CIC challenges CCC to produce data that justifies bumper prompt

The Collision Industry Conference (CIC) Database Committee issued the following statement regarding CCC’s decision to reinstate the bumper prompt:

This statement is presented to the CIC body from the CIC Database Committee on behalf of the collective membership of ASA, AASP and SCRS, and the many CCC Pathways customers within this collective membership.

The Database Committee first challenged CCC on the bumper prompt issue several years ago. Then, as also applies now, we contended that the bumper prompt was unjustified and in direct conflict with existing paint manufacturer recommended procedures. CCC engaged us in what turned out to be an unnecessarily drawn out process, consuming and distracting our volunteer resources from other pressing action items, at the conclusion of which CCC publicly agreed that the prompt was in conflict with recommended refinish procedures, finally fully removing the prompt early in 2008. During this entire process, the Database Committee was persistent and forceful, but always respectful of relationships that we sought and today still seek to maintain

As you are all aware, in what we view as a violation of trust with the collision industry, CCC has elected to reintroduce the bumper prompt. This occurred with no prior notice to or consultation with the Database Committee, while one or more insurers were given advance notice of this pending change. The Database Committee immediately engaged CCC, and recently motivated a physical meeting with CCC in Chicago, during which time all the major manufacturers reiterated their published recommended procedures. By our measure, these approved procedures are essentially identical to those that ultimately motivated the initial removal of the prompt. Despite what we view as compelling evidence, CCC has thus far elected to stand firm in their decision to reintroduce the prompt.

The Database Committee contends that an optionally turned on or turned off bumper prompt is just as indefensible today as it was when it was first introduced. These estimating products need to be trusted by all end users for them to be of any value. That trust will only exist if and when their scope is limited to them being a messenger of information and a reflection of approved processes, whether these processes are defined by the OEMs or by the paint manufacturers. When an estimating solution goes past this definition and seeks to accommodate or reflect market desires and pressures, we are left with chaos and the reinforced perception that these estimating systems and their underlying databases are the subject of manipulation.

The CIC Database Committee feels strongly that wherever possible, these products should be solely driven by approved procedures. We have done our homework, and we once again contend that the data that we have gathered in no way justifies a return of the bumper prompt. We are more than willing to share this data publicly. At a minimum, we contend that CCC owes this same transparency to our industry. We challenge CCC to publicly share any new and specific paint manufacturer data that would justify a return of the bumper prompt. We also challenge CCC to explain how our industry is bettered by the reintroduction of a tool that has had a long history of abuse by parties seeking to artificially influence estimate values.

Collision industry surveys indicate that database manipulation continues to be a top concern for repairers. The CCC bumper prompt issue is both a prime example of this manipulation, and an opportunity for the repairers to draw a clear line in the sand and say “enough is enough.”