SURVEY SAYS! The Results of the Assured Performance Collision Repair Standards Survey

Posted on 06. Jan, 2012 by admin in Assured Performance, Biggs Articles, Body Shop Advocate, Collision Industry News, Industry Op-Eds

Recently, there was a study conducted by the CIC Standards Committee regarding the creation of a separate and new entity for the creation and management of Collision Repair Standards. A small group wanted to create their own entity and did all they could to get the industry to buy in to their vision. On the other hand, some of us felt that creating a new entity was unnecessary. We could not understand why and how any other entity could possibly be a better or more legitimate choice than the OEM. Who would even take on that kind of liability and exposure?! After much politicking and maneuvering, this special interest group raised money from the industry (nearly $60,000) and conducted a so-called study. They claimed they were going to determine “the industry’s appetite for repair standards.” Later we would all find out they were really trying to sell the industry on their plan.

During this whole time, I elected to stay involved with the executive committee in hopes of influencing their efforts and steering them back in the right direction. But after reviewing the questions they wanted to use as the basis for the study, I protested. I had many issues with their approach and pointed out how bias the questions were and how they distorted the intent and objective of the study. I personally asked the consultant to change the questions so they were not so blatantly bias and begging the question or assuming a response. I was ignored or overruled.

The national Associations joined together to take a position they felt was best for their Membership. We suggested that we should officially recognize the OEM repair standards such as they are as the official basis for repair standards. We also suggested I-CAR was the best choice to “host” a council to refine coordinate and manage the ongoing efforts to publish official repair standards.

The industry was confused who was supporting what. Some thought we made the joint statement because we were in support of their plans and agenda. Many even thought we were in support of their “study.” We were not. We actually made the joint statement in spite of the biased survey. We were trying to ensure the industry would not go off on a tangent and we would be waiting another 18 years for standards to be adopted and recognized by the industry.

In all this, no one was asking the opinion of those who would have to use the standard the most and who would be affected the most. We needed to know the opinion of the shops. So Assured Performance Network decided to ask our members. The results of our survey was an effort to gain an unbiased snap-shot of the opinion of the better and best in class independently-owned body shop owners – the Co-Op members of Assured Performance Network.

The opinion of our members suggests a far different direction than their “study” suggested. Our Members said loud and clear that the industry needs and wants repair standards, they want them based upon OEM repair procedures, they trust I-CAR to be the source to manage them, and they would like them as a functional product with specific features. We used the results of this survey at the most recent CIC meeting when the repair standards committee presented their “study” to make sure our Member’s opinion was heard.

Below are the results of OUR survey:

ASSURED PERFORMANCE COLLISION REPAIR STANDARDS SURVEY RESULTS

• Total group size emailed: 4,638
• Total responses: 3,143 (67% response)

The first and most important question asked was, “Should the industry have ‘collision repair standards’ that define the repair methodology required to properly and safely repair each vehicle?” 96.1% said yes!

• 98% of those felt “repair standards” were valuable to their business.
• 97.7% felt it is important that the repair standards are “officially recognized” by the industry
• 78% felt their technicians needed them to repair vehicles properly.
• 93% felt that as the vehicles get more and more technologically complex, repair standards will be essential.
• 76% felt repair standards should be available and followed for every repair including some form of “proof of compliance.”

Addressing resistance and concerns that the shops might have:
• Just 57% were concerned that the standards would be manipulated by insurers.
• Only 32% thought the insurers would ignore them.
• Regardless, the majority with 57% of respondents thought the insurers would be inclined to follow them.

Exploring the question of what should be the source or basis for repair standards:
• Over 70% thought the official OEM repair procedures should be the basis for collision repair standards.
• On the other hand, less than 30% thought a new independent entity should be created by the industry for this purpose.
• And, not surprisingly since the survey was sent to only independently owned collision repair businesses, less than 3% thought insurance-based organizations like Tech Corp should be the basis for the standards.

Shops were given 4 different choices as to who or what they would trust most to manage, publish and refine the industry “repair standards.”
Of the 4 different options, the shops ranked the following:
• I-CAR was noted as the most trusted choice with nearly 98% trusting them to manage standards.
• Next on the “trusted to manage” scale was the choice of “Associations working together like DEG” at 78%.
• Third in line was a “new independent entity to be created by the industry” with only 34% support.
• And of course, last was an insurer organization like Tech Corp.

Repair standards left in some database will not be useful to anyone. At some point, for repair standards to be useful down to the technician level, they have to be a product of some sort. The respondents surveyed felt the most important features of repair standards as a usable product should be:
• #1 Ranked as the most important feature was that the repair procedures should be “electronically on demand matched to your estimate details” with 71% thinking it was important and only 12% thinking it was not needed.
• #2 was the “Ability to document “proof of compliance” without the need for an inspector” was ranked as the second most important feature with 61% and only 14% did not think it was needed.
• #3 was “Itemization of repair skills required to repair the vehicle in question.”
• #4 was “Itemization of equipment required to repair the vehicle in question.”
• #5 was “Itemization of tools required to repair the vehicle in question.”
• #6, Last and least was “third-party inspection to ensure compliance to standards” with only 16% thought it was important. But conversely, 71% expressed that it was unnecessary illustrating an overwhelming negative impression.

Comparing potential applications and features:
• 89% supported the use of a “proof of compliance” form allowing the shops to document that they followed OEM repair procedure.
• While only 19% supported requiring a third-party inspection (at a cost) to ensure compliance.

The survey reported very good news for the vendors such as ALLDATA, Mitchell, CCC or any other that may sell a product that includes the repair standards. Nearly 60% of all the respondents said they would buy “repair procedures/standard” products if it had the key features they supported as described above. This left no doubt that as a Co-Op, we will continue to work on making sure we leverage our buying power in this area for your benefit and work with these companies to bring you the products you need and want.

Thanks to all of those who responded. These survey results were shared in part at the last CIC meeting in January to help refute the “study” that was being pushed by other special interests and heading in a direction we thought would NOT be in the best interest of you, our members.

About Assured Performance Network, (www.AssuredPerformance.net) Assured Performance Network is made up of two organizations: A legal Co-Op, and a non-profit consumer advocacy organization. Combined, they operate as a third-party administrator for body shop Certification, consumer awareness, and various vendor rebate programs including the 100% Write Rebate Reward Program. Assured Performance Network is the largest network of independently owned shops with approximately 3,500-collision repair business members.

For more information go online or call: (949) 221-0010.

ASSURED PERFORMANCE COLLISION REPAIR STANDARDS SURVEY RESULTS