The manufacturer knows best

Let's talk briefly about your health for a moment, shall we? A persistent cough has forced you to visit your physician, who, after careful examination, looks at you and states, "My recommendation for you is to quit smoking or you'll have further health risks in the future."

On the drive home, you ponder that recommendation. "If I follow my doc's orders, I'll probably start feeling better," you think to yourself. "Or I can keep smoking and take my chances."

Sounds like a silly argument, doesn't it? 

Well, that's precisely the argument that's being played out in the collision repair industry these days. And it centers on manufacturer recommendations for properly repairing a vehicle.

It's a simple two-sided argument. On one side, you've got the manufacturer recommending the right parts, equipment, tooling and procedures for a specific repair on a specific vehicle. Those recommendations were formulated by the manufacturer in an effort to have the highest probability that the vehicle will look, feel and perform as designed. 

On the other side, you've got an effort to reduce costs of the claim and still have an acceptable repair done to the vehicle. Controlling costs associated to a loss is surely important, but at what point are we putting what the customer is entitled to in jeopardy by not following manufacturer recommendations? And aren't we really rolling the dice with regard to fit, functionality and the value of the vehicle?

The latter argument, my friends, is what we commonly look at as the dice roll. The fact is that you really can't predict the long-term effects of procedures that fall outside those recommended by the manufacturer, nor can you determine the history or functionality of alternative parts selections. 

But by not adhering to OEM recommendations, you're rolling the dice on a lot more than just the integrity of a repair part. You're throwing caution to the wind on virtually every facet of the repair process, including the part where your customer ultimately climbs back into that vehicle and assesses your work. (Or worse yet, when your work needs to stand up to a second crash involving the repaired area.)

We all know that the main issue guiding this timeless argument has to do with costs and control.  Insurance companies want viable, economical solutions. Adjusters are constantly under the gun to meet company metrics. But when it comes to correctly repairing a vehicle, who's the true expert here?

As professionals, why would we want to challenge OEM recommendations when those suggestions are formulated to return the vehicle as close to its original pre-loss condition as possible? Why would we use anything other than OE parts that fit properly, function properly and reduce wasted time? Why would we work outside of the recommended OEM repair procedures when those steps are designed to ensure that the vehicle's systems respond accordingly and parts perform properly in the event of a future accident?

As shop owners we have a lot of things riding on our work. But when the issue of comparing OEM recommendations versus non-OEM arises, the only question we really need to ask regarding the repair of that vehicle is, “Doesn't the customer deserve to be made whole after a loss when it comes to safety, fit and functionality of their vehicle?” The question of whether or not another procedure or part selection has worked in other scenarios is irrelevant if you grasp the responsibility a repairer takes on to assure that the vehicle is restored to pre-loss functionality and fit.

In the end, it comes down to safeguards. OEM recommendations are designed to provide assurance that the vehicle owner is ultimately protected using the proper parts and procedures which ensure adequate performance of the vehicle's safety systems in the unfortunate event of a future accident, while maintaining a high level of intended value for the vehicle.

So do you quit smoking, like your doctor recommended?  Or do you roll the dice and keep lighting up?  In the end, your body will be the judge.