In the fall of 2012, industry advocate Toby Chess published an article in ABRN (see Product Review: New Estimating Technology) examining the Matrix Wand, a wireless, hand-held 3D measuring device engineered to locate both visible damage and damage that might go overlooked during a standard estimate. Chess spent nearly a week testing the Wand on vehicles at two different shops. Time and again, the 3D tool proved its worth, leaving an impressed Chess to suggest repairers look into the technology themselves.
Three years later, the Wand and similar 3D measuring equipment are standard features at many shops. This technology's ability to both verify and document damage and completed repairs is cutting waste and therefore putting some much needed dollars back into the pockets of many repairers. It's relatively easy to use and can be incorporate into a variety of shop operations with no loss of efficiency.
3D technology also comes with some significant challenges, however. Here's a look at the five most common issues repairers face using these tools, along with the steps shops can take to ensure a smooth transition into this new world of measuring.
Challenge 1: Training and acceptance.
Every vendor of 3D measuring equipment offers training. Tom McGee, Business Development Manager for Spanesi Americas, says it's critical that shops to take advantage of this instruction, along with continual training on the frame machines many 3D products are designed to work with. "Technicians can get rusty if they don't regularly use this equipment," McGee says.
McGee notes that that technicians must fully understand how to use this sophisticated shop equipment to repair complex vehicle designs. He points to modern vehicle systems (for example, lane departure and adaptive cruise control products) whose functionality is tied to proper vehicle alignment. If frame rails and other core supports have been moved during a collision, McGee says, these systems won't work as they should.
Beyond getting a shop's staff up to snuff on 3D measuring, repairers also can face difficulty getting their technicians to "buy into" the technology. Often, reluctance to accept it is broken down across generational lines with younger, more computer-savvy repairers more open to 3D tools. Sam Deering, a sales rep for Infinity, says it's not uncommon for young workers to unpack and setup his company's 3D tool themselves and begin using it on their own.
Dan Trahey, Technical Training Manager for Car-O-Liner, says that's not always the case, particularly with older repairers who may balk at using newer technology (a potentially serious problem in an industry with an aging workforce). In these cases, Celette recommends taking techs through multiple demonstrations giving them the chance to realize that the visual produced by 3D technology is the same one they've had in their "mind's eye" for years when using traditional measuring.
For techs continue to have doubts, McGee says the best course is giving them an opportunity to vent any issues they may have. Owners can then address these problems while asserting that the tools will be used. "You just need to tell them that this is how things are going to be now," he says.
Trahey notes that shops then need to follow through by demonstrating their intentions to use the technology. This can mean creating an SOP that demands 3D measuring is used on every vehicle that passes through a shop's doors.
Challenge 2: Purchasing the right system
3D technology is available in a number of products using a variety of different technologies to analyze measuring points. Some of these products aren't good purchases for every shop. For one, there's a wide disparity in prices, which range from several thousand dollars to well over $30,000.
Perhaps more important, there also are differences in usability. "Some system are more complex to use," says Mark Satterfield, owner of APRO Tool and Equipment, a distributor of Allvis 3D measuring tools. "There are a lot of great 3D systems out there, but some are more difficult to use."
That complexity can slow their incorporation into the shop's operation. Satterfield recommends that shops take time selecting a 3D system, looking at all the possibilities and keeping in mind how well their staffs will be able to utilize each new tool.
Challenge 3: Fully utilize the equipment.
Once a shop finds a 3D system that best suits its operation, it still has to use this equipment correctly. Specifically, shops needs make full use of its potential.
Lee Daugherty, Global Data Product Manager for Chief, says some repairers make the mistake of maintaining their focus on the collision area instead of the entire vehicle. "In a front end hit, a lot of energy is going to be sent into other areas of a vehicle causing damage," Daugherty says. "It just makes sense to search for it." Indeed, using full 3D analysis (which typically takes under 45-60 minutes after setup for most products, depending on what measurements are being taken.) the entire vehicle can be examined, allowing a thorough inspection that can turn up all damage. Depending on the amount of sustained damage, besides the underbody and underhood areas being measured, the suspension mountings and even components may need to be measured.
Celette says it also makes sense to search for previous damage away from the repair area that could affect the vehicle’s structure or drivability. Celette notes that there's a possibility shops could be held liable for not turning up this damage should problems occur down the line.
The other mistake shops can make is not using 3D analysis enough. McGee says to make this technology fully beneficial it should be used over three different phases:
1. When the repair plan is created.
2. During the repair. (This ensures the vehicle is properly aligned for installation of replacement parts.)
3. Following the repair.
Shops may question whether this practice adds encumbrances to a repair. In most cases, 3D technology has been engineered to be smoothly incorporated throughout a claim. Where it may add a step, it offsets the extra task with increased efficiencies.
During the first two phases, the vehicle typically is on a frame rack or lift for associated work, allowing 3D analysis to function unobtrusively and to the full benefit of these services. Following the repair, it can produce documentation verifying to insurers and customers that all work was completed to specification, notes Celette. Doing so also assists quality control, reducing and potentially eliminating the possibility a vehicle was returned with any problems still intact.
Challenge 4: Maintaining a complete vehicle database
All 3D measuring products utilize a database of vehicle specs, with some plugging directly into information providers such as Mitchell International. Sometimes, full information may be missing or lagging, particularly during the early release of new model vehicles. When databases aren't up to date, shops have to pursue other avenues to locate this information, which typically means obtaining specifications from the OEMs. From there, depending on the product, repairers need to compare this information against the readings taken by the product.
Repairers must be prepared for these down times. Experienced shops recommend others review the full spectrum of 3D tools and quiz vendors on expected lag time and the steps they're taking to reduce or eliminate this issue.
Challenge 5: Insurer practices.
Insurers stand to benefit significantly from 3D analysis. Bring able to fully diagnose collision repair during the estimate means shops can head off supplements that extend repair times and raise costs. Some insurers have embraced this technology, but disputes with shops over pay structures and other issues has thrown water on some of the excitement surrounding this technology.
Deering says he's heard complaints that some insurance companies have reduced payable hours on 3D analyses that uncover damage versus those that don't. "They want that time to be included as part of the repair time instead of breaking it out separately," he explains.
Other disputes have arisen over damage that may have been produced by previous collision. In short, 3D technology does such an effective job of locating all damage that shops, insurers and customers must engage in more debates and discussions over what damage can be linked to the current claim.
On a related matter, 3D technology also can turn up previous substandard repairs that failed to bring a vehicle back to specifications. Once again, shops can be carried into these issues.
Presently, there are no simple remedies for any of these challenges. One potential repairer response to disputes over pay times is that reducing these times essentially "penalizes" shops for using technology that cuts insurer costs (though that argument may fall deaf on some ears).
As for disagreements over previous damage and substandard repairs, shops can use these occasions to build bonds with customers by preparing them to work out disputes with insurers. (ABRN recently explored this issue. See Fighting Fraud in the Sept. 2015 edition.)
Taken together, all these challenges demonstrate the growing pains the repair industry must go through as it continues to adopt transformative new technology. There are always consequences to change. Considering the benefits of 3D measuring and its growing popularity in the market, shops would be wise to heed the advice of others who have already started their journey down this road.
