The old saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words" holds a lot of truth for collision repairers. A more accurate saying however should be, "A picture is worth a thousand dollars" or more!
Collision repair facilities and insurance companies have been dependent on the use of photography for a very long time. The growth of instant photography, such as products by Polaroid, and of 35mm color prints provided the industry with an efficient method to document the extent of damage suffered by a vehicle, to document additional damage uncovered after repairs started and to provide proof of the eventual repair of that damage.
The use of images is ubiquitous throughout the collision repair industry. Each and every repair requires the recording of several images.
Much as instant photography and 35mm revolutionized claims handling in the ’60s and ’70s and computerized estimating in the ’80s and early ’90s, digital imaging is setting the stage to revolutionize claims handling in the ’90s and beyond.
Digital imaging is nothing more than computer based photography. The user shoots an image, whether with a video camera or digital still camera, then captures or transfers that image to their computer where it can be incorporated with other electronic documents, such as the repair estimate, to complete a claim.
Think of the traditional method of claims handling before the advent of computerized estimating and imaging. Prior to computerization, the shop estimator or insurance adjuster would visually inspect the damage to the vehicle, shoot a few instant or 35mm photos, and write a handwritten estimate of the damage. The images were then stapled or paper-clipped to the estimate, the claim settled and the documents filed away.
If during the repair process, additional damage was discovered by the repair facility, more images would be shot of the damage in question, and filed or mailed to the adjuster to document supplement requests. This assumes, of course, that the insurer didn’t require the adjuster to physically inspect the damage prior to repairs. All of these procedures took time, time that can be eliminated through the use of computerization.
Computerized estimating, and the transfer of those estimates using EDI are familiar to many of our subscribers. Digital imaging and the transfer of those images, along with the estimate to the insurer are a growing part of a shop’s claims handling practices. This trend will continue to expand to more and more insurers.
During the recent CIC conference in Cleveland, Ken Karutz of ADP stated that a survey of 50 insurers showed that 28 were either using digital imaging or had digital imaging projects underway. State Farm has been introducing digital imaging to many shops throughout the US as part of its Service First claims handling program.
Last month’s TrendLine Survey showed a large percentage of shop operators currently using digital imaging systems. Roughly 59 percent of those who responded to the survey were using digital imaging, with either a digital still or video camera as the input device. Of those repairers that did not currently use digital imaging, 70 percent anticipated purchasing products within the next 12 months. This is certainly the year of digital imaging for collision repairers.
While these numbers point towards good sales figures for ADP, CCC and Mitchell, one disturbing result pointed towards the collision repair facility’s large level of dissatisfaction with the cost-effectiveness of digital imaging compared to other forms of imaging- 34.2 percent of the survey’s respondents reported they were dissatisfied with the result of their purchase. If you’re a glass is half-full kind of person that means 65.8 percent were satisfied. But, a collision repair facility that scored only 65.8 percent in a CSI survey would be in pretty big trouble.
Why the low scores? First, the TrendLine results showed that 87.9 percent purchased the systems due to their participation in a DRP program with an insurer. Only 8.5 percent bought the systems for their potential cost savings. Interviews with shop owners showed that, much like the pressure felt to purchase the insurer’s preferred brand of estimating system, shop operators often felt pressured to purchase an imaging product. And, that certainly led to resentment- earning low satisfaction scores, unfairly, for ADP, CCC and Mitchell.
On the flip side of the coin, many of the respondents were early adopters of the technology. They lived through the growing pains of the systems- and their memories of those problems are justifiably long.
The good news is that the providers of the imaging systems have listened to users and have dramatically improved their product offerings. The second and third generation systems available today are much easier to set-up and use than previous releases. Early users of computerized estimating systems can surely draw some parallels in their experiences.
Today’s systems available from ADP, CCC and Mitchell have many similarities in their appearance and workflow procedures. Each enables the user to capture a number of images, annotate and describe them as necessary, then couple them with an electronic version of the estimate. The software also includes a communications package that allows the shop to communicate this file to the insurer- which is the entire point of the exercise in the first place.
In contacting numerous respondents of the TrendLine survey that expressed disatisfaction with the cost-effectiveness of their digital imaging system, it appears many left the communications factor out of their judgement of the overall benefits they receive from digital imaging. The primary reason for purchasing a digital imaging system for over 87 percent of the shops surveyed was the ability to communicate with insurers. Over 77 percent of the respondents were using their imaging systems to communicate photos and estimate data with insurers.
This leads us to the question, "Is digital imaging improving the speed and accuracy of the claims handling process?" Most shops contacted in the follow-up phone surveys agreed that the systems were providing benefits, particularly in the area of supplements.
When a repair facility uncovers additional damage, they are able to either send images of the damage immediately, or include the images in the final bill. Some shops even incorporate digital scanners into their systems to scan images of parts invoices showing additional parts purchased for the repairs, or parts price increases where applicable.
Stumbling blocks do come up repeatedly in shop discussions of the technology. First, the speed of transfer from shop to insurer and from the camera to the shop computer is not nearly as fast as many shop owners would like. This is a communications issue beyond just digital imaging systems that the computer and on-line industries are working to solve.
The ability to communicate repair damage, with high resolution images, is an important advance in computerized relations with insurers. The advantages will only improve as systems become more closely integrated with estimating applications and as standards for imaging transactions are developed.
Finally, all shops will use digital imaging in the near future as insurers push both DRP and non-DRP repairers to use the technology. The benefits are apparent for both sides.
Reprinted from the November 1997 Issue of Collision Repair Industry INSIGHT.
© 1997 Collision Repair Industry INSIGHT. All Rights Reserved
Return to Archives