John Yoswick is a freelance automotive writer based in Portland, Oregon, who has been writing about the collision industry since 1988. He is the editor of the weekly CRASH Network (for a free 4-week trial subscription, visit www.CrashNetwork.com).
He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
The most recent discussion of industry “standards” at the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) centered around the differences between “repair standards” and “business standards,” and whether either one—or both—are needed, and whether some organization is needed to implement them.
A key element of some direct repair program (DRP) contracts is indirectly coming under increasing scrutiny by federal regulators—leading some to predict insurer pricing demands on shops soon may be forced to change.
Include Mike Monaghan as among the proponents of the benefits of collision repair industry standards. What effect did he see such standards having in the United Kingdom?
It’s easy as a shop owner to get so caught up in day-to-day operations that it can be a challenge to follow the news directly affecting collision repairers.
One by one this past spring, a panel of repairers at the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) voiced their concerns about the privacy of their shop’s estimating and other data, and expressed a desire to “opt out” of having that data compiled and reported on by the Big Three information providers.
Non-OEM versions of many more vehicle parts could be manufactured and available much sooner after a new vehicle model is introduced if backers of proposed changes to federal patent laws are successful.
State Farm’s PartsTrader program, the use of shops’ estimating and other data, and how one state regulator oversees auto insurers, were among the topics at a recent board meeting of the Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS).
Should repairers be held solely responsible if a repair process or part they choose fails—even if that process or part was chosen at the behest of an insurer?
As the discussion of how and whether the industry should develop some sort of formalized collision repair standards continues, Paul Gange brings a somewhat unique perspective on the topic.
A report at the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) on the findings of a study into what consensus exists within the industry about the development and implementation of formalized repair standards led to as much discussion about the value and validity of the study as it did to discussion of standards themselves.
So much happens in the collision repair industry that it can be hard to keep up on everything. A few big stories get plenty of attention, but sometimes it’s the lesser-known stories that can have as big an impact on your business.
In response to ongoing efforts over six years by the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) to develop a set of formalized repair standards, four national repairer groups have jointly issued a statement calling the published automaker repair procedures the “official industry-recognized repair standards for collision repair.”
State and regional associations—that together represent more than 2,000 body shops—participated in the sixth annual “Affiliate Leadership Conference” organized by the Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) and held near Chicago in mid-September.
What may have seemed to some at the most recent Collision Industry Conference (CIC) as a debate about esoteric computer jargon was actually a discussion about who gets access to all the information in a shop’s estimates.