There are two members of the group to which I belong that do not respond to RFIs. I am aware of this because the CMA member is listed as a reference on the credit application so I put out an RFI rather than send a reference. Consistantly there is no response.
My question, therefore, is it proper to not respond to their RFIs?
Have you discussed this with your group secretary? He/She may have some insight into why the member is not responding to RFI's.
I am a CMA member but do not know about this RFI process. How does it work?
I believe the by-laws for CMA membership include providing timely responses to both the group report and the Anscers RFIs as a condition of membership. I would definitely check with your Secretary as sometimes the member is unfamiliar with how Anscers works. It may be a company management policy that is the roadblock whereby the Secretary will have to explain to management how the program must function. Do they not reply to the group report as well? My understanding is that if they do not respond to the Group Report, they are not entitled to a copy.
With consistency in mind, it would seem that if they do not contribute to Anscers, they are not entitled to submit requests or expect them to be answered. The value of this organization is based on reciprocal participation. Personally, I would not respond if there is not a valid reason they are not providing their information. In my mind, members are sharing the workload of compiling a complete credit profile. If they withhold information after you have provided information to them, it gives them a more complete credit picture which becomes an unfair advantage regarding the extension or denial of credit. And you cannot be expected to help them do their job if they do not help you do yours.
We read our Antitrust Compliance Statement monthly and it incorporates the sentence that "... credit ... must be determined strictly by unilateral judgment." But this presupposes that we are all working with the same shared information.
Practically, I would think that regular disregard of your requests could be grounds for expulsion from the group. Otherwise, they can simply read the reports on accounts without having to submit any requests and still garner useful data. It is definitely time to bring in your Secretary.
I understand everyone's concerns on this, but I have very, very rarely gotten 100% responses when I've sent RFI's in the past. The more typical level of response is 40-60%, including those who answer "no history" or some such.
Given the fact of fewer staff, increased workloads and the inclination to take care of credit references after getting money in-house, it's not surprising that fewer people are responding to credit reference requests. That's not to say I agree with it, but everyone in my department is slammed, at, below or above my level. We try to get our responses out quickly, but sometimes that doesn't happen as quickly as we'd like.
IMHO, the best way is to address your concern with the offending party. Maybe they will respond to requests made directly to them, rather than through RFI's. Some of my references respond to requests by referring me to D&B or an industry group, or say that their corporate office won't allow them to provide references. You should find out why they aren't responding, rather than assuming the neglect is malicious.
Another tack is to, as noted above, take note of their non-responsiveness, and not reply to their requests, if any, for RFI's. Expelling a member of the group seems a bit harsh without taking other steps first, or instead.
Scott,
I did not mean to be harsh but... John said they were consistently unresponsive. And he noted that the members are doing business with this common account. On that basis, he needs to bring this matter immediately to the attention of the group Secretary. I agree that you won't always get 100% response and lapses are forgiven. But not consistent non-responsiveness. The biggest and most important element of membership is the exchange of information. If they are not exchanging, what is the value of their continued membership?
We can be sympathetic to their being, as you suggest, short-staffed and slammed with work. But, if we are all in the same boat, then none of us can respond. If you are suggesting that they be "carried" until staffing levels are adequate, that is a palatable thought and I did leave open the possibility that there were legitimate reasons for their non-response. Otherwise, the business fact is that if a member can remain in good standing without contributing, the system breaks down and CMA has no precedent to prevent others from slacking off as well for the very same reasons you cite. If we cannot count on regular contributions of the members but we can count on members using the information we submit, what is the value of our membership? Or put another way, what should we charge for providing the information?
I have another thought regarding penalties for not replying to RFI's. Look at your bylaws for your group. If there is a requirement that RFI's be answered as part of the duties of a group member, then approach it that way with them. Most groups I've been involved with have only required that monthly agings be submitted in order to obtain access to that information.
If it's a significant problem in your group, particularly if a member is getting RFI's from others and declining to act quid pro quo, then suggest to the next meeting that an amendment be made to the bylaws.
I still think ejecting a member for not answering RFI's is draconian and unnecessary, but I also consider answering RFI's to be, at the very least, good manners.
I am also a CMA member and beleive we need more training on the RFI process and how it works?
How are you notified if a RFI is requested from you?
Scott,
The very first sentence of my original comment mentioned checking your group's by-laws. Expelling a member is a last resort measure and only if the other solutions bore no fruit. If a member is not contributing regularly, AFTER sufficient counseling, do you believe they should still retain membership? My group's By-Laws do require a member to contribute regularly to the group report as well as Anscers.
Regularly reporting goes well beyond "good manners" and cannot be implicitly understated. According to our By-Laws, failure to regularly contribute is grounds for expulsion based on the discretion of the group. From this vantage, no amendment is necessary unless it were one to allow a member to disregard RFIs. I would be very surprised to read that the By-Laws of other groups are significantly different. To a great extent my remarks are based upon that assumption.
Your labeling of expulsion as Draconian is a bit of an exaggeration and makes no allowance for the exceptions noted. Like Ms. Huggins above, in my original comment, among other ideas, I offered the suggestion that the member might be unfamiliar with Anscers in which case training was obviously in order.
Above all, I would be extremely interested in the views of CMA since, in my opinion, continuation of the Anscers program hinges on the mandated regular contributions of its members. If there is no legitimate reason for a member's failure to contribute, is it "Draconian and unnecessary" for them to be expelled or even to have the notion dangled in front of them?
What is the official position of CMA? I see nothing on the site map providing any guidance on requirements for membership, only the benefits and the costs. I do not see a recitation of our orally given monthly statements. Why aren't they, along with a By-Laws template shown as part of the requirements? They should act as qualifiers and a comfort rather than a deterrent to any potential member. If my specific group's By-Laws are less forgiving and a detriment to membership, perhaps we should weaken them. The question arises whether weakening the By-laws would result in a) a greater number of members, albeit some who are nominal or b) greater defection by active members, dissatisfied with contributing without reciprocity.
If it is not an enforceable requirement, I will gladly read the reports of my fellow members and compare to my undisclosed records to make credit decisions. It would be much less work to contribute and the safety of my accounting records and client list would be assured.
From CMA - some information to aid the discussion.
The RFI process is a building block of many future goals for CMA. We recognize that its value increases as more members particpate in information sharing. The RFI process is available to companies that are not in groups, but right now group members are the biggest users.
CMA is going to increase the training available on the RFI process through Free webinars (one scheduled May 10) and video demo (coming soon). Most lack of usage is from lack of knowledge of the process.
Each group does have different by-laws. Most follow a common template, but some have greatly deviated from that template depending on the amount of meetings, type of industry etc. Posting the Group by-laws on the CreditManagementAssociation.org (a public site without a login requirement) site - would expose the groups. We have been considering adding a link to group bylaws on each group home page in anscers.com.
Creating and enforcing group bylaws of contribution is really dependent on the group personality. We have several groups that go by the letter of the bylaw, and vote to eject members - and others that use them as a warning. It has long been CMA's approach to allow the group to create its own image - within the scope of our services and anti-trust guidelines.
CMA actively solicits full AR contributions, group report contributions, past due contributions, and RFI contributions. Increasing AR data submitted and participation by members on anscers.com is one of our main goals.
Each user on anscers.com has agreed to anscers Terms & Conditions (there is a link at the bottom of every page) which include the three statements read at every group meeting.
John,
In my new position at CMA of Supervisor of Industry Credit Groups, one of my priorities is to emphasis the importance of submitting and responding to RFI's and entering Alerts to all group members.
As Dina indicated, we are holding our first FREE Industry Group Training Webinar on Monday, May 10th at 9AM PST. This webinar will point out the value of these 2 services and the need for all group members to participate to maximize the benefits.
As an example of how effective alerts and RFI's can be, one of our construction networks has reported over $1,000,000 in alerts for 3 months in a row and members have been able to reduce their third party credit reporting contracts through the industry specific information they receive through group RFI's. The members of this network participate and receive value 30 days/month.
I would be happy to hold a specific training session for any group that would like to take further advantage of these features.
Larry Convoy
Supervisor-ICG
818-972-5323
lconvoy@emailcma.org
In my group we have about 50% response to the RFI's and they are just about always the same 50% that respond most every time. The rest I guess don't take or have the time. I imagine that some of us are much more overwhelmed than others. But it's a shame to have such a valuable tool overlooked by half of the group. Even though the responses seem to be "no experience" in a lot of cases, it would be great to get an answer from everyone so that perhaps you don't need to keep searching for other references all the time.
Dina,
Thanks for weighing in on the discussion.
In our group, our secretary Alana Riner does a admirable job of communicating and training newbies. I assume that the secretaries for other groups do a similarly fine job. So I would assume that, in the long run, lack of training is not the major impediment to RFI responses.
While it is important to know "How" to use Anscers, perhaps equal emphasis should be placed on the "Why" it is important to respond and the obligation and responsibility of the member to do so.
But regardless of the reason, I conclude that each group must make their own decisions on what constitutes the minimum participation level. The secretaries can do little more than nudge members to contribute.
I do note in the Terms and Conditions that there is a "version" of two of the statements but not the Anti-Defamation Statement (although practically I assume that since CMA reviews comments before they are posted, this statement is considered unnecessary in the Terms and Conditions.
What I am curious about is when did members logging on give their agreement to abide by these Terms and Conditions? I don't see it as a requirement when I log on? Was it done the first time I became a user?
Guy,
It was about 5 months back when we started enforcing Terms & Conditions acceptance as a prerequisite to using the anscers.com system.
When we put it in place, all current users were prompted on their first log in (after it was launched) to read and accept them in order to continue. New users have to accept the Terms at registration. Since you were already a user at the time - your message would have been the pop up at log in. Those messages can come and go pretty quickly - so you might not remember seeing it.
We set it up this way so that if we have to expand on our terms in the future - we can use that same procedure of prompting at the next log in.
Your note on the importance of "Why" to use anscers - is pretty much what I am preaching now. Once the user agrees with the Why then teaching them How is a lot easier - and makes more sense.
I belong to the group that Larry was discussing above; it takes a village, to make sure that everyone is doing their part. I have seen RFI's clear with in 2 hours of receiving the email about that RFI.
Most of us stay in contact though the month by phone or email when we have a question regarding and alert or RFI. Since CMA as changed, the web site, it is easy and effective for responding to the RFI with just a click of one button if you have no experience and just a few clicks away if you have experience.
Our group does a monthly meeting reminder at the end of each meeting to fill out the Alerts and RFI. You would be amazed that if you discuss this with group members each meeting how quickly the see the benefits of participating.
What I find unfortunate is that we are only limited to our group and can not cross over in to other groups RFI’s and alerts. You would be amazed at how many of our customers are your customers. There should be a genre, for all groups to be placed into, so when it comes to the web ie: Construction, Food, Chemical etc… then you are in you particular group for the meetings, but you can go to the web for the genre for your industry and see if there is anyone that you can assist on their RFI and or Alerts. Just a thought
You must log in to post.
Copyright 2011 - Credit Management Association