REPAIR STANDARDS: AN ALTERNATIVE POINT OF VIEW AND DIRECTION

Posted on 12. Jul, 2011 by admin in Assured Performance, Biggs Articles, Body Shop Advocate, Collision Industry News, Industry Op-Eds

Please allow me this opportunity to express my personal and professional opinion related to the repair standards efforts within the collision repair industry. As most should know, I have been an early and avid proponent of the need for and the general recognition and acceptance of repair standards for the collision repair industry. Over six years ago, myself and a few other began a campaign for the industry to awaken to the growing need. We had to overcome many objections and resistance from the hidden agendas that were prevalent at the time. We created a video, conducted panel discussions, wrote articles, and pushed for the formation of committees at CIC. Over the years since, more and more have come to recognize the merits and value of some effort to formalize repair standards in the US collision repair industry.

Unfortunately, there are some of us that are now concerned that the current direction and focus of the efforts are misguided and off course. It is our opinion that much of the most recent efforts and efforts of the late arrivals to the growing party have their own agendas and/or are pushing the standards efforts towards an outcome that is not necessarily in the best interest of the industry and cause. There is a rush to a conclusion that we need a new business entity established for standards. That is not a belief that is held by everyone.

There is a constant misinterpretation made by some that all of us are in agreement that we need to have an organization much like Thathum here in the US to drive our standards needs. Again and again, I see and hear the push toward creating an organization like CEICA. I for one, totally disagree with that assertion. I can also tell you that many others have privately expressed their disagreement with that conclusion as well.

I believe most of us think the industry needs to adhere and recognize standards for repair. However, creating yet another organization that requires funding from donations and then fees is not necessarily what we need. Hiring another industry employee as an executive director is not necessarily what will get us to our goal. Once hired, then we must have a way to pay .. then there is another cost to something we have yet to create or sell!

It is a total misconception to suggest that the industry does not already have many standards in existence and use today; both default and formally established. We have plenty and certainly enough to get started. What we do not have is consistent recognition of the standards that exist nor a consensus related to the “general acceptance of the standards and their use and application.” Creating another self-anointed entity and highly paid executive director will not accomplish that objective, but it may well drag out the process, create obstacles for innovation and commerce, and make another “do-nothing” organization.

People constantly refer to CEICA as a model to follow. CEICA is a great example, but of what NOT to do. The vast majority of effort and work product formed by CEICA was done while it was totally volunteer. They hired an executive director that cost hundreds of thousands and even resulted in threatened lawsuits and many other conflicts. For nearly half of the 20+ year life of that entity, there was little to no new work product beyond the foundation standards created in the earliest VOLUNTEER year (EMS last editing in 2003). Only recently has CEICA turned out new standards (BMS). Unfortunately, there are many that are not even adopting the BMS standards and it is owned by someone and not “the industries.” How does that feel? Meanwhile, the cost of operating the entity has continued. To add insult to injury, somewhere along the way, the CEICA board members arbitrarily decided to take the entity into private ownership and make the work product private claiming ownership of the standards created. This was never agreed to by any group outside of those immediate members of the CEICA organization. Is this what we can expect from a repair standards organization that wants to follow the same blueprint?

This is not a slam on anyone that worked hard for the creation of electronic standards for the industry. Many of us were dedicated and volunteered our time with all the good intentions in the world. We were doing the right thing, but could not have seen where it would go and how our hardwork would turn out. However, we now have history to consider before we repeat it. Apply the CEICA story to the current efforts of repair standards and tell me how this will not follow the same pattern and produce the same results. To ignore history is to repeat it. If we go down that path, all we will be doing is empowering a small group of special or self interested people in creating a job and structure for themselves. Regardless, the industry will have to live with the results.

Instead of yet another separate and independent organization that has no oversight and accountability, perhaps what we need is consensus and agreement between all of the entities that develop and use repair standards already. I am joining with others that have suggested that a far better structure for U.S. repair standards efforts is a board to review and approve acceptance of existing repair definitions and practices, etc. This board could be made up of representatives from the various entities that establish and use repair standards daily including OEM, ICAR, ASE, SAE, ASA, SCRS, Insurers, paint and equipment manufactures, shop organizations, tech-corp, etc.

Our CIC committee 5 years ago established that there were many standards already in use and accepted by the industry. We pointed to many of these used for NATEF, UPCR, ICAR training, OEM repair procedures, Tech Corp, and even those used by various certifying entities, DRP’s, and network groups. It has also been suggested that we consider a model like the accounting world follows. FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. They create the GAAP – General Accepted Accounting Principals that all accounting follows. I have provided links below to consider that model and how they operate. Ask any CPA about them and how GAAP works.

I for one will go on record as formally opposing the creation of another independent entity. We do not need another bureaucracy to accomplish the urgent task at hand. We need representation to openly review and accept the standards we have and perhaps contract someone to codify and publish them in a common (web-base) accessible resource center open to all parties. Assured Performance Network even donated the cost to create such a website, paid for a person to document all of the standards work of the committee and others. We began the process of publishing the work-product created by the CIC VOLUNTEER committee so everyone can see it does not require another separate entity. Please see www.repairstandards.com

Please consider this alternative opinion. I welcome your opinion, too.

__________________________________________
SAMPLE CONCEPT FOR ACCOUNTING WORLD

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
they create the GAAP that all accounting follows.

http://www.fasab.gov/fasabstaff.html

Welcome to the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
Pronouncements

The Pronouncements as Amended is a single PDF file providing all Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts and Standards, Interpretations, Technical Bulletins and Releases, and Staff Implementation Guidance as well as the consolidated glossary of terms. This is the best reference for final pronouncements since it is updated for all amendments as of the issue date.

The mission of the FASAB is to promulgate federal accounting standards after considering the financial and budgetary information needs of citizens, congressional oversight groups, executive agencies, and the needs of other users of federal financial information. Accounting and financial reporting standards are essential for public accountability and for an efficient and effective functioning of our democratic system of government. Thus, federal accounting standards and financial reporting play a major role in fulfilling the government’s duty to be publicly accountable and can be used to assess (1) the government’s accountability and its efficiency and effectiveness, and (2) the economic, political, and social consequences of the allocation and various uses of federal resources. This website provides access to all publications issued by FASAB including exposure drafts, the Pronouncements as Amended, project histories, newsletters, minutes and meeting agendas.