In today's global economy, information - and the access to it - is one of the most important commodities one can purchase. The auto collision industry is no different. Integral to a shop's profit is the accuracy and availability of estimating data.

Of course, the data a computerized or printed estimating guide contains is merely a guideline for producing profitable damage reports. Your own (or your employees') real repair experiences provide the best background for writing estimates. However, the data provided by major collision industry crash book publishers makes for a less disputable basis for labor figures, especially when the estimate is to be presented to an insurance or fleet company.

As you probably know, the two major publishers of printed crash data are Mitchell International and Motor Publications. The databases compiled by these companies are used in Mitchell UltraMate and CCC Pathways computer estimating programs respectively. To add another competitor to the computerized mix, ADP uses its own proprietary database, Audatex, that was originally developed in Germany for their Shoplink estimating system. These three computerized estimating products provide data that is sometimes different, yet equally useful in preparing estimates.

Labor estimates, by their very definition, are often predictions based on prior experience, and therefore any data upon which they are based is good so long as it is realistic. Each technician in a shop will perform a given operation in a different amount of time, and thus any labor figure approximate to the actual times in which they perform the task is good for the purpose of writing an estimate. Absolutes come into play in the realm of parts estimating.

Just as good information about predicted labor times is necessary, so too are parts pricing, availability and configuration data. Unlike labor data, where an approximation of reality is sufficient, parts data must be exact. Close does not count. Parts prices must be the same as the list prices your discounts are based on; parts listed in the database must be available, and they must be available in the same configuration for data to be good.

Often the most argued topic in the collision industry is labor. Each of the major three collision industry automated estimating providers strive to make the labor data upon which their systems operate as accurate as possible. Each of them conducts in-shop time studies. In most cases, these studies analyze individual operations such as making plug welds or removing bolts rather than entire R&R operations of specific parts on specific vehicles. These time studies are then used as a basis for the labor times for entire assemblies and large parts such as quarter panels or radiator supports. Manufacturers' times for R&R of parts under warranty or in their service manuals are often used as guidelines as well. Time studies are also performed on common refinish operations. In addition, each company employs experienced technicians to write their R&R and refinish databases who draw from their own hands-on experience. In some cases, R&R and refinish labor times are based on similar vehicles that already have established labor times. For example, a 1999 Pontiac Grand Prix is nearly identical to the 1998 model, and thus, most labor times are carried over to the new year model's data.

Knowing how a computerized estimate is generated is necessary to determine the accuracy of the final product. Each company's estimating program handles overlap and includes operations differently. On top of that, the manner in which the flat rate labor figure is arrived at is displayed differently from one company's system to another, and sometimes not at all, which can be the cause of much confusion and frustration.

Mitchell's UltraMate does not display overlap deductions, rather, it simply shows the resultant labor after any applicable deductions have been made. Included operations are marked "INC" and can be readily identified. Clear coat application is calculated and displayed as a single line item at the bottom of a report. ADP's system either does not display any calculation-based information, or if configured by the user to, will display overlap deductions and clear coat application calculations on a line-item basis. ADP also marks included operations "INC." CCC's Pathways displays overlap deductions, clear coat calculations on a line-item basis until it reaches a cap if set, drill time additions, paint edging additions, and other calculations on each line-item as needed. Included operations are, again, marked "INC." It is important to realize these differences to make a fair assessment of an estimate's validity. It is also important to understand when and why these calculations are made on the particular system you use, and when manual adjustments or additional items may be needed to complete a fair damage report.

For instance, ADP's Shoplink often included the R&I of fenders when replacing a radiator support, whereas CCC's Pathways does not. Thus, when R&R of a radiator support becomes necessary, which system you have can determine what other operations may need to be added to make the estimate complete. Read your particular system's manual thoroughly, and if the system offers online P-page explanations, use them to your benefit. Double-checking yourself can avert costly omissions. Also, remember that just because there is no suggested labor in the database for an operation does not mean you cannot charge for it. Prime examples of this would be color sanding and buffing, or drill time on some systems.

One item regarding labor that is often frustrating to many estimators is that many information providers do not provide R&R times for all parts. For instance, our shop repaired a 1998 Volkswagen Passat equipped with a 1.8L turbo powerplant. The intercooler, which is located just behind the damaged front bumper, was replaced. Neither our printed estimating guide nor our computer's database listed an R&R time for the item in question, so we had to input one of our own. Many estimators make the mistake of thinking that if an item has no R&R time associated with it, it must be included, but the intercooler was not included in the bumper R&R time, it simply was omitted from the data provided. We still had to be compensated for the intercooler's replacement.

Although the information providers are not often to blame, errors in a computerized estimating system's parts database can wreak havoc on the accuracy of an estimate. Most information providers usually take data provided by vehicle manufacturers and build their parts databases upon them. Sometimes errors occur because things change and the data is not updated.

For instance, if moldings are offered color-keyed for the first few years of a particular car model's life, the database will probably offer no paint time. Then, if the manufacturer later decides it is more cost effective to offer them primed and let the shops paint them, the database may not reflect the change. In this event, you might unwittingly omit the paint time.

Sometimes parts become packaged differently than the database indicates. I refer to this as part configuration data. The most prevalent parts-related problem is pricing issues. Many OEMs change their list prices every few months. Because CD ROMs, which update most estimating system's data, are provided monthly, they are often a month behind such changes. During the resulting lag time, your estimate's prices may be off as much as 5 percent. This can cut into your parts profit since your discounts are calculated based on the new list prices.

Now that you have an understanding of how information providers come up with their labor and parts data, as well as how you should be handling the actual act of writing an accurate computerized estimate, you can see that the human element still comes into play quite a bit in the process of developing and utilizing collision repair labor data. There are always opportunities for honest, human mistakes on both ends of the process. It should never be assumed that simply because an estimate is computer generated that it is faultless. For the estimate is only as good as the accuracy of the data with which it was written, and the care to accuracy the writer himself shows.

I would like to thank representatives from Mitchell, Motor, CCC and ADP for taking time to provide background information for this article.

Patrick M. Paul is the office manager of ASA member Mell Paul's Body Shop in Norcross, Ga., and a former computer and digital imaging consultant. He holds a degree in management and is an ASE-certified estimator.

RATE THIS ARTICLE What do you think of this article? Your input will help AutoInc. develop additional articles on this subject. Share your thoughts! Your name Your e-mail address

MOST ACCESSED ARTICLES Fuel Injection Service, Not Just Cleaning The Art of Extraction EGR Systems: Operation and Diagnosis Proactive Target Marketing:_Rethinking Your Business Strategy Engine Performance: HO2S Diagnostics MOST E-MAILED ARTICLES Developing Employee Potential How Critical Thinking Can Help Your Business How to Diagnose the Ford Glow Plug What to Look for When Shopping for the Right Shop Management Software Putting a Price Tag on Complaints

AutoInc. Web Site | ASA Web Site | U.S. Appeals Court Rejects Clean Air Regulations | Scan Tool Information: Data or Dogma? | How Accurate is That Computerized Estimate? | Clearing the Hurdles of Estimating Systems Training | Organizing the Office | AutoInc.'s Ninth Annual Management Software Guide | Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) | Guest Editorial | Tech to Tech | Tech Tips | Shop Profile | Net Worth | Stat Corner | Chairman's Message