An update on the MLS Vendor Search Task Force by CCIAOR President-Elect Greg Murphy

Gregory MurphyI wanted to update you on the progress of the MLS Vendor Search Task Force. Our task force, which I chaired, has spent the last several months reviewing member surveys, looking at industry data and talking to some of the leading experts to get a sense of where the Multiple Listing Service industry is moving and the issues surrounding it. The task force has had seven meetings dealing with vendors to identify the membership’s top needs and how best to meet those needs.

The need to look at our MLS vendor has been a year and a half process. It started with identifying that need in the MLS Business Plan based on factors with our current vendor beyond our control, and it continued with the call for volunteers and a task force that took 3 months to look at the options and industry trends to evaluate and come up with a recommendation about where we need to go as an organization. The process included several member forums where the topic was discussed and the ability for members to weigh in with their opinion.

Through our review of member surveying and data, the task force identified three needs our current MLS vendor or any future vendor would need to meet:

Speed – a system must be quick on all devices and that extends to the time it takes to do a search, create a report or just simply find a listing. The statement that kept coming back from the membership and the task force was, “no matter where I am I just want to be able to find a listing as quick as my client can.” We agree and identified that sentiment as the top priority.

Mobility – a system must be able to be accessed and used from every device at any time. If you add a contact on the desktop, it shows up on your tablet. If you save a search on your phone, it is there on your desktop. And you should be able to send a listing quickly and easily to any client at any time and they can view it from any device – whether it be a desktop, tablet or a phone.

Ease – a system must be intuitive, easy to use and to understand. It must make it easier for our members to do business and be easy for our clients to see, view and collaborate with their REALTOR®.

Our task force has wrapped up its work and is making a recommendation to the Board of Directors. However, we are only in the middle of a long process. The Board of Directors has authorized the CEO and legal counsel to begin negotiations with the MLS Vendor Search Task Force’s preferred recommendation.

Any decision the Board of Directors makes will not take effect until next year and we promise we’ll continue to communicate and hold forums and trainings for any changes we make to the system.

2017-05-05T20:26:44+00:00

14 Comments

  1. Richard Eble July 6, 2016 at 3:17 pm - Reply

    Why not sit down with MLS PIN and sign a contract instead of moving to a new vendor?

    • rcastle July 6, 2016 at 9:16 pm - Reply

      Dick,

      This was discussed by the Board of Directors prior to undertaking this initiative. However, in all surveys, CCIMLS has conducted over the last several years, REALTORS who are members of both CCIMLS and MLS PIN overwhelmingly preferred CCIMLS’s software. So, the Board of Directors given that data said there is no reason to look at what is considered by our members as inferior software to what we currently provide.

      However, in the same CCIMLS Business Plan, that said we should explore our software vendor options – we also prioritized the elimination of double entry of listings for those members who belong to both CCIMLS and MLS PIN. However, when CCIMLS offered a solution to MLS PIN to fix double entry, MLS PIN responded that they had no interest in working with CCIMLS on this issue. I would say if double entry is a priority to a member, then talk to MLS PIN leadership and get them on board with that.

      Thanks for the question.

      – Ryan Castle

  2. Marietta Nilson July 6, 2016 at 3:36 pm - Reply

    Thanks for your message and thanks for this quick way to offer a response.

  3. Deborah Schilling July 6, 2016 at 6:50 pm - Reply

    Thanks for update and for service of task force members. I am sure it was a long and difficult job with many hours committed to it. I will not be one of those who ‘second guess’ decision, but hoping whatever is next is more reliable and better across all platforms. Maybe all MLS vendors are challenged and Rappatoni has worked over the years and at least brought us into the new millenium with functionality if not the complete reliability we always hope for
    Just a thank you to acknowledge all parties’ time and efforts to keep CCIAOR MLS moving forward.
    Deborah Schilling , CRS, GRI, ABR

  4. Kate Rimkus July 7, 2016 at 11:44 am - Reply

    Thank you to all the committee members. I too have served on one and know the time and effort it requires and how the recommended result never makes everyone happy. So thank you in advance.

    I served as an IT Project Manager for a global company and one thing I learned, sometimes painfully, is that you do NOT change software unless there are MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR advantages perceived by the END USER not by management. I hope that “rule” will be followed here.

    The one thing I am sure of is that every agent I have ever spoken to hates MLS PIN (including me) and I shudder to think that may be under consideration.

  5. Karen Bradley July 7, 2016 at 2:48 pm - Reply

    I really appreciate the update and all the hard work everyone on the committee has done

  6. Tracey Oringer July 7, 2016 at 3:05 pm - Reply

    Could it be that MLS-Pin is considered inferior because we don’t use it very often and don’t know it as well as CCIMLS? I hate having 2 different systems.

    • rcastle July 7, 2016 at 7:25 pm - Reply

      Tracey,

      We agree that double entry is an issue and we’re committed to solving it. But the MLS system we use is not a barrier as it is not a technology issue for us (you would have to ask MLS PIN if it is a technology barrier for them) – rather an unwillingness from MLS PIN to work with us that prevents a solution.

  7. Susan Baker July 9, 2016 at 1:51 am - Reply

    I sincerely hope that MLS PIN is not one of the vendors under consideration.

    • rcastle July 9, 2016 at 1:18 pm - Reply

      It’s not.

  8. Marietta Nilson July 9, 2016 at 6:33 pm - Reply

    If MLS PIN is privately owned and some of the CCIAOR members have a ownership stake in it, how do we talk about any conflicts of interest here? Also, if some of our members are owners, would they have any ability to have the MLS PIN management address our membership’s requests, especially about the double entry?

  9. Deborah Walsh July 10, 2016 at 5:36 pm - Reply

    Thanks for all you and all the others have been doing.. Deborah Walsh&Kevin Ryan
    J. O’Loughlin Realty Yarmouth Port on Beautiful Cape Cod

  10. Joan Witter July 23, 2016 at 6:25 pm - Reply

    I know this is a very difficult and controversial subject and task so I definitely appreciate the efforts by all no matter what the decision.

  11. Jill K. Strombeck July 27, 2016 at 1:16 pm - Reply

    I am on board with not joining forces with MLS Pin as I have been an agent off cape and prefer the the approach to our Cape and Islands MLS as it is more inclusive to hear everyone’s opinion. Thanks you for your efforts.

Leave A Comment