Agency Purchase

[Lynne Desrochers]

I have a question. If you purchase an agency that's on another management system, what's a reasonable time from to get the data buttoned up? They have a bunch of excess and surplus lines, so there's a bit of manual entry. It's about 1000 customers. 
Thoughts?

[Bob]

We acquire agencies all the time with each situation being different.  Shoot, reminds me I need to get back to someone who wrote me about acquisition and I told them last week I'd get back Monday and didn't.  Thread just now reminded me.

Typically a year.  Best downloaded if possible or entered in at renewal vs. data conversions which almost always haunt you later.   If you want sooner get a temp to enter data.  We typically run two systems.   Where possible we do initial load from carrier map data.  Since you have surplus lines likely being entering and processing at renewal off the new system.  Important to finish things on the old.   If invoiced off the old, reconcile it there and pay.  As you work forward invoicing on TAM finish there.

If you are going to do any kind of data conversion I would recommend Randy Teich.   http://www.teichdataservices.com/

Computers today no reason can't work two systems migrate off the old onto the new and best of all KEEP CLEAN!   I know more details but in brief this is what I would recommend.  You're welcome to call or email me discuss more.

[Mark]

I would second Randy Teich! (if the process hasn't already started)/

[GeorgeW]

We used Randy many times when we were still on TAM. Unfortunately, with Epic we have to pay mucho money to have them do a conversion of data into Epic.

[Lynne Desrochers]

We did use Randy. I love him, he's great. I was looking for some guidance on a reasonable time frame to have the majority of it settled.

[Jeff Zylstra]

Excellent advice from Bob.  Whatever you do, I would create customer screens with customer names, addresses and contact information.  That I would convert if possible.  The rest I would do by batch download if possible, or as it renews or is necessary for some other reason (rewrites, etc....).  I like the year long "as it renews" option, simply because it takes the pressure off.   

I would also add that you should really think about getting new apps, estimators and photos if at all possible.  If not this year, then certainly next year.  And have the insureds sign the apps as well, because you have absolutely no idea what kind of "sins" have occurred in the past when writing the accounts, especially if they have been with one company for a long time.  Fix these errors/problems as soon as possible.  And I don't care how good of an underwriter this agent thinks they are, you will find many.

I know it's a pain, but I would contact the companies and see if they will reimburse you for photos and/or inspections.  It's in both of your interests to do so (increased replacement cost, adding coverages, bad roofs, etc....), and your folks will also get a chance to meet their new accounts, impress them with your knowledge and professionalism, and cement that relationship!

[Billy Welsh]

I like the year long "as it renews" option, simply because it takes the pressure off.   

This is exactly the approach we decided on for the Epic conversion.  Rather than a year-long (optimistic) clean up of very dirty TAM data, the CSR's and Producers all agreed to re-do the Acords in Epic as needed, or at renewal if not required before then.  Allowed for much quicker implementation, and less labor costs to convert - with Applied's multiple sweeps through the data, and the condition of our TAM data, it was definitely more efficient to re-enter in Epic.  Some of the detail schedules (autos & drivers among others as I recall, but NOT equipment) could be imported from Excel, after exporting from TAM and cleaning up.

[Kenny Cruzan]

Billy, I was just reading this old thread and came across your post about not doing a TAM conversion to Epic.  We are in the middle of a TAM to Epic conversion and have done two sample data extractions and our system is so dirty.  When we first talked with Applied, we wanted to just run two management systems for 12 months and input customers into Epic at renewal time or when CSR touched the client for some reason or another.  Applied said it would give us a shell management system that might be hard to understand what is what and pushed for the data migration.  I now know why...$$$$$$$$$$$$$

However, we have put our migration on pause right now as we just don't have the man power to make the switch anytime soon.  However, I really like your idea.  Can I contact you and get more information of how you did accounting and other things during the 12 months?

[Billy Welsh]

Absolutely.  E-Mail preferred.

[Joshua Conner]

I would be interested to hear more about your conversion and what you decide to do Kenny.  We are at the very beginning process and I know our tam data isnt clean. 

[Jeff Golas]

We are in the process of converting, and give my vices, I'd never do a conversion. I think the process is just as bad if not worse than the amount of manpower it takes to just re-fill things. It still blows my mind that a company that makes both products and do a 1 > 1 exact conversion, but the problem is over the years agencies have to work around many limitations so the systems are used differently, although I still think the core data and fields should be easy peasy conversions with no dupes or all the other anomalies we run into.

[Billy Welsh]

They could not even get our basic conversion correct, which I found astounding and frustrating.

I mistakenly assumed that the test runs would be reflective of the final process (which they damn well SHOULD be).  So I did not divert any precious manpower to checking the final conversion - it had been devoted to reviewing the test runs, and at the time of go-live it was obviously needed elsewhere.  A week or 2 in we realized that the company address data did not make it - the "extra" addresses in TAM.  They did make it in the test runs.

They had no explanation, and no fix.  Just a "sorry" and "you should have checked it before letting everyone in."

In the big picture not a huge issue, more of an annoyance.  But if it can happen to that data, it can also happen to critical data.

[Joshua Conner]

how big are your firms? 
how long have you been on tam? 
I am trying to gauge how dirty your system is compared to ours.  We are 12 tam licenses and 26 employees have been on tam since 96.

If i pay applied to run both systems at 4 months i have surpassed the conversion fee.  vs running both systems for 12 months I am 28k extra out of pocket.

[Jeff Golas]

You shouldn't be paying for 2 systems, especially if one is in read only mode. Guys when these salespeople come in, YOU TELL THEM how you want things to be done! We're not in business to be their customer, their in business to EARN our business!

[Billy Welsh]

We were (I am no longer there) comparable in size to you as far as licenses/employees.  On TAM since November 1997; converted Oct. or Nov. 2013.

DBF-wise, we were pure commercial, pure contractors.  So transactionally speaking we were low volume compared to a "typical" agency.

TAM was in-house, so theoretically no cost to keep it running in-house read-only.  That being said, they did come back at them with some BS at the one-year Epic anniversary, saying license was gone and they needed to pay more to keep using it in-house.  I do not know how that played out.  Pretty cheesy IMHO.  In theory no longer needed for client data, but it certainly has value for accounting data and reporting given that they convert NOTHING in accounting.

how big are your firms? 
how long have you been on tam? 
I am trying to gauge how dirty your system is compared to ours.  We are 12 tam licenses and 26 employees have been on tam since 96.

If i pay applied to run both systems at 4 months i have surpassed the conversion fee.  vs running both systems for 12 months I am 28k extra out of pocket.