cerich:
My thought was when you have well set out criteria it becomes a very simple evaluation, the shop meets or does not. Not much room for anybody fudging the system. We publish the requirements and listing for the dealers and the public. The dealers would choose if they even want to be evaluated.
It's relatively easy to evaluate tools, parts, and work areas to standards, and even a techs experience and training history as you mentioned. The not proposed, more difficult, expensive - and more important to a customer seeking life support equipment service, is a tech's skills and quality of workmanship evaluation. I don't think the latter can be done by the rep. alone. You need customer feedback to cover a large or representative sample, and production inspection to cover details.
Disseminating information publicly is beneficial to consumers, it can also create competitive pressure on dealers to raise their standards.
Viewed as a consumer, making participation optional would significantly diminish its impact and usefulness. When some good shops are rated, others not, and the bad definitely not, the benefits of public ratings become greatly diminished to consumers, due to the imposed, severe limitations. Whether by design or a derivative peripheral, the optional participatory aspect would reasonably be interpreted by many as pandering to one of your business interests, that of not alienating dealers, over potential customer safety, and other issues. This is normal business practice for some businesses, (I'm not necessarily accusing you.) usually done in a discreet, underhanded, and obfuscating manner. Oftentimes, resource and expense prohibitions are used as cover, as it may be difficult to discern whether they are legitimate or not. At any rate, don't expect points for this negative aspect which has its associated costs. A lot of this would depend on the opting out clause and mfr knowledge of a deficient dealer. Somewhat of an aside, but I firmly believe the public should be entitled to be informed of deficient dealers and techs when it comes to equipment service safety issues, provided the mfr has knowledge. This is why many mfr's rather not get involved in this and know something they would rather not know. Have you ever heard of any dealer, or tech, who has been asked by a mfr., not necessarily yourself, to cease equip. service due to mfr knowledge of service inadequacy?
While opting out is not demonstrative of a shop meeting or failing standards and may or may not have much impact on their business, since most reg service is local. It's obvious no one who would receive a negative rating is going to be willing to be included in your ratings, or much less publicly post a sign proudly stating "We Do Not Meet Standards For Regulator Service". At the very least there will be a delay in improving dealer wide network standards. On the other hand, consumer confidence in those who do, and demand for it could start the process rolling.
A mandatory and substantive rating system, which includes failing, as opposed to a rather meaningless one consisting of good to better, will cause some dealers to defect. Considering how many, their representational quality and profitability vs. dealers attracted and gained is, well, your job to analyze.
Your idea is good, I just don't think the partial measures you propose are going to receive, or are due, the same public support a more comprehensive service standards and results evaluation system would. You’re only going to get credit for the true significance of the measures implemented. At least by the more knowledgeable discerning diver, notwithstanding there will always be some who dismiss anything, and some who will buy into anything. That’s just normal. I definitely believe some improvement is better than none, and it could start a trend. Much praise and credit would certainly be deserving of anyone who starts the process. Unfortunately, based on what you are presenting thus far, this would probably be greater in retrospect as seen from the future. Maybe today if you play your cards right.
It would be a step in the right direction to inform customers of the following:
Shops that have adequate and proper tools.
Maintain a proper service work area.
Maintain parts inventory to service not only popular regs, but a reasonable variety of models sold, and who has the ability to quickly acquire parts for other models of represented brand.
Turnaround time.
Service techs have a minimum defined level of experience and training to perform or oversee and verify apprentices work.
Quality of workmanship results.
Looking at this list makes me wonder if the standards are that low, lower, or non-existent. Yet, these are some of the places mfr’s refer customers to get their life support equipment serviced. The Good, the Bad, and the Dangerous. What the heck, they all make the mfr. money. Sorry, but I couldn’t resist. All the more important for someone to step up and improve things.
What surprises me is how many of you seem to expect that something "fishy" would transpire, or it would be done as a reward for sales....
You may well conduct business in an ethical beyond reproach manner, but, experience has taught many of us there are many who do not. It could be problematic and harmful for someone to make an assumption without some basis. There is an inherent conflict of interest in an organization's self evaluation, which is further compounded when financial interests are involved, that’s just a fact in most cases. Yet, it can be significantly overcome by consistently supporting claims by way of examples which validate. This will engender trust and credibility, focus on the desired, and dispell other motives.
Bottom line, while it could possibly raise the bar, from what I have read here there is too much distrust to have the program have any value.
Not specifically in reference to you, your company or your dealers, but regarding some relatively widespread industry practices in general, much of this distrust has been well earned and is well deserved. Much work by many has gone into perpetrating and perpetuating certain issues. There’s is no shortage of substantial demonstrations, example after example. See previous paragraph, it goes both ways.
cerich, I believe I’ve read some of your posts stating something to the effect of “What’s good for the customer is good for the vendor”, although this is a somewhat superficial statement, it also contains a rudimentary business principal. I would encourage you to take some steps towards service improvement. Your proposals have value in regards to the positives they represent within their limitations. I believe if properly done you can get credit where credit is due, and profits. Not for something else, not more, not less. Good luck.
