I’ve looked at some estimating software and actually used three products (Xactimate, Simsol, National Construction Estimator). Powerclaim I haven’t seen.

Xactimate is the gold standard. It has been accepted by insurance carriers (at least on the West Coast) to the point where they specify in their job descriptions for property personnel that they be proficient in Xactimate. So like it or not, property adjusters are almost compelled to learn to use it. Actually, there isn’t much to not like.

The latest version incorporates the original version as a module without the "sketch" capability, but includes the sketch capability for those who want to use it. Sketch is very high end. It creates estimates while preparing sketches in 2D or 3D. Unlike CAD software, it is surprisingly easy to use. But all the same, the combination of sketching and dimensioning, entering line items, etc., can be a bit daunting. You really need to plan on doing some training. The original version module inside is simpler. The original organization, involving working off of a list of codes which need to be learned or looked up, is retained throughout. But a list of codes can be pulled up with a keystroke, so the lookup isn't a major task.

Simsol eliminates the code lookup. Everything is on the screen. It does a lot of administrative file management organization for you. Actually, you can use it to run the entire IA office, at least property-wise. You can do some work arounds to manage casualty files also. Once you put in the information on the claim, you can create various forms, such as Proof of Loss, without re-typing.

National Construction Estimator costs less than $50, compared with a license rental of over $100/month for each of the two above. It is a book with a CD containing the information in the book. But it does not do depreciation, and compared to the others is clunky. Also, area multipliers have to be entered manually as far as I can see. It’s a lot for $50, but a whole lot less than the others in features. Depending on the client’s expectations, it might not be acceptable. Prices vary depending on whether it is new construction or insurance repair–you need to buy the correct book/CD.

The other program by MSB (Marshall Swift-Boeckh), I tried when they were two companies competing with different products. At that time their programs were less user friendly than the then-DOS version of Xactimate. You had to choose from a list of codes that was more exacting. My impression at the time, based partly on experiences with carriers, was that the insurance company didn’t feel it was getting full value out of the adjuster unless it chose the most difficult program–therefore explaining the then-preference of carriers for other than Xactimate. Since then the carriers seem to have come around to prefer Xactimate. I did spend a little time with demo versions of the MSB products and recall that they were more dense but also had more depth in the administrative support features. By the way, the most recent demo version of Xactimate had very little add-on management features that I could see, though maybe they are available or were left out of the demo.

Your comments suggest a "real world" view. However, you don’t seem to have much familiarity with the insurance repair business. Today estimating software is the beginning and just about the end of everything. Xactimate is the gold standard.

Your comments sound like they come from somebody who is not comfortable with estimating software programs. Nothing to fear, really. In the hands of a reasonable adjuster/appraiser, just a tool. If the carrier rep is not reasonable or competent, then it will work out through the appraisal process, but can still be based on the estimating software–generated estimate.

Insurance carriers are very concerned with documentation. Contractor "proposals", if you mean lump sum bids, you can forget. If you want insurance jobs, you have to play by the insurance carrier rules–unless you want to try to shove a job down the carrier’s throat, and even then, it will have to withstand evaluation through the appraisal process, and obviously this approach will not earn you much return business if the carrier/adjuster/agent have anything to say about it. The carrier is paying for the work and is entitled to know what it is paying for, with reasonable detail.

Few carriers will simply compare two lump sum bids and pay on the lower. This is actually a positive for the contractor who wants to be paid for the work he does. For the contractor who sees bidding a job as a toss at the c**p table, it probably won’t work.

This is not to say that the factors you outline are to be dismissed–they simply have to be documented/described/quantified and included in the estimate. This will need to be done within the computerized estimate in some manner, if only by a note, a scope, a figure, and an attached addendum.

The estimating software companies put a lot of effort into making their figures as accurate as they can–see my earlier message about accuracy as the number one feature I look for in a program. You can drill down and find a lot that has gone into the pricing that doesn’t show on the surface.

However, no software program is going to anticipate exactly all the special factors that you may encounter on a particular job. There is always room for adjustment/customization in the program. A large or complex job (the type you seem to describe) may have adjustments based on special engineering considerations, for example. The software will accommodate whatever real world adjustments the claims rep and the contractor agree on, and can document/describe.

Estimating software is a tool, not magic. It provides a framework. It is really no more than the basic process of estimating, from scope to price. Anything can be worked into it. The discipline is that it is basically quantity-oriented (unit cost oriented). Carriers are bean-counters, and they need beans to count. It can be done as "pure cost" (labor and material without unit cost breakdown). Unit costs and pure costs are convertible to each other. Unit costs are no better than the pure costs that they are based on. The carriers are committed to this process because it tells them what they are paying for. Simple as that. Tell them what they are paying for. The estimating software mechanizes the process.

I started out writing insurance property estimates before computerized estimating. It wasn’t basically any different. Scope–price–extension–sub-totals, global add-ons (OH&P, clean up, etc.), total.

Certain factors are not what I would call cognizable. Such as your mention of "They don't want your work and will bid very high". That is not a real bid, that is a go to h*ll bid. Contractors that are committed to the long haul will not make go to h*ll bids. Not surprisingly, carriers and

You seem very knowledgable of estimating software and of how the real world works.  Your comments are right on!  After considering what I wrote and your response, I think I may have come accross too harsh.  In reality estimating software is a tool and the tool can be adapted to fit most any scenario (even the 'well that is the price in my town' attitude.)

Jim, I think your take on estimating software is the practical view. While Mr. Brooks shared his views on some of the packages he has used/reviewed it is clear estimating software is kind of like a good hammer. Its functional value is determined by who is swinging it and not by who made it.

Clearly being the oldest package on the market Xactimate currently has a large base of uses and is required by some of the major carriers in many cases. Symbility out of Canada is the last player to hit the market and has already been sued by Xactimate so clearly Xactimate see them as a future threat. We (Hawkins Research, Inc.) introduced PowerClaim XML (www.powerclaim.com) to the market in 1998 and before Symbility came out was the youngest player. 

The tail that wags the dog is not the estimating tool but the price database. As you pointed out database pricing lacks in the ability to be correct for a specific job. However on average they do a good job. :)

The contractor needs prices that permit a fair profit because they have to live or die by their bids. Insurance adjusters do not have to live or die by their estimates and they use estimating software to produce a fast guess at what the repairs “may” cost and the differences in the end can be handled as a supplement if more damages are found by the contractor. 

Like most estimating software vendors we offer a free thirty day trial so contractors and adjusters have the real thing to use in their own working environment. Software preferences are very subjective and often what we know is better than the package we have yet to learn. Prices for complete estimating systems that include diagramming and attaching photos cost from $600 to $1400 per year per user. 

As was pointed out Symbility has taken an internet/pay per claim approach that has yet to be proven as acceptable over the long haul. For the strom adjuster who could start 200 claim files in a 30 day period would be billed $1000 for the use of Symbility. Software developers often get more excited about the technology than functionality which is dangerous for a company. Users are only looking for function and that is the only thing that will get them to turn loose of their money.

Hello Gale,

"Its functional value is determined by who is swinging it and not by who made it."

The value of a program is the sum of what it has to offer and what the user has to offer.

A great user with a bum program will not realize his potential.

A great program ... you get the idea.

"Insurance adjusters do not have to live or die by their estimates and they use estimating software to produce a fast guess at what the repairs "may" cost and the differences in the end can be handled as a supplement if more damages are found by the contractor. "

The reason you have arrived at the "fast guess" scenario is that you have overlooked the "agreed cost" step. The adjuster, the contractor, and sometimes the owner/insured sign off on (1) the scope and (2) the pricing

The supplement you mention is for hidden damages after scoping and pricing. "Change orders" can come in at this point also, but may be for upgrades which are not covered. If the contractor is covering himself he will probably do a "change order" even when the adjuster authorizes a supplement.

I understand that the correct process just outlined sometimes is not followed by property adjusters working from a desk, on limited information, or who simply aren’t doing things right, as in inexperienced/poorly trained. You may have encountered this.

Back to living and dying, the property adjuster does live and die by his scope and pricing. That is really where the rubber meets the road for the adjuster. His credibility with the insured and his job performance evaluation are at stake in this regard.

The adjuster has signature authority which is based on his company’s confidence in his ability to spend its money carefully and competently. Fairness to the insured is also a consideration. Agents and company sales managers watch out for the insured.

This all comes down to coverage knowledge and the ability to scope and price. The carrier’s confidence in an adjuster (and his signature authority) can be a fragile thing–if the adjuster’s estimate is wrong on scope, on pricing, or on coverage, he can live or die on that.

I’ll be checking out PowerClaim. Thanks.

EB

Anyone that has used MSB IntegriClaim for ANY time--- WILL throw rocks(and anything else that can be found) at Exactimate....I have used both and just WHY anyone on God's Green earth would EVEN WANT to use anything else except MSB is beyond earthy comprehension!!!

Would like to send a FREE trial of MSB IntegriClaim for your own assessments.

pfernand.......

pfernand,

As I often say, “Technology is going to be the death of us all.”

I believe the four most important things to look at when comparing the estimating systems currently available in the marketplace are ease of use, technical and customer support, and pricing data.  Xact is the 800-lb gorilla in this space and many adjusters and restoration professionals are mandated to use it if they want claims or restoration work.  Let's leave these folks out for this discussion.