The collision repair industry faces growing challenges as vehicles become more complex with advanced sensors, software, and computing systems that require specialized diagnostic capabilities and calibration procedures. Industry leaders at CIECA Connex emphasized that repair facilities need better system integration, staff training, and collaboration between manufacturers, insurers, and repairers to handle the demands of modern vehicle technology.
- Vehicle complexity is accelerating: More sensors, software, and computing power are making safe repairs increasingly difficult for collision repair facilities.
- Calibration errors cascade: A single wrong decision early in the repair chain—from vehicle identification to glass configuration to calibration—can undermine the entire repair outcome.
- System integration is critical: Disconnected business systems force technicians to manually re-enter data and switch between applications, wasting time that should focus on repairs.
- Over-the-air updates complicate repairs: Vehicle software can change after leaving the factory, meaning yesterday's repair procedures may not apply to today's vehicles.
- Investment priorities matter: Industry leaders recommend allocating resources to data quality (50%), system connectivity (40%), and AI (10%) rather than technology alone.
Vehicles are getting smarter faster than the systems used to repair them. That message ran through CIECA CONNEX in San Antonio, Texas, last week, as speakers examined how software-defined vehicles, ADAS and increasingly complex diagnostics are changing collision repair.
More sensors, software and computing power mean more work to identify, perform and document. Yet repair facility staff still spend hours re-entering information and moving between systems that don’t communicate with one another.
Bringing together repairers, insurers, vehicle manufacturers and technology providers, the Collision Industry Electronic Commerce Association (CIECA) conference put much of its attention on the software-defined vehicle and the systems that will be needed to support it.
Opening remarks from chairwoman Kim DeVallance Caron of Enterprise Mobility stressed the need for collaboration and common standards as vehicles, claims and repairs become increasingly dependent on data.
The discussions moved between what is happening inside the vehicle and what is happening inside the repair facility. In both cases, speakers pointed to a similar problem: technology is advancing quickly, while the processes and connections needed to support it are struggling to keep pace.
Steve Greenfield of Automotive Ventures described an industry working downstream from vehicle design decisions it has little control over. Manufacturers add features, redesign components and increase the amount of computing power inside vehicles. When those vehicles are damaged, repairers and insurers are left to determine what must be repaired, replaced, scanned, calibrated and documented.
Pre- and post-repair scans and ADAS calibrations are becoming a larger part of that work. Hybrid powertrains add another layer by combining electric and gasoline systems in the same vehicle. What once may have been viewed primarily as a structural or cosmetic repair can now involve multiple electronic systems that must operate correctly when the vehicle is returned to its owner.
A closer look at where vehicle technology is heading came from Jeremy Carlson, associate director, autonomy, automotive at Mobility Global. Carlson said cameras and radar will remain central to driver assistance systems, while more advanced driving features will require additional sensors and computing power.
“Get used to working with them,” Carlson said of cameras. “They’re not going anywhere.”
Carlson’s forecast described a mainstream vehicle that may look relatively familiar a decade from now but carry considerably more electronic content underneath. Repairers don’t need to wait for fully autonomous vehicles to become commonplace to feel the effects. Much of the technology creating new repair requirements is already on the road.
The shift toward centralized computing could make the challenge more complicated. As manufacturers move processing into central computers, understanding an individual camera, radar sensor or other component becomes less useful without understanding the software and systems with which it communicates.
Software versions, system configurations and calibration requirements are becoming another part of repair planning. The vehicle identification number (VIN), model year and factory specifications remain important, but they may not tell the complete story about the vehicle sitting in the repair facility.
Over-the-air updates can alter software after a vehicle leaves the factory. That means two apparently identical vehicles could arrive with different software configurations or requirements. For repairers, yesterday’s repair plan cannot automatically become tomorrow’s checklist simply because the same make and model comes through the door.
A calibration presentation at CIECA CONNEX showed how quickly a mistake can travel through a repair. Correctly identifying the vehicle and glass configuration, selecting the procedure, installing the replacement, completing the calibration and validating the work are all connected. Get an early step wrong and everything that follows can be affected.
That puts greater weight on repair planning. Facilities need to identify required procedures, scans and calibrations early, determine who will perform them and document the work required to return the vehicle to its pre-accident condition.
Those technical challenges were only part of the discussion in San Antonio. A chief information officer panel featuring Mark Miller of Crash Champions, Casey Santos of Caliber Collision and Creighton Warren of Boyd Group turned the focus to the technology being used to run repair businesses.
Asked whether the collision industry was changing fast enough to keep pace with technology and customer expectations, Miller answered plainly: “No.”
Keeping technicians current with new vehicles has become an almost daily training requirement, he said. Diagnostic capability is taking on greater importance as vehicles become computers surrounded by physical components. For owners and managers, investment decisions now extend well beyond traditional collision repair equipment.
Facilities need access to current repair information, trained staff and diagnostic capabilities. They also need business systems capable of handling the growing amount of information travelling through a repair without creating more administrative work.
Warren identified four priorities for technology partners: easier data sharing between systems, browser access, dependable service and security. He pointed to parts purchasing, receiving, invoicing and supply-chain visibility as areas where too much work continues to fall on facility staff.
That problem is hardly limited to large multi-store operators. Miller said independent facilities face many of the same frustrations. A system outage can stop an estimate or parts order whether a company operates one repair facility or hundreds.
The panel’s discussion of artificial intelligence produced one of the conference’s clearest technology messages. Given $1 to spend, Miller said he would put 50 cents into data, 40 cents into connecting systems and only 10 cents into AI.
The point was simple. Artificial intelligence may attract attention, but even a capable algorithm has limited value when the data feeding it is incomplete or its results cannot reach the systems where employees make decisions. Before AI can remove significant work from the repair process, the information and connections underneath it need to work.
Santos brought the conversation back to employees and customers. Younger employees expect mobile tools and easy access to information, while customers want understandable estimates and reliable updates. Moving between applications and repeatedly entering the same information takes staff away from repairing vehicles and dealing with customers.
Insurer requirements add to that workload. Photos, estimates, documentation and repair updates have to reach the right destination. Better connections between systems could reduce the number of times employees have to touch the same information simply to move a claim or repair forward.
Taken together, the sessions at CIECA CONNEX pointed to two technology challenges for Canadian repair facilities. The first is sitting in the repair bay. Vehicles are arriving with more cameras, sensors, software, ADAS features, hybrid systems and electronic content. That means more procedures have to be identified, more operations may have to be completed and more of the repair needs to be documented.
The second challenge is everything surrounding that vehicle. If estimating, parts, production, diagnostic, insurer and customer communication systems cannot exchange information, every new vehicle requirement risks becoming another administrative task.
For owners and managers, that raises some practical questions. Are all required scans and calibrations being identified during repair planning? Are technicians checking current original equipment manufacturer (OEM) procedures rather than relying on what worked on a similar vehicle before? Does the facility have the training and diagnostic capability to complete the work? And is that work being documented well enough to support the final invoice?
CIECA CONNEX made clear that the collision repair industry’s technology challenge isn’t simply preparing for some distant generation of autonomous vehicles. The change is already here, arriving one camera, calibration, software update and diagnostic requirement at a time.
Meeting it will mean identifying the full repair scope early, documenting the required work and getting paid for it. It will also mean taking a harder look at the technology running the business itself. As vehicles become smarter, repair facilities should be asking whether their technology is reducing the work or simply adding another screen.
