The efforts to create and implement standards in the collision repair industry in North America should focus on just “repair standards” to begin if there is any chance to actually accomplish this monumental step. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees, but history, logic and reality give clear warnings to do otherwise could doom the effort once again.
I suspect it is a natural tenancy to want to order everything on the menu or buy everything in the grocery store when you are hungry. That is probably why they say never go shopping when you are hungry. It is probably why many in the collision industry are wanting to over-reach and set standards for the collision business when a narrower focus of only repair standards is more than enough to fill out plates for the next decade. The industry is desperate for this next major step in our evolution. In fact, we are now 20 past the last time the industry tried to make the transition, but we are about to repeat the mistake from the past.
Consider that it has been a 3 1/2 year long process just to get the CIC Standards committee to a point of reporting concrete suggestions to consider. It has taken even longer to get the various industry stakeholders to begin to look seriously at the urgent need for repair standards in the US collision repair industry. If we open the focus to include everything, we may end up with nothing, again.
Over a decade ago, the UK began a long journey of implementing repair standards. The video we created in 2006 was posted on this site and www.CollisionIndustryNews.com. The video was played at CIC to set the agenda for a major panel discussion that launched the current efforts. The video and all of the dialog was also circulated to many notables around the industry. The video features Mike Monaghan telling the history of how and why repair standards were implemented in the UK. So far, the US market is following many of the same developmental steps. Unfortunately, one of the steps that sidetracked them for years is one that far too many want to take here and now. Trying to set standards for the collision repair business is filled with politics and competitive agendas. To attempt to establish standards for the business will create a firestorm from those that are attempting to create their own model and stimulative standards for commercial reason. They will naturally resist and the dialog to create consensus will be a long and political process that could doom the overall objective. On the other hand, if the focus is narrowed to just “repair standards” we might all agree now.
The key to agreement was to define the basis of a repair standard. It was really established at least 3 years ago when all came to the conclusion that repair standards should be based upon two rules: Nothing should be done to the vehicle that lessens the safety, or value.
Safety and value are the two criteria that all repair practices and materials should adhere to. No one can make a compelling argument advocating that a repairer should follow procedures and use parts and materials that will make the vehicle unsafe or even less safe. The same defense can be used to justify using only parts and materials that do not lessen the value of the vehicle unnecessarily. The area of negotiation is the word “unnecessarily.” But safety is NON_NEGOTIABLE. If this foundation is true, then we should start with the Herculean task of establishing and implementing repair standards by just agreeing to repair procedures, methodology, parts and materials that meet these two criteria. That will take us at least another decade just to establish and implement those.
We can start off with the obvious things that are already spelled out, but not official yet. Creating an official “entity” recognized by all will take another year! Next, we can meet, discuss, debate, decide on those items that cost insurers and repairers the most grief and friction costs: …Define, codify and publish …Define, codify and publish. This takes time and many different people and organization’s commitment. It is nearly an impossible task just to get all sides of the equation into the dialog and review what is obvious. Consider that most don’t have time to meet more than a few times per year, this process will take a few years alone.
As these repair standards are established, then ICAR can begin to integrate them into their curriculum and train accordingly. They will undoubtedly make these the basis of their new “needs based skill training.” Next, ASE can make the new repair standards the foundation of their testing. Then and only then will the industry begin to evolve into a “trained, tested and trusted” environment with greater efficiency and cost effectiveness.
“Variables are the enemy of efficiency and quality. Without repair standards, we have neither.”
Some day perhaps another 20 years from now, others will revisit the larger objective and tackle establishing business standards and all that comes with that can of worms. By then, the model will have changed many times and so too all of the industry leadership. I will be gone, but the young men and women now emerging in the industry will be as old as I am now and have lived through the evolutionary process for 25 years. Then they will say as I am, “no, lets just focus on what we can really accomplish now. The narrower the focus the better!”