1
2
3
4
5Blog Posts
A Crash Course for Instagram
Posted by Kristen R. Felder on June 15, 2013 at 10:35am
Top 6 Tips For Blog Commenting
Posted by Christopher Sheehy on May 30, 2013 at 11:09am
Today’s 60 second Tip: Growing Your Social Media Garden
Posted by Cheryl Senko on May 28, 2013 at 1:50pm
Photos
Forum
Auto and Property Damage Appraisers Needed
Started by Cheryl Senko in Job Searches May 16.
Mitchell ABSe in British Columbia
Started by Martin von Holst in General Apr 11.
Ipad, Tablets?? 1 Reply
Started by Rylan Van Genderen in Collision Hub Feedback and Suggestions. Last reply by Kristen R. Felder Mar 20.
Green Garage Challenge
Started by Tyler Claypool in General Feb 6.
Dupont's Most Wanted Program 3 Replies
Started by Josh Lefler in General. Last reply by Nathan Beaver Feb 1.
Watch the Hunt!
Groups
-
Body Shop Owner/Manager
286 members
-
Lean Process
238 members
-
Women in Collision
224 members
DRPs Could Actually Be Good For Our Industry
I thought of an idea that I think could uplift our entire industry, save insurance companies money and greatly benefit the consumer. My idea would have those participating in any DRP program agree to random post repair inspections, not by the insurance company, but by each other. The program would work like this:
Subsequent to repair, vehicles would be randomly selected to be re-inspected by another network shop. The customer's name and the name of the repairing shop would be removed from any documentation so that the re-inspecting shop does not know who they are re-inspecting. Conversely, the repairing shop will never know who re-inspected their work, only the administrating insurance company would have all the details.
Any substandard repair or work billed for but not performed would be identified and the violating shop would be required to either correct the violations, pay another shop to correct the violations, or be removed from the program entirely. Since the repairing shop would never know which repair would be subject to re-inspection, insurance companies would save a substantial amount of money because the frequency of billing for parts not actually replaced or work billed for but not performed would plummet. It is common knowledge that the average DRP repair costs more than the average field written repair because DRP shops have figured out what they can and cannot get away with. The consumer would benefit because substandard or unsafe repairs would be immediately identified. Shops would benefit because "industry standards" would be raised and shops would no longer be rewarded for blowing through repairs at the expense of repair integrity. Lousy shops would be able to see what the more proficient competition (without knowing who they are) is doing and be able to identify their own shortcomings. It would level the playing field so that there would be a more equitable expectation where repair quality is concerned. Substandard shops would be quickly identified and would either have to clean up their acts or suffer the consequences.
The best part of my idea is that it costs absolutely nothing to incorporate into a DRP program and since only network shops are involved in the process, there is no "airing of dirty laundry". Only the insuance company will know who the worst offenders are and can deal with them privately. Repair costs would go down, repair quality would go up and the divide between DRP and non-DRP shops would be reduced. Any thoughts?
Views: 15
Comment
-
Comment by Bill Fowler on July 22, 2011 at 8:06am -
Bill,
My idea has less to do with how pretty a repair is and more to do with how safe it is and whether or not the customer and insurance company got what they paid for. I don't know about you, but I have seen some repairs on vehicles I would be horrified to think my family had ridden in, overheated frame rails, insufficient or inadequate welds. structural sheelmetal left wadded up because "out of sight, out of mind" rules the day.
As far as customer confidence, it would seem to me that they would sleep better at night knowing they had gotten a second opinion by someone who is qualified to render that opinion, instead of just hoping everything is as it should be. Fit and finish can be a subjective area, can be easily seen and doesn't require any expertise to determine if it is acceptable or not. If it satisfies the customer, it's good to go.
The re-inspecting shop would report directly to the insurance company who assigned the re-inspection to them and the responsibility to report to the customer would fall to the insurance company overseeing the DRP network. It's their network, therefore their problem. If a re-inspecting shop becomes overzealous and nit-picky, the insurance company can either tell them to back off or choose to send fewer re-inspections to them but instead, subject them to the same scrutiny that they would subject others to. It can be a self-regulating process if properly managed.
-
Comment by Bill Park on July 21, 2011 at 10:58pm -
Hmmm, I like the idea of transparency for sure. I also like that it keeps the network accountable for doing the right thing. The problem is creating some type of standard review process, that can be followed objectively and without emotion. That's a tuff one. Is a mig-weld compared to a spot weld an issue? How accurate does the seam seal match need to be to pass? What about fit and finish with a/m parts? Plus, plus, plus.
Who delivers the news to the customer and the carrier? Who will do the re-repair if it's needed, does the customer loose confidence in the network? What type of repair qualifies for this level of inspection? How random is it?
I like competition, and the more we compete the better we become...if I was in a program with this type of program and there were incentives for volume, I would be all over it.
Let the games begin.
Neat topic to explore and play with.
Bill
© 2013 Created by Collision Hub Admin.
You need to be a member of Collision Hub to add comments!
Join Collision Hub