Monthly archives of “January 2017

comment 0

Certification – Another Update

I posted two articles about certification in late December and there has been enough activity in the first few weeks of this year that an update is warranted.

In an interview with Collision Repair last week Andrew Shepard, the Director of the AIA Collision Sector and the administrator of CCIAP (Canadian Collision Industry Accreditation Program) told the interviewer that CCIAP had reached 1,000 shops registered in the program. He did not say how many of these shops had achieved accreditation, but at this point this is not as important as the fact that close to 25% of the collision repairers in Canada recognize that certification is an important validation of their training and upgrading efforts.

Most of these facilities are part of the four major banner programs and it is likely that their participation was encouraged, if not enforced, by the management teams of these programs. This is not at all a bad thing; they are involved and will all become better repairers for this involvement.

Independent, unaffiliated repair shops still make up the majority of the Canadian collision repair industry and these operators can continue to be an important part of the industry, but to that they have to stay current.  This strong wave of banner shops becoming involved in the accreditation process will prompt progressive independents to also get involved and this will be good for the industry and all vehicle owners.

The insurance industry is supportive of CCIAP and with this support there will be a significant benefit to the entire repair process, and once again the vehicle owner. Accreditation involves equipment, training and very specific repair procedures. Acceptance of the requirements of accreditation by all parties takes away a lot of opinion, subjective thinking and ‘common sense’.

The repairer and insurer relationship demands the efficiency provided by the existing automated electronic claims processing systems.  A widely accepted accreditation system will allow the inclusion of required new repair processes into these automated systems.

There have been a lot of changes since my first post in July of last year. We may get to where we should be in less than 5 years



comment 0

IIHS Safety Ratings and Repairs

IIHS is the acronym for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.  This is an American organization founded in 1959 by insurance companies interested in understanding all aspects of highway safety. With their business built on insuring cars and drivers it makes sense that they have a greater understanding of accidents, damage and injury.

This link gives a good background on the IIHS and how it has evolved

One of the most publicly visible areas of IIHS work is their crash safety rating system, which is developed based on crash tests in their own testing facility. This rating has real world implications, with a 5 Star IIHS rating used by manufacturers as a selling feature and by insurers as a guide to setting insurance rates.

Manufacturers pay a lot of attention and will make design changes to address the issues that prevented them from getting top scores. You will be safer in a 2016 vehicle than you would be in a 2010 or 2005 vehicle in the same type of hit.  You will probably be safer still in the 2017 because none of the manufacturers move backwards on safety.

The car may be somewhat more expensive to repair, but you will not care much about that if you walk away from the accident with no injury. Your insurance company should be ready to pay an extra $2,000 or $3,000 or even $10,000 to repair your car if tens or even hundreds of thousands in injury costs are saved.

5 Stars to 3

The insurance company should be ready to pay; but then we run into the real world of measurement and reward in a compartmentalized business. The insurance adjuster, and the entire claims department, is judged by the amount of money paid out; lower claim costs are viewed as a good thing and the in-depth quality of repairs is not yet measured.

John  Huetter of Repairer Driven  News goes into this discussion in more depth and importantly attributes the blame for  the current inadequate repair model equally to both  repairers and insurers.

In the unregulated world that we work in the insurance companies are probably the best positioned to insist on a proper repair but the huge emphasis on cost is preventing them from doing this.

The first company to honestly address the issue of rating and insuring 5 Star cars and then accepting and paying for repairs that leave the car at a 3 Star level has yet to step forward. It is a big problem, but there are lots of very smart people on staff at insurance companies. They will figure it out but it will take time.  There’s that 5 year timeline again

comment 0

Next Accident Ready? How do You Know?

Unfortunately, the short glib answer is ‘you don’t’.

There are many repair facilities working with or toward Next Accident Ready repair principles and it is these industry participants that will be able to provide the right repair now. But there are far more that are not yet working with these principles and the problem is that to a lay person these facilities are not differentiated by appearance or presentation from those that do strive for Next Accident Readiness.

Last week I was talking to a knowledgeable car owner about RFINA repairs and she understood quickly what I was saying. She then asked ’how do I know I am getting the right repairs, what questions can I ask.’ I thought for a few seconds and could only answer ‘there really are no questions you can ask, because the questions themselves require a knowledge of repair procedures.’

There will not be many car owners who would be able to ask;

Does your shop have electronic 3 dimensional measuring and a solid 4 point anchoring system with the capability for a 5th or 6th anchor point if needed?’

Do you have a damage report writer who can tell your technician exactly what metals are used in the structure of my car and what repair or replace procedures have to be followed?

Are your technicians trained in the use of a resistance spot welder, silicone bronze MIG brazing, and high strength steel MIG Welding?

Do you have access to OEM grade scan equipment that will allow you to perform a pre-repair systems diagnostic scan as part of the damage report and then a post repair scan to ensure that all systems are fully functional?

Do you have a very good professional relationship with my insurance company that will allow them to authorize all needed repair procedures and parts?

Most people would sound like they were reading from a script with these questions.

Perhaps a question that could be asked is ‘are you confident that your equipment and staff will allow you to repair this damage in a way that returns my car to true pre-accident safety’.

The answer should be a thoughtful and confident, with perhaps an offer of a look at some of the equipment and/or the offer of a copy of the repair documentation after the repair is completed. If the answer is ‘sure we’ve fixed lots of these cars before’ that may not be as confidence inspiring.

In the past one or two years, more progressive repairers have become actively involved in training and certification. If the repair shop has current certificates and staff training designations posted this is another sign of a facility that is paying attention to rapidly changing repair requirements.

comment 0

Regulation and the Collision Repair Industry

In November I posted a discussion about the money in the collision repair industry; just as in every other industry money is what makes it all go around. There is certainly nothing wrong with this, it is a very big part of what our society is based on. But as we all know, if there are no checks on the behavior motivated by money the system gets very out of balance. This is where government regulation steps in to control behavior.

Very Little Regulation to Date

The collision repair industry has to date largely avoided attracting the attention of regulators. The main reason why this lack of regulation exists is the public has not needed the protection. On the cost side, a very fragmented industry meant that competition kept the prices down and on the safety side cars evolved in a manageable way for 50 years. This manageable evolution meant that learned skills and work habits could be used for many years with minor tweaks and updated versions of familiar equipment.  Every now and then something quite new came along, but it was all manageable without a need for a real change in operating methods. Problems were created, but as I have mentioned before (Nov 23, 2016 Standards and Regulation for Vehicle Repair) these were more anecdotal than systemic.

Why We May Not Have Needed Regulation in the Past

Poor repairs did compromise the car, but two significant factors kept these compromised cars from being very real problems. Considering post repair safety, or Next Accident Readiness, a car made primarily from mild steel did not change too much in strength and safety after that metal was repaired with heat or pulling. Looked at more darkly, that car wasn’t very safe as designed so the bar was not high.

On the causing accidents side; the control system of the car was 98% the driver and the driver was not affected by the repair.

Why We May Need It Soon

Today’s cars are much safer but their sophisticated design and structural materials demand very specific and accurate repair or replacement methods, otherwise their strength and safety are very much affected.

We are well on our way to the control system being 100% built into the car with the ‘driver’ just along for the ride. Repairs with these cars will have a direct effect on the control system and have to be absolutely accurate, every time. Remember that we will not get from 2% to 100% on a specific date in the future, we will get there on a curve and we are further along this curve now than the industry recognizes.

The changes of the last 5 years and those coming at us rapidly are significant more for their wide application than for their technology. Many of the features which are seen as ‘new’ were being used by manufacturers such as Mercedes Benz in the mid to late 2000s. But with only a few manufacturers using this advanced technology on a very small percentage of the overall vehicle fleet, it was possible for these manufacturers to control the repair process and ensure that the technicians working on the cars were properly trained.

The people who bought these cars were higher income more often than not and had an expectation that if they had purchased an expensive asset that they would get top level service in the repair and maintenance of that asset. If the MB sanctioned repair facility told them that these parts and these procedures were needed then that was what they wanted and they let the insurance companies know that. The insurance companies knew that they could not easily fight a determined owner armed with the logic of a proper repair (and also a lawyer) and with so few of these cars on the road the additional costs of these repairs could be made to fit into their business model.

We are now in 2017 and we have a problem. Every manufacturer is using very sophisticated technology and materials in even their least expensive cars and with so many of these cars on the road they are not yet able to control the repair process in the same way that MB could. They are working hard to find a way, but with the very large number of vehicles involved the problems are far more complex than they were for MB 10 or 15 years ago.

MB had to train maybe several hundred or at most a few thousand technicians and facility managers to work in their rigorous system. The industry was large enough that this relatively small number of motivated people could be found despite the stubborn industry culture of resistance to learning and training. Without doing any background research, it is easy to imagine that if only Honda, Toyota, Ford and GM wanted to get to this level (and they do along with all of the other manufacturers) they would have a very difficult (impossible) task to find and train the people needed. The current insurance company model is also not designed for MB level repairs on every car on the road.

or Why We May Not

The repair side industry could reorganize itself to be able to properly repair the cars of today, with truly qualified technicians working with appropriate equipment and to standards that are accepted and expected across the industry. The insurance side of the industry could also restructure to accept and expect only correct repairs. It is possible that the manufacturers will have enough control over the repair of their vehicles that they will be strong influencers of these needed changes. If these things can be seen to be starting to happen then only a very light regulatory framework may be needed.

If the coming year or two do not show signs of real change then regulators may need to be much more involved in the needed transition.

My guess is that the current regulation in the aircraft industry will become the model for the advanced collision repair industry of the near future.