Asking clear questions, providing lots of information, avoiding comparisons between information providers (IPs) and understanding the differences between estimating systems’ rules are keys to submitting successful inquires to the Database Enhancement Gateway (DEG).

That’s the message behind Aaron Schulenburg’s “Understanding the DEG’s Request for Review Process” presentation Thursday afternoon. Since data provided by IPs is at the core of how collision repairers are paid for their services, it benefits the entire industry when that data accurately reflects the work that needs to be done.

Schulenburg, DEG administrator, said it’s important for repairers to understand the tools available to submit inquiries to the IPs. One effective tool is the 10-month old DEG, a joint project of the Automotive Service Association, the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers and the Society of Collision Repair Specialists, he said. The DEG Web site (www.degweb.org) has received more than 800 inquiries and founders of the project would like to see its use grow.

DEG is set up with templates designed to help shops provide as much information as possible.

“Shops need to provide lots of detail and relevant information so the IPs don’t have to research the meaning of the question,” Schulenburg says. “Instead, the IPs should be able to research the issue itself.”

Examples of specific information include the type of material a panel is made of and its square surface area on questions pertaining to refinish times; and the weld count on welded panels. Inquiries should address vehicle-specific issues with the data, not macro or large-scale issues, such as fill, sand and feather. Large-scale issues are addressed through the Collision Industry Council’s database task force.

“The more detail you provide the better,” he says. “Repairers have the benefit of having the vehicle in front of them, a luxury the IPs don’t always have when discussing the issue or researching the labor.”

Schulenburg also said estimators need to understand the difference between the rules applied in different estimating systems.

“They need to be educated in all three systems, the rules that apply to each and why the times allowed are different based on the application of their guide,” he says.

For example, an effective inquiry needs to say more than IP X provides 3.5 hours for the same process that IP Y allows seven hours for, so please have IP X change its allowance to IP Y.

And when it comes to drawing comparisons, avoid the tendency to compare one IP with another.

“IPs don’t like to be compared to one another because they are rightfully proud of their own products,” Schulenburg says. “They each think they have the best product, just like each repairer thinks they do the best repairs. If a comparison is necessary, draw a comparison within the IP’s own product, but inquiries should be based on the merit of the operation, not a comparison.”

Finally, be respectful and courteous, because nobody likes to get beat up by a question.

“This process is very important to repairers because it helps determine how much they charge,” Schulenburg says. “Repairers deal with the IPs estimating products every day, and they know when something isn’t right. But sometimes repairers get frustrated with inaccurate or unclear information in the times or the guides, and their frustration spills over into their inquiry. But a good inquiry also requires professional courtesy. The guy at the receiving end has a job to do, just like us. So be respectful and pose inquiries in a professional and responsible manner.”