I'm concerned about what happens to existing standards. From my perspective, the standard to repair a vehicle has already been established – by the vehicle manufacturers. The standard of how to properly refinish a vehicle has already been established – by the paint manufacturers. The material providers have established standards for appropriate use of their products.
I know the committee looking at developing standards says that part of what they're doing is pulling together the existing standards such as these. But insurers frankly don't always recognize and adequately compensate us for meeting these important and already-established standards. Is the industry going through a time-consuming and expensive process to create more standards before all segments of the industry are willing to accept the ones we already have?
I'm concerned about "industry practices" becoming "standards." I understand that not every repair question is addressed by the automakers. So how will the standards being developed address such areas? What if there are common practices within the industry – such as, until a year or two ago, use of non-certified non-OEM, structural parts? Will the fact that some shops agree to use such practices set a standard below what many others in the industry believe it should be?
I'm concerned about what agendas are being served. I know there is a formalized standard for developing standards. To be recognized by the organization that essentially sanctions something as a standard, all players in an industry must have input into the creation of the standard. So while I would prefer that collision repairers set the standards for our industry, I understand that those in other segments of the industry must play a role. Still, I'm concerned that agendas focused more on speed and cost of repairs will outweigh those focused on the quality and integrity of repairs.
I'm concerned about the impact to my business. I have no doubt that even if my facility, equipment and employees (without any changes) meet the standards that are developed, there will be new, ongoing expenses just to be audited to ensure compliance. I will gladly take on that expense – if there is additional value for my business in doing so.
My concern is that there won't be additional value. My shop will continue to be offered the same rate as shops that don't meet the standard. We will be told that we are expected to comply with the standards, but that since much of the industry doesn't – and thus doesn't charge accordingly – that we won't be "competitive" if we charge for the added expense of meeting the standard. Work will continue to flow to shops that don't have the added expense of meeting the standard.
I'm concerned that consumers won't know about the standards. In the United Kingdom, the more than 700 shops (out of about 1,700 involved in insurer programs) that are certified as meeting the standards use the Kitemark logo. Kitemark is an independent quality mark recognized by 80 percent of U.K. consumers. Without a similar, well-known indication of which shops meet the standards established here, I don't think consumers will be any more swayed in their shop choice than they are by such things as the I-CAR Gold Class designation – something most U.S. consumers know nothing about.
I'm not criticizing those who are volunteering to help with the standards creation effort. I just think there's a long way to go to convince many of us that there will be much, if any, benefit to collision repairers if and when the standards become reality.
Contact info: [email protected]
