The season's opening weekend also brings out millions of fans who turn into expert quarterbacks and coaches for their favorite teams. We refer to these weekend experts as "armchair quarterbacks" because they consistently challenge and second guess the real professionals who are actually on the playing field every day. It is true that some "armchair quarterbacks" may have had high school, college, or even some professional playing experience in their past, but the point is they are not there any longer — they simply observe from the comfort of their chair or couch, and actually believe they know better than those who are on the field playing the game.
Does any of this sound familiar as it relates to the daily interactions from some insurer claims staff when they second-guess decisions that are made for vehicle repairs? When it comes to being measured or monitored, it is often human nature to dislike it, especially when the rules, targets and goals are not clear, consistent or even practical to apply to a given vehicle. Now don't get me wrong. I am a firm believer in measuring performance; keeping score is very important. How would anyone enjoy going to a football game or any other sporting event if nobody was keeping score? As with preseason sporting events, they are simply not as exciting or taken as seriously as the regular season.
As an industry we have accepted being monitored and measured to become "more transparent" so we may continually improve our performance, but inconsistency or impractical application makes it difficult at best to perform to anyone's expectations — even our own. Keeping score has always been a part of our competitive nature, but in a game we don't go back and change the score after it is over.
At times, "armchair" challenges contradict what the real professionals have determined as the best direction at the time the decision was needed to be made. It could have been the only option available at the moment — or simply in the best interest of the customer — but now after the fact it is challenged and debated. Up to this point, it is very similar to the "armchair quarterbacking" of a televised football game because there are always thousands of "what ifs" afterwards.
However, our industry has allowed this practice to move to a new level of armchair quarterbacking — they actually do change the outcome by changing prices, labor times and material charges after the vehicle is completed. This is a major difference than simply watching the game on TV and stating what should have been done. The only time the final result is not the final result after the sporting event has ended is when there was ensuing proof that a participant cheated during the competition. Then the results may be changed or asterisks are added.
Relating this to our businesses, if fraud has been committed, work was not performed as billed, or pre-agreed pricing was not followed — then changing the "score" may be justified. However, this is not where it typically ends. The repair process that was actually performed is being challenged to the point of denying or modifying payment. Pictures are "good enough" to challenge the need for blending the adjacent panel but then the repair times are altered because the picture is not "good enough" to justify it.
Australian insurers have assembled focus groups that include repair industry leaders to discuss and design workable solutions to these measurements and challenges in their agreements with repairers. Why in one of the most advanced countries in the world, do we not have this already in place? Why is there not a system in place where retribution is not a factor when issues arise that need to be exposed and challenged?
We do have a national forum in the Collision Industry Conference (CIC), but this is not enough to address what the industry needs without the support or attendance by key insurers. I believe the work the committees can do to identify areas of common ground is good, but at some point commitments must be made and accountability must be a serious priority. Yes, it is hundreds of times more challenging to roll out company policy changes within an insurance firm than for a repairer, but it must start with standardized practices to which we all can agree.
It's time we come together and look to design measurements and an understanding that all can work within. It will be difficult to design a unified set of standard measurements that can be accepted industry-wide, but it would be worth working toward both at a national level and on an insurer/repairer level.
Continuing to use poor, antiquated metrics to measure performance needs to stop. Measurements of severity, labor versus parts, alternate parts usage without regard to other conditions that affect these does nothing for improvement. Understanding the relationship of each to each other also must be considered. There is simply no method of grouping all types of vehicle repairs into the same measurement "bucket" unless other factors are considered. The considerations for repairs to a BMW 5 Series, Dodge Caliber or a Ford F150 may vary dramatically in equipment, training and materials required — so may the metrics that we are currently reviewing.
Playing "armchair quarterback" is certainly easier than finding real solutions. However, I assure you the next time I yell at quarterback Peyton Manning — he should have thrown a quick slant to Marvin Harrison instead of a play action corner — it won't change the play. In fact, he can't even hear me. He is the expert, not I ... this is the way it should be.
Please send your comments, questions and potential discussion topics you would like to see addressed in future columns to [email protected]. For additional information you can also visit www.aeii.net.
