producers - I've always restricted them moreso than others.

I would like to know if anyone has created another Agency in Tam and FUBAR'd it up so bad it was no longer usable? Is it possible to delete it and start over and can Applied do something if not?

Asking because I see trouble coming down the road and no one has told me what's going on. I was asked to give someone security access to add branches and maybe an agency and producer codes and marketing plans with very little explanation. I don't have a problem with the marketing plan - they can do what they want there - but I sure do have a problem with the rest. No Insurance people have access to Security Manager so I'm wondering about adding producers but not users. And the person I'm to give this access to does not have experience adding branches or agencies so I don't think she knows the planning that needs to go in to it. So many questions...

TIA

[Alice]

I've told my bosses and it appears they (insurance) are starting a new partnership of some kind but have not included anyone in IT in the process. So we (IT) know nothing about PCI, the data security and anything else we need to think of when starting something new. The ball is in the hands of my bosses right now and they will let me know when I need to step in to explain anything they want to do with Tam.
It just surprises me that after all these years of claiming ignorance regarding anything Tam, they want to do these things.
So I'm like  

A part of me just wants to do what they want, then just wait for them to come ask me to fix something they did. Thanks Jim for mentioning your experience. At least I know that ahead of time.

[Jeff Zylstra]

I've told my bosses and it appears they (insurance) are starting a new partnership of some kind but have not included anyone in IT in the process. So we (IT) know nothing about PCI, the data security and anything else we need to think of when starting something new. The ball is in the hands of my bosses right now and they will let me know when I need to step in to explain anything they want to do with Tam.
It just surprises me that after all these years of claiming ignorance regarding anything Tam, they want to do these things.
So I'm like  

A part of me just wants to do what they want, then just wait for them to come ask me to fix something they did. Thanks Jim for mentioning your experience. At least I know that ahead of time.

When something like that happens, they will want to blame you.  I'm the kind of guy who likes to "inoculate" myself against that before it happens.  The temptation is not to say anything and then do an "I told you so" after the fact.  Don't do that because someone will try to blame you when everything goes wrong and you can't easily fix or reverse it. You don't want to be a jerk about it, but you DO want to educate them about it or you will be blamed for and will still end up cleaning up the mess.  Sorry, sometimes that just how life happens. 

[Jon Robinson]

Make sure you do a good backup and keep it handy in case you have to undo everything the hard way.

[Jim Jensen]

They could have you or someone else define what needs to be set up and be sworn to secrecy, then simply set security so no one can access that agency or branch except the person(s) setting it up and you could even put placeholder names until they want to dislose it. You should be able to change the name of the agency or branch later if they need to keep some things under wraps.

[Alice]

Jeff - that did happen to me once where they tried to push the blame on me. There are many people here who know me and vouched for my integrity...basically calling them liars. So I've made sure I'm never in that position again. And educating them is difficult because to me it seems they wish to remain ignorant so they don't need to be the responsible ones. So now with a new IT director, he is the line they have to cross to get to me to do anything. It doesn't help that I'm a bit naive so I don't mind him running interference. I send all their requests to him with my thoughts and let him decide.

Jon - I check backups every morning.  I don't know the last time someone did a restore test so I can only hope it works. I've made several requests for testing so at least I have that in writing.

Jim - I can understand them wanting it set up so only certain groups can see and report on the data. I just set up an agency they acquired and I think that's what they want done here. So I don't understand why they just don't ask me like they have in the past so it's done right the first time and everyone understands.

[Alice]

We're using multiple Agencies, branches etc..

If things get setup real bad, can have Applied edit records manually (might be a charge as tedious work, we did this a decade or so ago).   Not as clean but you could also recreate another correctly and set security so nobody uses the one setup wrong.  If any clients were added, move them to correct agency.  Just have to have all accounting items closed and reconciled.

I would not setup Agencies, Branches and Departments without a real thought out game plan.  Might even consider consultation with AB Solutions, AIS, Sue Good and other TAM experts before deploying again.  Lots to consider, reports, security Income/Balance sheets etc. 

We don't use accounting, except for the direct bill commission download, so that won't be an issue.
I explained all to my bosses and now they get to go to insurance to find out what's really happening. Then they'll tell me what I need to do. But knowing that there could be a chance that Applied just might charge them real money to fix what they created may be enough let me in on it so it's done correctly.
Thanks Bob!

[Lance Bateman]

I'm a bit surprised at the seeming divide between "IT" and "Insurance" in this thread.  I would think one of IT responsibilities is to know the program as well as possible (or who to get the answers from - that works often for me), and advise from that angle.

But yes, if "they" are demanding something be done that you do not think makes sense, document it at least in an email along with their replies - and then save it somewhere.

But there are many users that have multiple agencies on their system.  As long as they realize it will be separate from the current agency(ies) and the customers won't be accessible across them (except maybe in reports, etc.), and that it may increase the work load for anyone doing any accounting (including DB) - it can make sense.

[Alice]

Well Lance, that's just it. I'm the application expert for Tam in the IT department. I'm supposed to be brought in on new ventures or any other major changes to be sure everyone is heading in the right/same direction.  That didn't happen this time and that's why I got my bosses involved - to get back on track to the way it's supposed to be.  Plus we have an entire team of project managers who are supposed to be running things like this and no one was brought in. If someone was, any one of them would have made sure I was involved. So we're not quite sure what's going on.  But I do feel better about it now with all the comments everyone has posted here and the situation is getting straightened out. I was told not to change anything until I hear back from my boss so I'm very relieved.
Also Lance, I'm a former insurance professional who kinda fell in to IT instead of an IT professional who had to learn about insurance. That's why when I received the email request yesterday, all kinds of warning bells went off for me and I had to put on the brakes. All kinds of things starting bouncing around in my head like PCI, data security, E&O and a whole slew of other things. I can't say exactly what they are proposing to do but nothing set right with me about the way they are going about it.
So thanks everyone for the comments and advice. My nerves are somewhat under control now and may actually be able to eat something tonight 

[Lance Bateman]

You have all of our sympathies, I am sure, Alice.  And I'm also a bit like you - coming from something else, and just ended up IT (or at least partly) sort of like the "one eyed man in a valley of blind people"?  And probably like you - just how many hats do we wear?

Glad it's all working out finally - maybe they'll remember to involve you earlier next time???

[Jeff Zylstra]

If they haven't already asked you to, tell them that you'll sign a confidentiality agreement.  If this involves a bank, SEC regulated company or Federal government regulators, they probably should have had anyone involved do this already.  Someone who knows a little and is free to speculate and spread rumors is much more dangerous than someone who knows a lot but keeps their mouth shut. 

[Alice]

I'm not sure it's a confidentiality issue. It's more like they've done this before...made agreements and such without letting other departments know what they are doing.  They tend to bring in IT at the end after all dates and contracts have been committed to on their end without knowing what's needed to set everything up. That's why me, or someone in IT, is supposed to be involved. By the time they inform us and we tell them what needs to be done, they see us as throwing a wrench in to their plans and delaying everything. If they followed the rules, then the goals would be more realistically set.

[Lance Bateman]

LOL!!  You just trying to make me feel better Alice, and not so worried over all the issues I'm finding at my new job?  (Spending a week going through over 600 insureds to look for duplication of coverage - aagghhh!).

I'm not sure it's a confidentiality issue. It's more like they've done this before...made agreements and such without letting other departments know what they are doing.  They tend to bring in IT at the end after all dates and contracts have been committed to on their end without knowing what's needed to set everything up. That's why me, or someone in IT, is supposed to be involved. By the time they inform us and we tell them what needs to be done, they see us as throwing a wrench in to their plans and delaying everything. If they followed the rules, then the goals would be more realistically set.

[brinkerdana]

Ugh, Lance!  That sounds like my first few months at my last job. 

[Alice]

Lance - there's one big difference though.  You just got there and I've been here for almost 14 years.  Makes me wonder what else they've done without telling anyone and what rules and regulations they are not following because "it's too much of a hassle".
So we are having a meeting tomorrow and the insurance manager I was told to include has remove herself and is sending her two "Tam experts" ( ). I didn't want them as I need a decision maker. So this meeting will be a waste of time.

I may be heading your way and work for nothing