An ongoing re-evaluation process for CRS Quality Tested Software/On-line service ensures that currently recommended software/On-line service programs continue to merit the Quality Tested Seal on the basis of product viability, pricing, customer support and vendor marketing practices.
| |
|
| 1. |
Throughout the year, as determined by need, each previously recommended software/On-line service package will be brought up for discussion before the Product Review Committee to determine if any problems exist (see "Criteria for Re-Assessment" below). If sufficient concern is warranted, the product will be scheduled for formal review utilizing the criteria to determine if the recommendation should be continued.
|
| 2. |
Re-evaluation of any previously recommended software/On-line service product may be triggered at any time during the year if the Council has received documented complaints regarding the product. Such complaints would be brought to the attention of the Product Review Committee Chairperson who would then determine, in consultation with the Review Committee, if a formal re-evaluation is warranted.
|
| 3. |
If the Review Committee learns of circumstances where use of the recommended software/On-line service would injure the business of the members, the goodwill of the Council or its members, the Committee may invoke emergency suspension of the Council Quality Seal pending a formal review by the Committee Chairperson and a simple majority of the Product Review Committee.
|
| 4. |
The formal re-evaluation process shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines listed under "Procedure" below.
|
| |
|
| 5. |
In general, is the product still competitive and considered state-of-the-art given the current level of real estate software/On-line service?
|
| 6. |
Does the current version of the software/On-line service meet the needs of the membership?
|
| 7. |
Does the current documentation meet the needs of the membership?
|
| 8. |
Is the current version still competitively priced?
|
| 9. |
Is the vendor providing adequate service and customer support as reflected by complaints or lack thereof as registered with the Council?
|
| 10. |
Are the Vendor's representations/marketing practices in keeping with the Council's quality guidelines and the standards set forth by the Council?
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Council staff shall notify vendor when a formal re-evaluation process is begun. Such notification shall be within five working days of the onset of the re-evaluation process.
|
| 12. |
Vendor will receive written notification of the exact nature of the concern as part of the notification process.
|
| 13. |
Product Review Committee will research the problem between meetings and will reach a recommendation prior to the next occurring NAR meeting.
|
| 14. |
Vendor shall be notified of the Committee's findings at least three weeks prior to the NAR meeting and will be invited to submit any response to the findings of the Committee. Vendor also will be invited to attend the meeting where the Committee's recommendation will be discussed and voted upon.
|
| 15. |
Full Committee will vote to either suspend CRS Quality Seal or to continue endorsing the product. Committee will notify Vendor of its decision and the procedures that may be required to obtain recommendation (see #16 below).
|
| 16. |
If a product is removed from the CRS Quality Test software list, Vendor can re-submit the product for re-evaluation. The re-evaluation either can be a full re-evaluation process (involving submission to the Committee's consultant and review copies to Committee members) or a limited re-evaluation consisting of proof that the area of concern has been rectified.
|
|
