Standards: Good or Bad? - BodyShop Business

Standards: Good or Bad?

Earlier this week, a news blurb caught my eye that had to do with an industry standard for the development of collision repair methods in the United Kingdom. An insurer-funded research entity called Thatcham will develop the standard that they claim will “ensure vehicle repair methods are comprehensive, easy to use, and widely available and accessible at vehicle launch.”

After reading the entire news item, I couldn’t help but think of my wife (a third grade schoolteacher in a public school system) and her plight in trying to implement the now infamous “No Child Left Behind” educational standard set forth upon America’s public school system some six or seven years ago. Certainly, “standards” are appropriate doctrines in certain circumstances, but I can tell you that, from a first-hand account via my wife’s profession, they can do more harm than good in other circumstances.

The “development” of any standard is, by virtue of when it takes place (i.e., at the beginning), the noble or more altruistic part of the process. It’s the implementation of “standards” that poses the greatest challenge to their acceptance and success. I’m generally supportive of the idea of “standards,” which I owe to my undying belief in process efficiency. One does not achieve efficient and beneficial results until disciplined and sometimes “standard” routines and practices are firmly in place throughout any given process. But, many times, I have witnessed “standards” do more harm than good, especially at the implementation phase. Sure, “standards” can be tweaked, rewritten, even overhauled as a result of difficulty in implementation or unsatisfactory results. And, after some adjustments, many “standards” can move forward with great success. But just as many “standards” can and do fail miserably, even after a multitude of adjustments and rewrites have been made. “No Child Left Behind” is more and more becoming one such
example.

Developing “standard” teaching methods, “standard” curricula and “standard” measurement tools (i.e., tests) for millions of individual, professionally-trained teachers so they can help all of their students (some millions more) achieve a comprehensive understanding of that curricula and pass a series of “standard” tests has resulted in (from my perspective) a colossal educational failure. In an environment where it’s proven that each individual student learns, understands and progresses at a different pace educationally as well as socially, and each individual teacher works diligently with each unique student to enable them to adapt to the level of understanding they should be at, “standards” have no place and are failing miserably at this critical point of implementation.

Applying this lesson to the collision repair world should help to send a very loud and clear message: the success of any “standard” can only be measured at the point of implementation and, in many instances, “standards” may actually do more harm than good, regardless of how noble their intention. In creating a “standard” for the development of collision repair methods, are we tipping the scales of assumption too far, such that established efficiencies are lost or downgraded and proven, effective practices are compromised, resulting in many more mediocre repairs and fewer outstanding or above average repairs? If we’ve heard it once, we’ve heard it a million times: “No one ‘hit’ is the same!” Alas, the same can be said for the education industry, where no teacher and no student are the same either.

You May Also Like

Cruise Postpones Release of Driverless Taxi Service

Cruise, a GM subsidiary, recently announced that it will miss its goal of launching a large-scale self-driving taxi service in 2019.

Cruise, a GM subsidiary, recently announced that it will miss its goal of launching a large-scale self-driving taxi service in 2019. Cruise CEO Dan Ammann said the company plans to dramatically increase the number of its autonomous test vehicles on the road in San Francisco, but will not be offering rides to regular people this year, according to an article from The Verge.

Cutting Edge Automotive Solutions Partners with Andretti Rallycross

Andretti Rallycross announced that Cutting Edge Automotive Solutions will serve as technical partner on Cabot Bigham’s No. 02 OINK Clothing Beetle for the remainder of the 2019 Americas Rallycross season, showcasing their SP Tools USA brand.

Ford, Volkswagen Expand Collaboration to Include Autonomous, Electric Vehicles

Ford Motor Company and Volkswagen AG announced they are expanding their global alliance to include electric vehicles – and will collaborate with Argo AI to introduce autonomous vehicle technology in the U.S. and Europe.

CCAR Updates Website with More OSHA Alliance Resources

CCAR (Coordinating Committee For Automotive Repair) has announced the addition of new Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Alliance content on its main website, www.ccar-greenlink.org.

CARSTAR McLaren Lake Forest and CARSTAR McLaren Irvine Open in California

Owned by husband-and-wife team James and Mary Davis, CARSTAR McLaren Lake Forest and CARSTAR McLaren Irvine are a family business.

Other Posts

CIECA to Offer Webinar on What Businesses Need to Know to Implement CIECA Standards

CIECA will hold its next CIECAst webinar, “Implementing CIECA Standards: Implementation Guide and Appendix C – BMS, Code Lists and Shema Components,” on Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2018 at 11 a.m. CST.

CARSTAR Urges Customers to Stay Winter Ready

Cold weather can create some of the harshest driving conditions of the year. The months between October and February top the list for accidents, vehicle damage and injuries.

CIECA Adds Broadly as Corporate Member

The Collision Industry Electronic Commerce Association (CIECA) announced that Broadly has joined CIECA as a corporate member.

NABR Launches BillableGenie Online Searchable Database of Insurer-Paid Not-Included Procedures

National AutoBody Research (NABR) has announced the launch of its BillableGenie online service, an independent, centralized source of actual data on insurer paid not-included procedures and operations, labor rates, labor rate concessions and other manually entered estimate line items.