Mark Sollis

Hi Mar - and welcome to the Forum!

I think the issue is that the error message will be best investigated by OGI. I've never seen that one - but maybe some other live users may be able to assist. Other than checking the document filename / length of filename for the template and / or the trigger document - it would be best to log with OGI

Sorry I cant help - but sometimes its just a program error! - Oh - do check you are on the latest Vs of OpenSuite products - and especially ALL client software (each PC) is also upto date - that often causes random issues like this  (and OGI will say to check / upgrade as a first step anyway)

Let us know the outcome!

Public Service Announcement

As an independent Consultant, I have over the last few weeks had calls from a number of brokers asking how they can operate best during the lock-down & how they can service customers more easily

We all need to get through this together & one of the things I wanted to do in some way, was to help people across my networks - no strings attached

So I'm launching an offer of a FREE phone call with REMOTE HELP covering any aspect of your OpenGI system and / or broker business functions. This also includes business related products such as Microsoft applications, as well as helping you look at long term income generating options with better marketing and use of social media

There's never been a better time to set the foundations of your future business - right here right now

This is a limited availability offer and a number of daily call slots are allocated FCFS basis over the next few weeks. If I can't help directly then I'll be happy to advise best routes to get your pain sorted. If you could use some system help, process advice - or just need a quick answer to an urgent issue, then get in touch. If you are a valued User Group Member we have agreed to offer twice the allocated time to assist.

No strings. No Fees. No catch.

Leave your details at the link here and I'll be in touch by return

#karma #network #freehelp

#OFP

#resultsdontlie

Great news - glad to hear some sense has been applied  

I'll drop you a PM here as well - #thoughts 

On 27/02/2020 at 14:52, jstill said:

Has anyone else had this issue and/or found a solution?  I don't want to disabled the access hist export as we use the data for a few things.

Hi James - any updates on this - really interested to see what the outcome was

And FYI for anyone in the same position - I've actually defined the solution that actually works  - happy days!

On 28/02/2020 at 11:55, Mark Sollis said:

The whole campaign around (and upgrade cost of) ICP was so that bulk insert wasn't required and a data refresh was the exception not the rule. It's what everyone paid for on the upgrade. We need to help OGI get this right and get it fixed to do what it's supposed to do

On 28/02/2020 at 14:26, Mark Sollis said:

Agree - It should be noted however, that the ICP upgrade was promoted (sold?) on the basis the new features meant it wouldn't need a refresh when new tables / frames / insurers / execs were added - so would question any need in those circumstances tbf. 

Adding new fields does not (should not!) require a bulk insert. If it's the case that anyone needs to, then a fix is required from Open GI imho.

The whole premise for th£ upgrad£ to IC "PLUS" was to solv£ the n££d for bulk ins£rts when - tables (frames) were added, fields were changed or, new VT entries made (insurers etc)

We all have to demand the best solution and get OGI / help OGI to fix what is broken - otherwise it will never change and we will all be running bulk inserts everyday for the rest our lives - which is what we did before ICPlus was launched. #petpeeves 

2 hours ago, jstill said:

- do not change a keyword name

Wellllllllllllll I'm not sure #OpenGI "support" keyword changes - I suspect it's an oversight  but can be useful for sure. Strange that the ICP table is OK but the view is failing - why does 'SELECT * FROM' need to know the column names 

2 hours ago, jstill said:

new fields being added do not get pushed to ICP

Yep - sounds like a fault feature that needs to be resolved

Hi all

Anyone using Sanctions check in anger?

Had an issue which I couldn't fully resolve or pinpoint where the list is often short of name data. On closer inspection the names are blank when the Forename is not completed (often the case on non-writer products) - and the report seems to "assume" that if there is no forename, then the BCM.Name is irrelevant / not used / not printed. I'm probably completely wrong - 

I suggested they raise with OGI - just wondered if this is a known factor across the user base?

#askingforafriend

20 minutes ago, Marc Pons-Burt said:

Mark Sollis I'm assuming these lead times should resolve once ICP is running as intended and without the repeated full updates?

Correct - but as @JamesStill says - there are issues if refresh/insert is not run at least weekly which is what he is having to do. The whole point of ICP was this is not a requirement

So - I'm with you - that this is a "fault" if problems occur with replication of data - and should be reported to get fixed. Otherwise, its not doing what it's supposed to be doing . Meanwhile - James still need's a solution.

Speak to the Account Manager - on both counts and shelve the £xx,000 estimates

6 minutes ago, Marc Pons-Burt said:

First off, as far as I understand it and for me that has to be layman's terms for ICP, the system only updates the changes to the system, thereby using minimal system resources?  It definitely shouldn't need a complete refresh unless you're enquiring on new frames that have just been added? 

Agree - It should be noted however, that the ICP upgrade was promoted (sold?) on the basis the new features meant it wouldn't need a refresh when new tables / frames / insurers / execs were added - so would question any need in those circumstances tbf. 

Yes - once in a blue Monday moon to make sure all is in synch - but low level hiccups should be managed by the app and it's processes to "catch up" any missing changes

6 minutes ago, Marc Pons-Burt said:

However, when I had my training, I was told to use "Views" rather than "Tables" when I was setting up my reports.

As far as the views go, you are correct to maximise performance on SQL tables of a size - but this won't solve the transfer times described by @JamesStill

Just needs a bit of lateral thinking to get the right solution at the right cost. Just seems a knee-jerk "Ch***zillion" estimate for a solution that probably could be done better and at lower cost if the issue was better investigated and scoped 

Thanks @JamesStill - all makes sense 

3 hours ago, jstill said:

1.  Occasionally data doesn't go into IC tables.  There's a blip in the connection or maybe there's a SQL error (usually from a trigger (which we no longer use)) which rolls the change back.  A data refresh will push any missing records from OpenGI into SQL.  I have also found a few instances of ghost records, where records are in SQL but not in OpenGI and the data refresh doesn't fix them

Thennnnnnnnnn thats a fault then isn't it?!  If the current ICP solution provides a real time transactional reporting database - then it should operate and be performant. The whole campaign around (and upgrade cost of) ICP was so that bulk insert wasn't required and a data refresh was the exception not the rule. It's what everyone paid for on the upgrade. We need to help OGI get this right and get it fixed to do what it's supposed to do - no help to you right now though ...

3 hours ago, jstill said:

We've been quoted 3 days for investigation / spec and 8-11 days dev cost to build it, which seems excessive given the relative simplicity of what's required.

Your SQL code example in the OP takes up 5 lines of code. BCPL won't be much different IMHO - but I shouldn't question the detail. But yep - 14 days all in @ £x thousands per day + VAT is a lot of dosh for the equivalent 5 lines in BCPL. 

If I was asking a builder to quote for an extension - I'd like to see the basis of the quote - so I could understand the complexities. Obviously to arrive at a figure there must be some finger in the air guestimate of the work involved. So what is the Schedule Of Works expected upon which their figure is based. No different to a code build - what are the steps and what are the associated estimate for each. Its a fair question if someone is about to spend that sort of money.

For a discussion with a developer on other options

• What if the extract of the BAH was done offline - from the backup file set - and then used to populate / overwrite the SQL BAH table separately?

OR

• How easy is it to have a new (VSAM) table that is a subset of the BAH and holds data based on a Broker Amendment parameter of n Yrs. I wouldn't be surprised if this was 5 days effort all in ...

3 hours ago, jstill said:

We're in discussions on the GDPR front now as the functions in OpenGI aren't really any good to us. 

The whole purge issue is one that needs looking at and I believe some of this work is being considered - worth persuing to establish the scope of change in plan / being planned to make sure it is fit for today's integrated environments i.e. IC/ICP wasnt really around when purging was such a hot topic

22 hours ago, Mark Sollis said:

I presume the bottlenecks were investigated before the "custom solution" was proposed?

Whatever the position I'd explore this route first - and if OGI haven't done so or explained why that file is taking so long, then they should. If a dedicated SDD fixes this - then that will be a 3 figure solution, not a multiple of 5 (I'm being optimistic I know, but the principle holds true)

If all else fails, one option could be to split the extract file processing. The default initialises the DB but "maybe" it's possible to only initialise a table (in the pre-sql script) and then extract just the BAH table weekly. I'm sure those options have been considered by OGI as lower cost alternative solution .... and maybe they have and dismissed it for good reason. Another fair question though...

Overall - a very tech product / area and in reality, only OGI can provide the right solution regardless of my ramblings which are nothing more than conjecture. So there has to be some reliance on and trust given to, the tech provider. Nothing comes for free and you just have to be happy you are getting a fair deal. If it was my business though, I'd still be asking for all the options, alternatives and a best guess breakdown of all costs - and my "supplier" would need to justify their numbers

Hope the above helps and let us know how you get on and what route / solution you end up taking

Hi James - hope you are well!! Great question and I'd be glad to offer some options / advice if I can ...

First off - 

1 - Why are you doing a data refresh?

2 - What is the "custom solution" (i.e. what is the proposed development that will be completed) and what is the cost?

3 - In any event, if you purged the associated Client Policy files prior to 2015 on the server - presume the log would be pruned too - obvs? 

#interestingtopic 

PS - nothing, Nothing, NOTHING, NOTHING in our world should take 12 hours to process a single file. Your full back-up OF EVERYTHING doesn't take that long - I presume the bottlenecks were investigated before the "custom solution" was proposed?

@Tom Davies

@karl

@maskelleto

Well that seems strange!!!

whats the point of having an agreement between parties if those parties are not entitled to know what the agreement is 

I’ll make sure we clarify at the April meeting. 

Meanwhile, it would be good to know “what” information will be acceptable to the auditors. They are the ones asking the questions - so what are the questions they want answered? Then we can put those to OGI for their response. 
 

#lefthandrighthand

Hi Clare

Sorry if your original message went unanswered - I'll try and track down what happened to that!

Meanwhile FYI - OGI confirmed that they had responded to Diarmuid and provided detail on the Escrow and how it would be activated. As the Escrow document is held by OGI until such an event occurs, then anyone requiring further info should enquire via their Account Manager in the same way. 

I am aware that the User Group will be publishing some headline info for reference only - but ultimately the source will be Open GI for the full and best answers on this

Hope this helps

Hi Vanessa

Couldn't possibly comment on specific contracts or potential tactics - and certainly not in a Pubic Forum!! However ....

• All businesses driven by sales are prepared to negotiate. Particularly when it's for software they "own" and without any significant "support" overhead. 
• All businesses have to make money - that's why they exist - but how much is too much
  • What's the comparison of cost to these extra licences Vs the existing ones?
• All businesses have sales cycles - so when is the Month End and will the discount go up the closer to Month End you get?
• All businesses have a Year End - so will the discount go up the closer to Year End you get?
• All businesses will negotiate for a bundle - is there anything else you can get thrown in for nearly "free" to make the overall cost worthwhile?

I'm sure others have been in a similar position and maybe they can offer some nuggets. Unfortunately it's sometimes down to what the price is "on the day" - as you have already found. Not ideal - but it can depend on what sway you have - and the contract you already have in place. Pricing flex (to extreme) is not unknown in the OGI sales kit-bag - whether that continues to be the case in the future no one knows. 

Drop me a message if I can help further

M

Hi Diarmuid

The Escrow is owned by Open GI - the User Group have exclusive access / beneficiaries should an event occur. If you need a copy of the current document, you will probably need to go via your Account Manager. Meanwhile, I'll ask the User Group Committee to raise with OGI at the next meeting to confirm correct approach and contact points if Members require open access to the document - it shouldn't be a secret

Hi Mark

Pretty sure Motor can be produced from APM - but Home needs a record in Core back office. It's the crazy world of OGI quirks I'm afraid - a result of some poor decision making a long while ago

If I'm off the mark, or there are some alternatives, I'm sure someone will post up some options

M

17 hours ago, Mark Hallam said:

Is it possible to produce a Proposal Form or SoF in prospect without having to create a record in Core?

Which line of business Mark?

MotorWriter works differently to Home/Truck/Bike

You can always create your own of course - for any LOB - but not sure if that's what you are asking?

Thanks @John Tasker

Bet that took some narrowing down

So - is that to do with the rendering process in OPM do you think - re order / time taken to render? Either way - good spot - and you may want to pass to OGI for a few $$££€€  

(Hope you are well!)

I doubt it - and I doubt anyone ever will - until someone comes a-hunting - or an-auditing

Hi @Val interesting question 

The bottom line is that in the OGI accounts system it is 99% impossible to have an incorrect entry - unless the system crashes in the middle of and accounts process - or there is a genuine system fault introduced (rare). Even then - it resets itself at Month End - with a Ledger Discrepancy. So. Unless youi have had a Month End discrepancy somewhere in the process the "correct" changes have been made to the journals / ledgers - although the result means an incorrect balance on the client in question. Just go and use that entry to offset against your clients record

The real reason why this is sometimes difficult to fix however, is that on OGI, you can delete transactions - and not leave an on screen trace that they were ever there. So. The balancing adjustment may have been against a transaction that is no longer on screen / on the ledger. This is why Batch Calcs may not work in this case - because it wont be there - let alone I suspect you wont have that software and as above, can be tricky to code up.

If you are not happy with just writing this off to fees (by creating a charge / negative charge) to balance the client account (which is what I would do), then you only have one other option - you need to find the original items - which will be a pain.

Either 

• Check the setting in Premium Finance which uses a "dummy" client account for offsetting errors
  • Check the settings file and have a look at those records first
• If no joy, go through every cashbook since raising the original transaction and find ALL entries relating to the original record and / or dummy record
  • It will be there - you just have to find it

If you have and can use InfoCentre - that makes life easier - otherwise its a manual traaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawl.

Overall a bit disappointed - but not surprised - that OGI wont help. It's their Finance software after all - and they know how it would write off balances - and where / which ledger account it goes to and how to quickly fix - if they could be bothered. Poor show really ....

Anyway - Good luck and hope this helps

M

Hi Gavin - good to see you on the Forum

Without knowing what software OGI have suggested I probably can’t answer your question fully - so apologies for a bounce back on this - but it's important ...

1 -

Ask OGI what software they are suggesting / name of

2 -

Ask if it will produce every cashbook for the last year in one go, without doing each one individually (I'm interpreting that that is one of the main issues / pains you have)

3 - 

Ask them to show you the format / example output you will get - and whether you will have to do any work on that output file to get what your accountant needs

All too easy for suppliers in general, to offer solutions without fully understanding the actual pain, the real requirement and, the best alternative options for comparison - so you need to be fully informed. I’m sure I’m closer to what you need (from your brief post) than your supplier in full conversation -#maybe 

Come back and let us know once they provide the info and we can go from there. If they have the right solution for what you need out of the box, I think every OGI Broker will want it ...

PM / Mail me if you prefer - happy to assist / advise further

See post here also referring to CNP position from Barclaycard CNP Charges - Barclaycard

On 21/07/2019 at 10:30, Mark Sollis said:

I understand you have a choice with Open Suite settings as to how the document is generated to OPM. Some "OpenAttach users (VC equivalent) generate word documents rather than PDF - so the Open GI side of things is flexible with either format.

Seems we agree KM - Thanks for the specific reference and note from your experiences with VC! 

Bore da Delwyn - hope you are well

There are a few points here and suspect I'm not close enough to the underlying issues raised by BMS to answer fully. However ...

1. Card Not Present (CNP) or Mail Order Telephone Order (MOTO) transactions are specific payment types recognised by merchant services accounts. These carry a higher risk of fraud - and consequently, most service accounts have a higher charge cost per transaction using this method.
2. Conversely, Card Present transactions are more secure and most service accounts have a lower cost per transaction

Both methods above are equally "compliant" subject to the underlying methods and processes

I suspect the issue is that you are processing all these as CNP and BMS are querying this because it doesn't reflect the method used to take payment. I would need some convincing by a PCI compliance expert that this is actually "non compliant" - more it is just an incorrect use of the service. 

What would happen if you asked your customer to go outside and ring back to the office so that you could process them as CNP? Crazy I know ... 

I'm not sure whether OGI have a CVV option and/or whether this is available with Monek. But this would be the required F2F process - but may need a separate account from BMS anyway (?)

I am sure however, that there are many OGI brokers just like yourselves that do F2F and CNP processing - none of whom use Card Terminals for F2F. Its ridiculous!

Can I suggest you speak with OGI in the first instance and ask them how they would respond. Also, ring a few other friendly OGI brokers and see what they do / who the use. Finally, speak to other Merchant service providers direct and ask if they would be happy to have a generic CNP process, even if the customer was in your office.

I hope some other users will be able to provide input here - coal face users are the best users

Get in touch direct if you need any further input - and do keep us updated on here.

Thanks

M

Hi Clare

Yes - disappointing that many come here to ask questions rather than answer others - but that's kind of what we are here for and we're OK with that. As long as people get help of some sort 

I still believe the answer to your issue is either the OPM output needs to be changed in the settings config (to save as word) and/or the VC process then needs to save as word also - not PDF. So two points to check which I'm sure will resolve your issue. 

I think @Kate Meakin use VC so maybe she can help further

M