+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3
FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: Consent Decree to be Sunsetted

  1. Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Southaven, Mississippi

    At a seminar conducted by Mitchell, I pinned the speaker down about the times they allocated in their database regarding prescribed times for various operations. He started telling the lie that they did time studies while observing the various operations being performed. When I asked why the DEG so frequently found their posted times deficient and recommended additional times, since they documented the times required as he stated, he dodged answering the question directly. I made the statement that I knew of no situation that the DEG found a repair time excessive, they were always deficient when actually studied. I then asked why they continued to perpetuate the myth that blend times during paint operations required only 50% of full refinish times, since it has been unequivocally proven over and over not to be true, that it in fact requires more time. When the speaker said,"I have personally witnessed the operation and half the refinish time is adequate", he lost the audience completely, as well as any credibility. The reality is that the data providers conduct few, if any, actual time studies, pander to insurers( their biggest customers) and deliberately misrepresent repair times for one purpose only, to please their biggest customers.
    Last edited by Bill; 09-11-2019 at 08:28 AM.

  2. Join Date
    Jan 2009

    Bill, there has never, ever been or ever will be a statistically valid time 'observation', or group of observations, by anyone that would apply to any operation, group of operations.

    Bottom line, for observations to be a time study and to be applicable, all subsequent operations that were ostensibly applicable to the study, would be required to be in an identical environment, personnel qualifications the same, the exact same operation. Statistically valid.


    Standard time studies and the information coming from a study,(note, not observation) assuming all parameters are the same or statistically close, only apply to repeatable operations that are essentially identical to the one 'observed'. That never exists in ANY repair situation.

    The belief in 'standardizing' time in collision repair is nothing but a sham perpetrated on, well, everyone by those that promote. Just using the terms "study", "standard", "guide", or any other similar word has no place in any conversation dealing with labor time as a basis for pricing, yet it gives the appearance of legitimacy to insurers.

    Insurance companies just love how stupid the collision industry really is. They need someone to blame so they can avoid taking responsibility themselves for the repairs, just as they know that if they were totally responsible for paying for full and complete repairs to return the damaged property to pre accident condition (they also know, pre accident condition can never be achieved in all parameters without considering post damage value) the cost would increase significantly. Insurance companies know it is a sham and the poor insurance employees that engage with repairer structure are completely mind whipped into believing it, so they are the insurance evangelists doling out the Kool aid.

    Everyone can be disposed of if need be to achieve the aim of the sham. But not the insurer.

    Said all this before somewhere in Cobb's DEG string, but IF the insurance industry lost their ability to control cost using this sham their gravy train is done, and P&C insurance would mutate into some other business. Of course they say, "insurance will cost more". Who knows, but I believe the amount of $$ directed from repairers and insureds historically is almost beyond comprehension.

    My opinions. Just a crazy BHOM....
    Roy Smalley,

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts