Much has been written, read, cussed and discussed about the merits of measuring. Do we do it? Do we have to? One of the trick questions is do we have the capability to measure a collision damaged vehicle with 3-D measuring?
A few of us have questions of our own. As technicians, how do we get paid for doing it? As operators, how do we recover the cost of the equipment from a business owner’s standpoint?
3-D measuring is a time-consuming process and it is technically challenging. If you don’t believe that, consider your first attempt at 3-D measuring. It doesn’t matter if you are using laser, sonar or mechanical technology; the process is a bit mystifying to those who do not understand our business. Try to explain how the system works to a customer or someone outside the industry. Explain how the system works, not just the principle behind the process. Then watch the wrinkles on their forehead appear. The fact it is complicated should tell us immediately that it is worth something to be able to perform quality repairs using 3-D measuring.
The process of measuring is vital to the safety of the people who will drive the repaired vehicle. For that matter, it is vital to the safety of everyone else who shares the road with them. Once again this shows that 3-D measuring is technically challenging and worth something to that customer.
Proper placement of all structural components is essential for proper panel fit and structural realignment. If the structure is not measured but simply “pulled until the panels fit,” can anyone make the argument that the vehicle is structurally sound and has not been re-engineered to make things fit? I realize that some technicians can make the argument, but can they make a good argument that will be a good defense in court?
Vehicle structural systems are only going to become more complex and will require a new generation of technicians with a new line of equipment to serve the motoring public. Our industry should embrace the idea that getting it close or guessing is a thing of the past. Those ideas are best kept with the buggy whip.
3-D measuring systems are relatively expensive to purchase or lease. This cost can be a big budget item for many small-sized operations. Some measuring systems can cost as much as or more than the frame equipment we use to repair the car in the first place. More than one operator has scratched his or her head at the end of a month or pay period realizing what the payment is on the equipment and how much revenue that equipment brought in last month. If you have never tracked this, it might be a good exercise for you to start.
There are many body shops throughout the country that have measuring systems but do not use them for various reasons. Having seen this in so many shops, the reasons became more and more apparent—the why became clear. Following are the top ten reasons why many operators and technicians have measuring systems in the shops but don’t use them:
10. No one can find the instructions.
9. Nobody here knows how it works.
8. The salesman said it would be easy, but it’s not.
7. Some of the parts are missing.
6. There are no current books or data.
5. The current books or data are too expensive.
4. We just pull it ’til everything fits.
3. The insurance company made me do it.
2. Nobody pays us for it anyway.
1. We don’t have to use it; we just have to have the capability.
Most of these reasons are true, but are they legitimate? We have all been down that long, muddy road, trying to explain to some technicians that measuring is important.
The documentation that goes with 3-D measuring is essential if we are ever asked or forced to defend our repair process to our customer or to the court system. Our presentation of facts may be what holds our defense together. Imagine having to defend your work by saying, “I just pulled it ’til it fit.” The professional credibility is just not there.
Now try this response on for size: “Here is a printout of the damaged dimensions immediately before repairs began, and here are the repaired dimensions immediately after the repair process. A correction of 23 mm in height, a 14-mm correction for width and a 4-mm correction for length was necessary to restore the vehicle’s dimension to pre-loss condition for this vehicle.” This answer is more professional and the documentation shows its own power here.
Aside from making the repairs faster and more accurate the first time, documentation may very well be the true value of 3-D measuring.
Making sure you are properly compensated for this procedure is another challenge. Let’s have a look at how other industries are compensated for this. A mechanical technician can sometimes spend hours diagnosing a problem and 20 minutes fixing it. Does he or she charge for the diagnostic time? Of course. Diagnostics is another form of measuring and is a billable procedure.
There are many examples of technicians getting paid to measure all around us if we just think about it. What would happen if you built a new home and the carpenter did not measure anything? “I just nailed it together when it fit.” The bricklayer: “I just stacked bricks and mortar till I got to the roof.” The plumber: “That pipe doesn’t look so bad sticking out of the wall.” The carpet layer: “Well it’s pretty close to the corner.” The landscaper: “I ran out of sod, but I kinda like that checkerboard look.”
Compensation for services can be a line item on an estimate or built into the repair process. However you do it, it should be identified as to how much time during the repair process is dedicated to measuring. It also should be explainable and defendable to the customer and ultimately to the courts if needed.
Measuring in collision repair does not always mean using a measuring device. Fitting and refitting quarter panels, doors, roof panels, glass and front cosmetic panels are all a form of measuring. Some jobs require fitting doors to quarter panels several times to accomplish proper fit.
Jim Pickett is on the operations team at Service King Collision Centers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. “Additional time for measuring is part of the estimates that involve repairs to modified frames/structures, such as vehicles with lift kits or that are lowered or otherwise altered from factory specifications,” he said. “The suspension angles and wheels and tires are all affected by these changes and it poses an additional challenge during the repair process.”
The issue of using one standard charge for measuring is often used by many shops. The invented standard of “set-up and measure” has crept into our industry during the years and has become almost invisible for many of us. There is no such procedure listed anywhere. The fact of the matter is, these are two completely separate procedures and should be itemized separately on the estimate or damage report. It is called frame set-up, and measure and identify.
For example, these procedures are described in separate sections of Mitchell’s Collision Estimating Guide. Frame set-up is listed in the Labor General Information section and includes procedures such as the following: disconnecting or removing the battery; raise or lift the vehicle; removing and replacing wheel and tire assemblies; attaching the vehicle to the anchoring system, removing or moving line, hoses, brackets, etc. for access; and removing the vehicle after repairs on the frame equipment are completed. This is considered an operation by itself and the intent of the Guide is to attach a time to each estimate when this procedure is necessary.
Measure and identify is a separate operation listed in the Additions to Labor Times section of the same manual and includes measuring underbody, under hood upper-body reference points to accepted OEM specifications to identify structural damage.
Somehow through the years we have come to melt these two together to make a single charge, which means one procedure is done for free. Free is not reasonable in any industry.
It might be worth the time and effort to do your own time study in your own environment with your own equipment to determine what a fair and reasonable price for this service should be. There is no magic formula to determine what the price or cost should be as long as it is justified.
If we build fair compensation into the repair process for measuring, doesn’t it make sense that technicians would be more willing to do it and do it correctly? This would strengthen any shop’s position when asked to defend its repairs. Lawsuits are the norm in our society and it would be a shame for a good technician who is trained the wrong way to suffer the consequences. Who can best afford the consequences of litigation? The insurance company can usually hold its own financially, the shop owner can insure against faulty work, (not fraudulent work), but the technician gets caught in the middle because he or she is only doing what he is told. This can be a trap in the legal system because the technician is considered to be a repair professional and can be held responsible for doing the job right.
People’s lives and livelihood could possibly be at stake here, and the true professional who can do the job right and prove it afterward is worth fair compensation.