Time for a fresh approach

Former national assessing manager with Allianz car insurance, Keith Dean, who has had a lifelong association with the repair industry, believes that it is time for the young minds in the collision repair industry to step up and start to take responsibility for directing the future of the industry. He has written to Australasian Paint & Panel expressing his views.

Dear Sir,

After my first encounter with a repairer as a 20 something year old assessor, I quickly gained the impression we were not “mates”. Indeed, subsequent dealings with repairers I learnt that the relationship between repairers and insurers was adversarial to say the least. That was back in the early seventies. I have been involved in the industry ever since in one form or another and nothing has changed over the past 40 years. I’ll hazard a guess and say the adversarial relationship we have today started long before the early seventies.

Over the years there have been numerous attempts to fix the problem but as time went on this became more and more difficult because of the deep rooted issues surrounding mistrust from both sides.

Then along came the Productivity Commission’s investigation into the relationship, arguably the most encouraging process that promised to heal and fix a lot of the issues. All those who had something to say and wanted to had the opportunity. And from that came the much awaited conclusion and recommendation for the big fix.

The unfortunate thing is that this has been all for virtually nothing. Where are we right now? Not that much better off than we were 40 years ago.

It was refreshing to read Mike Wilkinson’s article in the recent Paint & Panel under the heading “Resisting realistic times and rates” on page 6. I could not agree more with your view Mike, enough is enough.

Let’s take the price model for instance. The Productivity Commission recommended we change this to reflect a more modern approach. So a few of the “old heads” (from both sides) went out and reduced the times a tad and increased the hourly rates. Hardly an innovative way of addressing the problem. I did say four years ago and numerous times since, this will not work. This approach clearly lends itself to “more of the same” arguments and mistrust and that’s exactly what’s happening now. What we need is a fresh approach by fresh, young minds.

Instead the “old heads” took control of the process, ruining any opportunity we had to start afresh. They came together, made a small adjustment to what was already an unworkable process and now wonder why people are reluctant to embrace their ideas. Paint & Panel survey results published in the latest edition March/April 2010 show the repair industry do not want what is on offer. It’s been five years since the Productivity Commission handed down their findings and you guys are still stuffing around with this. When are you going to realise it’s time you gave it away?

These people (the old heads) need to get out of way and give the younger people a go. It’s the younger ones who are going to have to bear the cross you “old heads” are now creating for them. They are the ones who will have to work with this approach of yours into the future long after you guys are gone. Clearly what you are giving them is “more of the same” of what we had for the past 40 or more years.

It doesn’t take too much common sense to know that a different and more innovative approach where repairers and insurers work together is needed. The challenge now is to assemble to right people with young and fresh minds to meet and come up with a more workable process.

And whilst I’m at it, the article on the same page (6) written by Richard Nathan headed “Embrace RTAR for industry future” brought a smile to my face. Richard, I wrote about this very issue and expressed the same concerns in the 2007 May/June edition of Paint & Panel. You took the time to admonish the concerns I raised in that article. It appears now after three years you have gained some understanding of what has been abundantly clear for some time and should have been part of your deliberations over working relationships with work providers.

Your plan/strategy Richard is simply not working and this only supports my view to have a fresh approach and rethink the process through with younger minds. Any volunteers?
Keith Dean

Keith Dean’s letter was first published on www.paintandpanel.com.au and generated considerable interest from within the industry.

Some of your comments:

“I suppose if you were in Keith Dean’s position (an Audatex Employee) it is in his best interest to discredit the opposition. Keith, if you believe that the RTRM concept is negative for the industry, that would also include the Audatex concept of RTRM!!. Keith, take your own advice as an old head and move on into retirement. However before you go, I’m sure the industry would like to hear what is your solution. We all await the silver bullet from your wealth of knowledge.”
– Another Graham 26 March

“I think Keith should take his own advice. Computer software salesman should be young and dynamic, not old, twisted and bitter.”
– Graham 25 March

“Ask yourself the question; ‘How much do most insurers pay for beaver panel sealers?’. Then look RTRM and see what it pays. Look at beaver panel R and R times old versus new. Look at door skin times old versus new. Look at paint increases. Ask when was the last one you got. How many has RTRM paid in its short existence?”
– Graham Smith 25 March

“We need the industry to agree on a standardised RTRM quoting system. One that has buy in from the manufacturers. If anyone knows the time to fix, they should!”
– John G on 25-Mar-10

Well MTA, I know why I’m not a member. (You) have sold out repairers in my opinion, and left the industry in a mess. If I was a member I would be asking you the question ‘what do you do for me?’.”
– Phillip 25 March

“I agree with Keith and think RTRM is an absolute joke. IAG have just plucked abnormal times without doing the research. As always the poor repairer cops it all. Hey what’s new.”
– John 24 March