It's always nice when you can help someone out. This particular client needed to find someone quickly and one simple search conducted while the client was still on the phone got the information they needed. The search only cost me a few dollars and I was happy to help at no charge.
When you then get such a nice email in return, it's thanks enough.
There is an increasing trend by insurers to use a lesser number of investigation agencies and rely on large (often national) agencies for the conduct of their work. WorkCover Queensland recently reduced their investigation panel members from six to three. Whereas there was previously several smaller firms that provided specialised surveillance services exclusively, the three selected large national firms now provide both surveillance and factual investigations.
No doubt there are logistical and other corporate reasons for choosing to go the “lesser and bigger” route. But it does make me wonder whether this will, in time, be seen to have been the correct decision. In fact, several large insurers have started to reverse their policies in this regard. Whilst there will always be some degree of variation in the quality of service that any agency produces, a common theme I have been hearing is that the larger firms seem to have a somewhat “sausage factory” mentality. Get the job in, done and back with little apparent regard for results or quality of service.
Maybe I’m wrong, but being “all things, to all people, everywhere” seems like an extremely difficult business model to achieve and an even harder one to maintain.
I’ve given some recent thought to what the pros and cons are to choosing a larger firm over a smaller one.
Listen to some jazz whilst reading