Posts Tagged glassBYTES.com
Is there a formula that you use to measure success in your career or to measure the performance of employees of your company that determines the success you achieve? What are the metrics or goals that you follow to measure success (or failure) that drives (inhibits) sales and profits for you company? Having metrics is obviously critical to ensure that employees know what is required of them allowing companies to be successful.
Sports are another example of the importance of metrics and formulas managers and coaches use to ensure success. If you like basketball you’ll know who Rick Majerus was (he passed away in 2012). He attempted to be a walk-on college basketball player for the Marquette Golden Eagles in 1967, but didn’t get a chance to play. Instead he became a student assistant at Marquette. After being an assistant coach to Al McGuire for 11 years; Majerus went on to become a head coach at Marquette, then to Ball State, Utah State and ending his coaching career at Saint Louis. Majerus had a short stint as an assistant coach with the Milwaukee Bucks in the late 1980’s.
During his coaching career he developed a statistics formula he believed a college basketball team needed to achieve in order to be successful. Majerus developed a metric he called the “165 Formula”. It combined three key game statistics that were added together for each individual player on the team. He totaled each player’s shooting percentage during the season for field goals, 3 pointers and free throws; believing that a successful team needed at least one of his players have these three stats add up to a total of 165. Over his coaching career Majerus won over 70% of his games, so he must have found players that he felt could hit his magical 165.
There are a lot of ways to achieve success on the basketball court. Just take a look at men’s college basketball’s current AP number one ranked team the University of Kentucky Wildcat’s. How many players does Coach John Calipari (Coach Cal) have that meet Majerus’ formula? Take a look at the graph below and you’ll see how many.
Now let’s take a look at the team that I follow, the University of Illinois Fighting Illini men’s basketball team to see how they compare against The 165 Formula. As you will see in the picture below (from the game versus the Hampton University Pirates on 12/17/2014), the Illini have four players that beat the formula. Great!
After last Saturday’s game versus the Ohio State Buckeye’s, the season statistics for the Fighting Illini’s six leading players show that Rice, Hill, Eguw and Nunn continue to exceed the formula target of 165.
|Name||FG %||FT %||3-PT %||Total|
|Average as of 1/3/2015||166.7|
So the Fighting Illini has a record of 10 wins versus 4 losses for the year and they are not currently ranked in the AP Top 25 and they’ve lost their first two Big 10 Conference games. You’d think they’d either be ranked or winning conference games with four starters with numbers that exceed 165 as per The 165 Formula Rick Majerus felt was needed for success. Perhaps Illini Head Coach John Groce thinks that they are successful? I’m guessing not as much as he’d like.
Now let’s compare the Fighting Illini to the number one ranked team in men’s college basketball, the Kentucky Wildcats. How many players do the Wildcat’s have that meet the Majerus 165 Formula? Well…..just one.
|Name||FG %||FT %||3-PT %||Total|
|Average of 1/3/2015||140.9|
As you can see the one player on the Wildcats that scored a 165 using the Majerus formula is Tyler Ulis. He became a starter after Alex Poythress was injured after the 10th game of the season so his stats may be an outlier. The Wildcat’s had already found phenomenal success prior to Ulis getting more playing time. With the Wildcat’s averaging 140.9 points (110.4 if you take out Ulis) to the formula and the Illini averaging 166.7 points there must be more to achieving success. Besides the entire team of players performing at a level it also takes the head coach, assistant coaches, trainers and doctors to achieve success. You can add to the mix scouts, recruiters, training facilities, athletic director, along with support from students and alumni. So Coach Cal has obviously found his formula to achieve success at the University of Kentucky. He’s surrounded himself with the best players, along with the all the best people and resources needed to support the team.
So John Calipari (along with Rick Majerus) obviously found a formula that he has used to find success in his career. It’s the same in business isn’t it? Don’t we all want to be Coach Cal? To achieve a consistent level of success you need to develop your own formula. But a key ingredient is the need to surround yourself with the best people, the best team you can find to help you find great success for your organization. It doesn’t really matter what your business is, if you don’t have great people it’s going to be more challenging for you to find success against those you compete with in the marketplace.
Previous blogs on the importance of assembling a great team:
What’s Your Line-up? – December 26, 2012
What’s Your Line-up? – “Updated” – January 17, 2014
Last June 3, 2013 Dannel Malloy, Governor of the State of Connecticut signed a bill that was passed by Connecticut’s House and Senate the previous month into law. This link to the summary of the act that was first introduced in the Insurance and Real Estate Committee of the Connecticut House states,
“The act requires that a glass claims representative for an insurance company or its third-party claims administrator, in the initial contact with an insured about automotive glass repair services or glass products, tell the insured something substantially similar to: “You have the right to choose a licensed glass shop where the damage to your motor vehicle will be repaired. If you have a preference, please let us know. ” By law, appraisals and estimates for physical damage claims written on behalf of insurers must have a written notice telling the insured that he or she has the right to choose the shop where the damage will be repaired (CGS § 38a-354).”
This law seems to be a reasonable approach to provide and ensure consumer choice to the residents of Connecticut.
As it appears on the State of Connecticut’s General Assembly bill tracking web site the law – Public Act Number 13-67 – states,
“AN ACT CONCERNING AUTOMOTIVE GLASS WORK.
To require an insurance company doing business in this state, or agent, adjuster or third-party claims administrator for such company to provide additional disclosures to an insured regarding such insured’s right to choose a licensed repair shop or glass shop where such insured’s motor vehicle physical damage or automotive glass work will be performed.”
Again, this language also seems to be a reasonable expectation for residents of the state. Everyone believes that consumer choice is a good thing right?
The signing of the law was reported by number of industry publications (glassBYTEs.com, Autobody News, Automotive Fleet) due to the dramatic effect that it would have when fully enforced on insurance companies claims management programs, as well as automotive glass repair and replacement (AGRR) industry players (Harmon Solutions Group, NCS/Netcost Claim Services, TeleGlass/Strategic Claims Services, Gerber National Glass Services, PGW Lynx Services, Safelite Solutions) that provide network and/or Third Party Administrator (TPA) services to the insurance industry. AGRR networks and/or TPA’s tend to steer business to either company owned stores and/or to affiliated network repair or glass shops that conform to the pricing or service requirements of the network and/or TPA. That has been a long standing business practice of networks and TPA’s and it’s not hard to understand the financial benefit to these companies to continue doing so. The passing and subsequent enforcement of this law requires a pivot away from the long-standing AGRR industry practice of placing the decision of which company provides the repair or replacement into the hands of the consumer needing service and out of the hands of a network and/or TPA that has always been heavily involved in the decision. This also seems to be a positive for consumer choice. Again, everyone believes that consumer choice is a good thing right?
In order to protect its network and TPA business Safelite Group, Inc. and Safelite Solutions LLC (the Plaintiffs-Appellants) have gone to court against GEORGE JEPSEN, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Connecticut and THOMAS LEONARDI, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Connecticut Insurance Department (the Defendants-Apelles) in hopes of overturning the law. The law clearly prohibits the steering of Connecticut consumers to specific repair shops by TPA’s and/or auto damage appraisers so one can understand the self-interest involved. Connecticut’s “Department of Consumer Protection” web page states that:
“Ensuring a Fair Marketplace and Safe Products and Services for Consumers”
The purpose of this government department is pretty obvious by its title. Public Act Number 13-67 protects the interests of consumers in the state and their “right to choose”; and the State of Connecticut unquestionably is within its rights to enact such a law, right?
If the State of Connecticut prevails in its defense of the constitutionality of Public Act Number 13-67 through the appeal process, as Safelite continues to fight to overturn the law, the future landscape of networks and/or TPA’s that provide AGRR services to consumers in the state will forever be changed. And if this law stands it will have an effect on the landscape of the AGRR industry in the entire United States. You can be sure that similar consumer protection bills will be introduced in state assembly’s’ across the country. Is that why Safelite is so strongly fighting this law duly enacted by the State of Connecticut?
If you visit the Safelite web site you will find that the company describes Safelite Solutions LLC as providing:
“….complete claims management solutions for the nation’s leading fleet and insurance companies.
The company currently serves as a third-party administrator of auto glass claims for more than 175 insurance and fleet companies, including 19 of the top 30 property and casualty insurance companies. Safelite® Solutions manages a network of approximately 9,000 affiliate providers and operates two national contact centers in Columbus, Ohio and one in Chandler, Arizona.”
The Connecticut law could serve to undermine a business practice that has existed in the AGRR industry since the late 1970’s. The genesis of call centers (a.k.a. a network or TPA) was when Joe Kellman, former owner of Globe Glass & Mirror, visited an auto glass call center facility in Bedford, England operated by Belron’s Autoglass and brought the idea back to the United States starting the U.S. Auto Glass Network. Since then, the impact, influence and control of consumer auto glass losses by networks and/or TPA’s operating in the AGRR industry has continued to grow each and every day. The networks and/or TPA’s obviously work hard to control and steer auto glass repairs and replacements to either company owned stores or to glass companies that agree to join and follow pricing arrangements that benefit the goals of the network and/or TPA. A business practice worth fighting for right?
The State of Connecticut is interested in protecting consumers in the state, who are in need of auto glass repairs or replacements, from being steered by a network and/or TPA. This law seems like a reasonable next step action in a state where those that are engaged in the AGRR industry are required to be licensed by the state (in my last blog I wrote about “Is it Time for Licensing?” in the AGRR industry). The Department of Consumer Protection oversees the licensing flat glass and automotive glass work.
We will have to wait for the appeal process to work its way through the courts to find out if this law stands, is amended or falls. But whether you believe that the law is a positive development for Connecticut consumers or you believe that the law violates free speech in commerce, the fight will continue as the stakes are too high. If the law passes through the appeal process and stands, it could be the tipping of the first domino and could be the beginning of big changes for the AGRR industry.
So where do you stand on Public Act Number 13-67? Are you on the side of consumer choice or on the side of the networks and/or TPA’s? Perhaps it depends on your own self interest.
Associated Articles and Reference Material:
Zauderer’s Scope (page 589) https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/1566-keighley15upajconstl5392012pdf