Posts Tagged transparency
In a recent blog post titled “Auto Glass Networks – Part 1” I wrote about difficulties that auto glass repair and replacement (AGRR) networks or TPAs face in managing auto glass losses for clients. In order to survive, networks and TPAs must manage a never-ending “effort to create some semblance of uniformity amongst a very large, broad and diverse set of participants” that actually do the auto glass repairs and replacements across the country.
In this blog I’m focusing on how networks attempt to demonstrate better performance for its clients versus what those same clients could achieve by directly managing auto glass losses.
The network does this by reporting on its operational “metrics”. Investopedia defines “metrics” as:
“Parameters or measures of quantitative assessment used for measurement, comparison or to track performance or production. Analysts use metrics to compare the performance of different companies, despite the many variations between firms.”
The reporting of metrics to clients begins with a network measuring:
- How many rings or seconds it takes a network to answer a telephone call from someone reporting an auto glass loss;
- How many seconds or minutes a policyholder is on hold while reporting the loss; and
- How many total minutes a policyholder has to spend on the telephone reporting their claim.
Why are these three metrics important to a network? Most policyholders believe that they are talking directly to their insurance company when they call a network that manages auto glass loss for insurers; generally that’s not the case. Since the network customer service representative (CSR) is acting on behalf of an insurer while talking with a policyholder, the insurer expects that a network is providing the same level of customer service to its policyholders that the insurer would provide. These three metrics are ones that the network has complete control over and are important metrics to measure how responsive it is to the insurance company’s policyholder.
But networks aren’t only tracking the performance metrics of areas under its direct control while handling auto glass losses; each also provides metrics on the performance of the AGRR retailers that actually perform the auto glass repairs or replacements. Why track that performance? It depends of course upon the network, but keeping track of the level of service that the AGRR retailer provides can determine how much work the AGRR retailer may get in the future.
What are some of the metrics on which AGRR retailers are measured or should be measured?
- The AGRR retailer that provides repairs or replacements is graded by its own individual customer service index (CSI). In determining CSI there are a number of key components and you’d like to think that a CSI score is the most critical metric that an AGRR retailer has in determining its value to a network. The basics of CSI is clearly spelled out via the RATER Model by tracking these five elements:
- RELIABILITY – A company’s ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately;
- ASSURANCE – The knowledge, competence and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence;
- TANGIBLES – Physical facilities, equipment and appearances that impress the customer;
- EMPATHY – The level of caring, individualized attention, access, communication and understanding that the customer perceives;
- RESPONSIVENESS – The willingness displayed to help clients and provide prompt service.
Each network uses either its own questions or metrics for determining CSI or it may use CSI metrics that the client prefers used for its policyholders. Ultimately these CSI metrics show which AGRR retailers are providing great service and those that aren’t based on what’s being measured. Do you know what your company’s CSI is for each network? If not you should ask.
- What is the windshield repair percentage performed by an AGRR retailer? If the network believes that a policyholders broken windshield is repairable, does the AGRR retailer repair it or replace it?
Repair over replacement can obviously save big money and if you’re an AGRR retailer that ends up replacing a windshield that the network feels should have been repaired you’re making them look bad in the eyes of the client as it drives up the average cost of the claim.
If the network has a GAI (guaranteed average invoice) agreement with a customer when an AGRR retailer replaces instead of repairing a windshield, you’re costing the network money so you can anticipate fewer calls for your service or greater oversight of glass losses you must bill through the network. So your repair percentage is a critical metric.
- How many warranty claims (problems of any kind while handling a glass loss such as customer call backs for leaks or air noises, scratched glass, improperly installed moldings, any damage done to a vehicle during the repair or replacement, etc.) does an AGRR retailer have on work performed for the policyholder?
Obviously the more warranty claims you have the higher the likelihood a network will not be looking for your company to handle glass losses on its behalf.
- Customer service cycle time is also important. How long does it take for the policyholder to have a glass loss repaired or replaced from the first call reporting the loss to the time it takes to be completed and billed by the AGRR retailer?
That’s a pretty straightforward metric relating to service levels and customer care.
- What is the percentage of dealer or original equipment manufactured parts (OEM) used in a replacement versus non-OEM parts priced via NAGS® (National Auto Glass Specifications®)? Why is this important?
If an AGRR retailer has a higher percentage of OEM glass versus non-OEM it is costing the network and/or the client a whole lot more money.
Now back to TPAs versus networks. There are certainly other important metrics that networks track and report to current clients and tout to potential clients that use other networks and TPAs. Every network presumably wants its clients customers serviced by the best AGRR retailers that provide the highest level of customer service, but let’s face it, price versus service unquestionably creeps into the decision-making process of what AGRR retailer is referred a glass loss or not by a network.
That can be especially true if the network is using a “buy/sell” or “spread” pricing model for its clients. The network “buys” the glass repair or replacement from an AGRR retailer and then “sells” the repair or replacement to its customer at a higher price or “spread” that covers the networks cost to operate plus its profit. Do you ever get those calls from a network asking, “If you just give me another point or two on the NAGS discount I can keep sending you jobs” with the implied message if you don’t……? Probably you have.
In my last blog titled “Network Participation Agreement – Special Update” I wrote:
“From the view of this blog, transparency only serves to benefit consumers in making informed claim decisions, making their policy dollars work to their fullest, and identifying safe auto glass replacement services.”
How much transparency is there in how networks or TPAs report metrics? Well, last Friday glassBYTEs™ reported in a press release titled “Lynx Services Amends Contract Services Agreement” that the “Pittsburgh-based Lynx Services will amend its contract services agreement effective September 12. The most notable addition to the agreement is the availability of online scorecard access for shops. These scorecards will provide auto glass shops with performance records based on a variety of factors called Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).” This is definitely a big step in the right direction that allows AGRR retailers to see metrics (KPI’s) showing their performance. Perhaps other networks and TPAs will follow in a similar fashion? That should certainly be a welcomed change.
As I also suggested in my last blog, as an AGRR retailer you might want, “continue to focus on the customer and provide exceptional value with outstanding transparency.” In the long run exception value and outstanding transparency will pay off.
Today marks the 11th anniversary of 9/11.
Aftermarket glass, AGR, AGRR, agrr industry, AGRR Magazine, AGRR retailers, auto glass, Auto Glass Company, auto glass industry, auto glass network, auto glass networks, Auto Insurance, autoglass, automotive safety, buy-sell, call centers, CSI, customer, customer service, customer service index, fraud, glassbytes, Insurance, Insurance Industry, insureds, just sayin', Key Performance Indicators, KPI, KPIs, Lynx, lynxservices, measurements, metrics, NAGS, National Auto Glass Specifications, network participation agreement, networks, non-OEM, oem, OEM Glass, policyholder, policyholders, RATER, RATER Model, Small business, spread, state govt., Tom Fishburne, Tom Fishburne Cartoons, tpa, transparency, US Govt, windshield, windshield repair, windshield replacement, windshields
“Can’t tell the players without a scorecard”… an old school expression but those words seem particularly relevant today, as one looks at recent events surrounding the subject of auto glass networks.
In my recent blog titled “Network Participation Agreement” from August 6, 2012, I discussed the ADDENDUM announced by Safelite® on July 20, 2012 regarding its www.SGCNetwork.com Network Participation Agreement. It stated in the last sentence of Section 1.10 of the ADDENDUM, “Further, Participant shall not offer, directly or indirectly, to any insurance agent or its personnel anything of value in consideration for the referral of work paid for from the proceeds of an automobile insurance policy.”
In that post, I also asked “do you think that Safelite® is also a participant, having signed the Network Participation Agreement and having to follow all of the sections of the agreement? If yes, then Safelite® has to follow the same rules as everyone else. That seems fair right?”
I guess that question entered the spotlight sooner than I could have imagined with the publication of the glassBYTEs.com™ article from August 23, 2012 titled “Safelite Funds Allstate Windshield Repair Marketing Material” written by Casey Neeley.
In that story, an Allstate consultant is quoted as saying, “Safelite approached us about creating marketing material for our agents to distribute and the first run of such materials was funded entirely by Safelite and provided to our agents”.
Now we get to the scorecard part because I have to wonder “which” Safelite it is that is funding promotional materials. Would that be Safelite® Solutions LLC, the self-proclaimed “third party administrator” of glass claims, or Safelite Auto Glass®, the self-proclaimed “largest vehicle glass repair and replacement organization in the U.S.” After all, both those entities are involved – but as noted in the prior blog, it is just not very clear about the role that Safelite® Auto Glass plays in the equation, either with the insurance carrier or its agents. If you follow the link at the end of this sentence, Safelite® refers to all of its organizations as “A Family of Companies” (*referenced from http://scheduling.safelite.com/companies.jsp).
While this distinction, or lack thereof, is not at all apparent from any public information I find on this subject, one thing becomes crystal clear – the auto glass repair and replacement (AGRR) industry could certainly use a whole lot more transparency. In fact, one could make the case that much of the recent legislation efforts have been focused on creating such transparency in auto glass claims transactions, with particular attention, rightly or not, on Safelite® and its “Family of Companies”.
From the view of this blog, transparency only serves to benefit consumers in making informed claim decisions, making their policy dollars work to their fullest, and identifying safe auto glass replacement services.
I guess I have to rephrase my original blog question to now ask, “Do you think that Safelite® [Auto Glass] is also a participant, having signed the Network Participation Agreement and having to follow all of the sections of the agreement?”
One can only hope that in the interest of transparency and consumer informedness, the players involved make it quite clear about the roles and participation as pertain to Safelite® Auto Glass, an entity portrayed as separate and distinct from Safelite® Solutions LLC. And there is one organization that could answer that question today.
For the rest of us, the best course of action might be to continue to focus on the customer and provide exceptional value with outstanding transparency.
In the meantime, not a bad idea to keep the scorecard close by to recognize the players on the other team, and act accordingly.
Aftermarket glass, AGR, AGRR, agrr industry, allstate, allstate insurance, auto glass, Auto Glass Company, auto glass industry, auto glass network, auto glass networks, Auto Insurance, David Rohlfing, Family of Companies, glassbytes, Insurance, Insurance Industry, just sayin', network participation agreement, safelite, safelite auto glass, safelite network, safelite solutions, scorecard, SGCNetwork.com, Small business, state govt., Tom Fishburne, Tom Fishburne Cartoons, TomFishburne.com, tpa, transparency, US Govt, windshield, windshield repair, windshield replacement, windshields
- February 2019
- December 2018
- May 2018
- February 2018
- December 2017
- July 2017
- September 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- aumotive after-market
- Auto Glass
- Auto Glass Networks
- Auto Glass Safety Council
- Big Data
- Boston Marathon
- Business Icon
- Call Centers
- Collision Repair Industry
- Congressional Medal of Honor
- Disruptive Innovation
- driverless car
- Driverless Cars
- electric cars
- Federal Reserve
- Ford Motor Company
- Fortune 500
- General Motors
- Golden State Warriors
- July 4th
- Memorial Day
- Military Service
- New Year
- No Bad Ideas
- PPG Industries
- President George H.W. Bush
- recipe for success
- rental cars
- Rube Goldberg
- self-driving car
- Sika Corporation
- state government
- Super Bowl
- Third Party Administrator – TPA
- U.S. Govt.
- United Kingdom
- Vince Lombardi Trophy
- John Williams. twitter.com/ii_meyer/statu… 1 week ago
- Garage survey shows “concerning” lack of battery awareness. Garage owners urged to ensure all technicians undergo b… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 2 weeks ago
- 1) working for city mowing parks. 2) mowing yards for neighbors. 3) lifeguard - best job ever!. 4) auto glass insta… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 3 weeks ago