I've been watching for a while the development and deployment of something from the collision folks called the Database Enhancement Gateway.

In short, (very short), it provides a platform for repairers to point out errors in the databases provided. Such errors may include applications, part attribute issues, colors, labor times, attachments, and other things.

It was intended to be a open platform for such issues to be openly addressed in a transparent environment. I've been waiting patiently for such a thing to happen in glass, especially since we only have, relatively speaking, one data provider, rather than the nominal three that the collision folks have.

In that one of these data providers is now also in the Glass TPA business, it seems it's time to bring this to the forefront and see what it takes to get this ball rolling.

This isn't about yelling and screaming, this is about openly sharing information amongst the industry to clear up what we all seem to recognize as obvious errors in the databases.

So, how about it? In lieu of such a thing, then I might suggest the simplicity of a searchable format here demanding a part number or vehicle reference point so strings posted here would or could be easily searchable.

It must allow easy access from both the repair side, and the data providers, so each may benefit from the notice of a discrepancy in the data, to a final resolution to the issue, and so all can equally benefit from the knowledge.

Personally, I believe it to be past due for such on the glass side, but better late than never may be an applicable analogy.

JMHNLO

This already is available to anyone in the industry on the IGA website called Report-A-Part. Also, any IGA member who uses Total Shop Management is immediately alerted to the part problems be it hours, fit, etc.

In addition, part issues are also posted on the Glass B u z z forums in the IGA Report-A-Part area.

The IGA has made NAGS and the other POS systems aware of the data collection but to date, none of them have requested the data stream from the IGA.

Contrary to what many post on this forum, the IGA truly has the tools to help shops be successful and to make the industry better for everyone. We are not about lawsuits, etc. like some have suggested through guest blogs.

Sounds like a good idea. http://www.degweb.org/about-deg

It seems the IGA has lost its following. Possibly the auto glass industry could hitch its wagon onto the collision industry's. No sense in reinventing the wheel and both industries are part of the vehicle repair industry.

No, the IGA has not lost its following, we are plenty strong. Hitching our industry with the collision repair industry would be a disaster for us. I used to be in that industry and they have their hands full. We would get lost in their world.

What is amazing about the people who frequent this forum is how far they will go to not support the IGA despite the documented progress the association and its members are making. Every week that goes by, the IGA becomes stronger and its members make big strides in success and profitability. We don't sit around and constantly discuss Safelite or complain about common issues that have been around for ages, we get to work.

I agree, don't reinvent the wheel but the IGA has more miles on its vehicle than this DEG company every would in our industry, I can guarantee that.

Thanks for the support JB.

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers Gary. You already stated in your other post that NAGS and all the others you reached out to did not respond. What percentage of the auto glass industry uses your Total Management System? How many members strong is the IGA? Maybe the DEG company would appear more unbiased....
Food for thought.

Gary,

one think you might want to make obvious to shops that still dance is that other shops are getting paid extra for the two man sets. there might be shops that are unaware of networks approving extra labor. that would be one example of the iga helping shops turn a profit. now if you could turn your attention to the myriad of paper nags codes that the electronic version does not recognize.

Gary, not to say anything negative about your post but I read an article last night that made sense, if the wheel hadn't been reinvented several times then cars would be driving around on wooden wheels...just saying reworking and updating some things isn't a bad idea sometimes

Jim,

The IGA does point this out as part of our member advocacy on billing. In addition, IGA members are alerted to two person sets in addition to other information that is important to the installation and billing process when they use their included Total Shop Management system. The IGA even has a report that alerts the shop to their missed billing opportunities.

How much more can the IGA do? Simple answer, the ball is in the court of the independent glass shop. We have aligned and continue to supply the very best business tools and education.

This isn't about reinventing the wheel. It is about independent glass shops supporting and using the tools available to them in their industry. From what I see, there is huge resistance from people on this forum in getting behind and using IGA tools, many of which are available without membership.

Want to see NAGS implement the data collected by the IGA Report-A-Part? Get involved, it's that simple.

No feathers ruffled here. Correct, the companies that you and other shops pay money to like NAGS, GTS, Mainstreet, etc. do nothing with regards to making your voice heard when it comes to part and billing issues. They all have the ability to and you have probably paid them a small fortune over the many years of being in business.

DEG would have the exact same issues in attempting to get NAGS and the other POS providers to accept data reported. Instead of working with a non-AGRR industry based company, why not support the association that is right here for everyone?

Again, thank you for your support.

Ok, let's back up and focus on things just a bit here.

This isn't about IGA. It never was. But I'm good with IGA having a reporting system.

It took a couple of days, and a few posts, but Gary was the one to come full circle and hit the nail on the head.

Even if we collect the data, the Data Provider(s) aren't going to accept it, was basically what he said.

Let's bypass the question of "why?" for now and move on.

Hence, the leading suggestion, that, in lieu of their "blessings" of acceptance of our expert opinions, I say, fine, NO PROBLEM. We'll do it ourselves without them.

First, to focus: Data providers provide a GUIDE. It's NOT A BIBLE. It isn't LAW. It is not written in stone anywhere that it must be used as such. It does not require ANYONE'S "acceptance" to disregard the database if it isn't reflective of the actual parameters needed to properly repair the consumer's property. It isn't the repair expert, we are. To coin two old phrases, "there is no such thing as a XXXX part", and "XXXX does not fix cars". Insert your own data provider in the blanks.

Second, the data providers are not repairing the car.

Third, if they choose to ignore the input from the actual repair experts who are repairing the cars, what does/will that say about the credibility and transparency of their database, their guide?

Fourth, what will it say about anyone that uses that database as "a bible", and refuses to deviate from it even when faced with actual repair data from the actual repair industry by actual repairers working on the vehicles the data was written and supplied, as in "sold", as applicable for? Add to that question the fact that the issues of discrepancies and deficiencies of the data has been provided to said data providers, with no acknowledgement or consideration of it by those data providers?

One may provide, as an example, the recent announcement of pricing increases at the wholesale level with no relevant acknowledgement by a data provider to reflect them, and no communications from them when asked for explanations or transparency of how any calculations are being made to construct said data supplied and sold as being applicable for the repairers to use.

One might also provide a recently provided example of labor times supplied by a data provider for a particular windshield in a particular vehicle, with options ranging from basically nothing, to rain sensor, condensation sensor, and lane departure camera, as the "fully loaded" option, yet labor time is exactly the same for all windshield options.

One could also provide examples of what are still commonly referred to "net priced parts" that won't work with the standard accepted formulas used, yet, they exist and abound within the database supplied and sold as applicable to the vehicle in question.

By the way, the DEG isn't really going where it was intended, I'm told, and the communications seem to be "drying up", so to speak, in some folk's opinions. Which takes us back to Gary hitting the nail on the head.

Suffice to say, my point is, if the data providers aren't listening to us, why are we listening to them, as if what they sold is "a bible"?

Webbie, to wit: no rules broken, no statements made, no boycott or collusion, only questions asked. There is no discussion or request here for proprietary information; only for transparency and open communication to enhance the quality and accuracy of products we all use to service the public.

As always, JMHNLO

Well written,well said. I sure am glad you didn't spammed! You got it in a nut shell, Mark1. PERFECT.
I will add , that adding a distributor to the mix so shops can buy cheaper and then allow ins. co's to pay cheaper is what has been going on for WAY TOO MANY YEARS. Thus we have no manufacturing here in the USA and quality is down the crapper. Most of this is all crap and will produce more crap. jmho

DITTO!
Thanks Mark1. We need to get back to Free Enterprise. Competition is good!
Dancing with the Devil is bad! When Fair Trade Laws are ignored and not enforced, competition slowly disappears and with it new ideas and innovation.
End result, consumers lose......

Speaking of Data Providers, it seems that perhaps they are, in fact, listening.

However, the answers to our questions may not actually be answers, but a shift in the fundamental instrumentation of what we've become accustomed to.

In a short time, we may all be remembering the days of Networks, and wondering what to do about a new problem: your "scorecard", or such? Basically, the next phase won't be about TPAs and installers, it will be about Data Providers and TPAs being under the same roof?

In an ironic way, everyone will be equal. No wonder they're ignoring requests for transparency in the data, it would seem?

Begin Copies/Quotes:

"As a result of the agreement, insurers will initially be able to quickly incorporate their estimatics data within the performance management platform provided by Performance Gateway. Developing the integration means a greatly reduced lead time for implementing the Balanced Scorecard, allowing customers to begin visualizing their data and enabling enhanced performance management for the collision repair industry.

This unique relationship with Performance Gateway is yet another example of our willingness to embrace open technologies to provide greater connectivity among all stakeholders," said Evangelos Antypas, Managing Director, AudaExplore. "By expanding our partnerships and continuing to execute upon our acquisition strategies (i.e. LYNX Services for glass/FNOL/Claims Services, HyperQuest for estimate-in-hand/subrogation, Service Repair Solutions for mechanical, etc.), we are getting closer to providing our customers seamless communication throughout the entire claims and repair process in order for our customers to deliver more accurate appraisals, fewer touch points and an improved vehicle owner experience."

"sachcontrol is a leading property claims management provider in Germany. By comparing property repair invoices against its proprietary database of standardized market prices for materials, labor and repair processes, sachcontrol is able to reduce severity costs for its insurance customers. sachcontrol's database contains millions of data points, localized by postal code covering thousands of repair steps across multiple building trades.

"This acquisition represents our most significant investment yet in strengthening our property claims platform and further extends our reach into the household in Germany and Austria," said Tony Aquila, Solera's founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "sachcontrol will provide leverage to our joint customers by increasing the returns we deliver to them through both high-value auto and property solutions. Working with sachcontrol's management, we see an exciting opportunity to leverage Solera's global footprint to bring sachcontrol's property solutions to new geographies over time."

JMHNLO

Mark1,

For the auto glass industry, ClaimsVerse already has the end-to-end as eluded to in that post but the emphasis is on the installer (shop) and the insured (customer). In fact, ClaimsVerse eliminates the traditional TPA model and puts the emphasis on performance and participation.

The insured, or the shop on behalf of the insured, simply creates the claim and the system does the policy verification and off the shop goes. Through the process, the insurance company has real-time visibility on the scheduled date/time, pictures of the loss, and so on.

It gets better. ClaimsVerse is ready to be integrated with the on board vehicle telematics system so that when glass damage/loss occurs, the vehicle alerts the owner to create a claim or it can automatically create it based on the shop selected by the owner as part of their telematics profile.

In the future, your shop will be notified by the vehicle! It's time to get cozy with your future customers!

Gary, put your self out of a job, stop the technology. haha.
It looks like this technology is a way to use numbers to provide
middle men with increased profit, while reducing ours.
Somehow or nother the insurer will figure a way around it.
Good discussion today on alot of topics over my head. you
really need to expand on the iga billing stuff, you have
do break it into smaller pieces for me to digest it. Sounds
complicated, with all the parts you are talking about.

Would you and others be up to a webinar where I could just demonstrate it?

if you make it can you record it so i can see it on the web site.
i have never had any luck making the "go to meeting" thing work.
i have the impression there are so many variations on the iga billing
system i wouldn't be smart enough to make it work. we use elmo now,
but am sick of the charges, and we don't edi any more since we
quit dancing.

Gary,

Respectfully: This isn't about software. This is about the Data Providers.

I did not start this string to discuss software.

But, you yourself have pointed out the problem I DO wish this string to discuss.

That is simply: No matter what repairers, manufacturers, or wholesalers say, they are being collectively, or at least, selectively, ignored, yet, they are the source of the very data that is in question. How is it possible for so many to see so much in terms of errors, and still be told (or sold) the data as accurate when the very folks that live it day to day know it isn't?

It's unacceptable, untenable, and "time to call a spade a bloody friggin' shovel", as a sweet red haired lady that was nicknamed "Ninja Grandma" used to say.

Please keep the string on that point.

JMHNLO

Mark1,

I don't believe we have strayed of topic at all. While NAGS is the only "data provider" in our industry, the point-of-sale systems who are resellers of NAGS also share responsibility in the situation. When I replied to the original post, I was merely pointing out that our industry does have the tools and means to collect the data. In addition, I also pointed out that not only is the data currently being collected, but also being used successfully by shops despite being the data being ignored by NAGS and the other POS systems.

Simply put, the IGA is providing the only collective means for glass shops to successfully use the data which is germane to the topic overall. If I am wrong or have offended in any way, please accept my apologies.

Thank you for your support.

This issue seems to get on track & then hijacked too many times for me to make sense of. I hope that's not the hijacker's intention.

Gary,

At the end of each day, are we still not left with the problem at hand, the data providers that refuse to accept data from the very industry they are selling their database to, and claiming it is accurate and applicable, at least in some way?

I've seen and heard the quotations from database spokespersons who say that "if the industry didn't want or like the database, they wouldn't buy it", and others that stated "it is only a guide", and still others that, in court, stated "we only provide the data, it's up to the customer's how they use it". And we've both seen the way they sell it to the insurance industry, and it's certainly not the same sales pitch the glass industry gets.

The trouble is, they aren't talking about REPAIRERS when those "choices" of how to use the data are pointed out.

The issue at hand for far too many, and may god bless the success you've had with the software you're supplying, is that we as repairers shouldn't have to be defending ourselves against the very database we have paid for, when we have only that "Hobson's Choice" in regards to its use, and further, are ignored when we point out the deficiencies, errors, and ommissions in that very data. Neither are any of us being paid to "audit" that database nor for our time to "report" our findings to them so they may "sell" a better product. (Which they don't seem to want to do in any case.)

Finding ways to cut corners (in ANY manner) to survive within the parameters the databases provided, is akin to the tail wagging the dog, or the cart before the horse. Isn't it about time the industry simply realized that their "bible" isn't a bible at all and demanded accountability and transparency from those data providers for what they're selling? Such could be described as something as simple as a list of ingredients so we know what we're consuming. We need not have the "proprietary formula" or "recipe".

We also both know that if any of the documentation of these issues were posted here, it would be pulled very quickly.

JMHNLO

Mark1 is again right on. Gary, does e-direct use nags benchmark? What is being discussed here is NOT SOFTWARE. All glass shop software uses NAGS as a BENCHMARK, NOT A BIBLE.

This is what Mark1 is saying. Please Gary get beyond Your mind set of SOFTWARE. THIS IS BEYOND ANY SOFTWARE.

To get any creditability to NAGS and ANY AND ALL SOFTWARE to determine pricing we need to have clear and correct data. And we need to ALL know the magic formula of how that these prices are determined. And if they are determined by some low ball idiot shop, we need to verify that these prices are in fact fair or any form of reasonable.

So again this is about more than software, that is TAINTED, This is about credibility of the DATA. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND this concept?

This is just another way to explain a huge part of the "PROBLEM".
I sure hope a few can understand this post

I don't recall pricing being part of the first message in the post but perhaps I am wrong. Yes, I have said I understand this is about data and I as I have pointed out, what the IGA has is data too. It is the only known data that allows shops to fix what NAGS cannot or will not. It is another tool to allow shops to "get it right". The IGA decided to stop fighting a loosing battle with regards to data accuracy on behalf of any data provider in the industry and simply provide something of true usefulness to the industry.

We know there is no magic formula for the pricing NAGS establishes. NAGS does not contact shops to assist in establishing pricing. On the other forum we have the documents from NAGS employees over time that have said what they use.

Thank you for your support.

With your system the hourly rates can be changed for a more accurate labor time?
Do all the shops that participate change the hours to reflect actual labor when its obvious nags is incorrect? if shops are not changing the hours, then the nags hours are being given credibility where they should not.

Yes, the shop can change the hourly rate to reflect reality either by using the Report-a-Part suggestions or their own. Obviously, it is up to the shop to adopt this and sadly, it is tough getting them to do this. The time to stop impeding, judging and complaining is now. If independent glass shops want change, get on board and help us. We have great tools and wonderful members who need your ongoing support and contribution.

Thank you for your support.

"Why do we continue to allow the insurance industry to tell us how much we can charge for our service?"


JB, what tool is being used for the insurers, or TPAs, to tell you what to charge for your service?

What happens when a shop (member or not, membership is irrelevant, and is becoming even more so) refuses or rejects the parameters of that tool?

What happens if you invoice for a #A75Q43RJP instead of a NAGS numbered part?

What happens if you invoice for "one windshield installed for $xx.xx" instead of "3.5 NAGS hours @ $xx.xx per hour"?

What happens if you invoice USING NAGS Service Part Numbers SFR 00300 for Freight, or for SRW 00700 for Rust Work (Removal), or for SBU 01300 for Butyl to Urethane Conversion, to cite only three examples? Note that these are clearly in the printed versions, but absent from the electronic databases, it seems?

What happens if you find clear errors in labor time, benchmark or list pricing, added/missing/necessary items such as moldings, or clips, or rain sensor pads or gels, and you add them, perhaps "without prior permission" even though they were necessary to complete the job properly, fully, and safely?

Of course, simply the most popular, what happens if you invoice using "incorrect" discounting or $ of labor per hour or hours "allowed"?

Knowing what the answer is, where does the data from these "altered" invoices then end up after they are "altered" by the TPA?

If the tool isn't working, hasn't been working, isn't likely to work tomorrow, and we can't get the folks who make the tool WE are PAYING FOR to listen and acknowledge it's shortcomings, one would think the simple solution is to stop using it, correct it, refine it, fix it, or find a suitable replacement for it, yes?

Assuming we pursue that solution, what will happen?

So I ask again, is it long past time to demand transparency from a data provider to ascertain if the tool we are paying for is indeed capable of being used in ANY fashion for us to base a successful business model on, because it seems apparent that the tool isn't working, hasn't been working, and isn't likely to work tomorrow?

Or is it working just fine, as far as "some" are concerned?

I'm really trying to simplify these questions, but also trying to maintain the distance to keep the webbie comfortable with the rules of posting. It also seems necessary to walk folks through the thought process to distill the host of problems down to a common denominator, and demand some accountability there.

JMHNLO

When a majority of the billing from glass shops follows the status-quo, it becomes a liability to everyone. Insurers are able to use the "mob mentality" argument 80% of the time. For those shops who ignore NAGS labor times, pricing, etc. it becomes an enormous task to collect and usually they rely on settlements that still put the billing at 15% off NAGS.

The ability to report an discrepancy for hours, two man sets, etc. may fall on deaf ears for the company who publishes data that the insurance companies use; however, using data that does exist in a repository such as the IGA Report-A-Part system does have an impact in demonstrating reality.

Overall, the problem remains that the majority of independent glass shops do not want or will not change the way they conduct business. I have heard the gamut from I won't get work to I will be kicked off the program, etc. I always point out that the effect of any of those is absolutely nothing.

Is it really hard to ask a shop to visit the IGA website and take a few minutes to report an issue? No, it isn't. What about reporting steering, coercion, etc. when providing the first notice of loss?

The tools are available to the industry - it's time the industry uses them, changes the way it does business, and realizes the power to change is in its hands. Someone else is not going to do it for them. I can lead you to the river but if you want to swim, you have to go in yourself.

Thank you for your support.