Advanced driver assistance system calibration is now a workflow, documentation and data-sharing issue, speakers said during CIECA’s June 18 webinar -- ADAS calibration issues, challenges and opportunities.
The webinar featured Joel Adcock, director of strategic partnerships at Revv; Dan Dutra, partner and board member for Pace-ADAS and senior vice-president and partner at Collision Career Institute; and James Spears, head of automotive — artificial intelligence at Tractable AI.
Paul Barry, executive director of the Collision Industry Electronic Commerce Association, moderated the session.
“The Collision Industry Electronic Commerce Association or CIECA develops and promotes electronic communication standards that allow the collision industry to be more efficient,” said Barry.
Adcock said the main problem is the gap between the different sources repairers use to identify and document ADAS work.
“The biggest piece is there’s so much disconnect between the resources that we’re pulling as far as, you know, from an identification standpoint to OEM procedures to estimatic data to diagnostic information,” said Adcock.
He said ADAS work must run beside the traditional repair plan from the first estimate to final delivery.
“It can’t be just the same way you did things 10 years ago as far as thinking of traditional collision repairs,” said Adcock. “It’s got to be running parallel path with a diagnostic plan as well.”
He said repairers should not rely on scan reports alone.
“Simply doing a pre-scan and relying on that pre-scan to be our guiding light as far as what calibrations are required is a process in futility,” said Adcock.
Adcock said shops should assume calibration may be required until OEM research shows otherwise.
“Assume you’re going to have to perform a calibration until all of your research tells you otherwise,” said Adcock.
He said successful shops will build repeatable ADAS workflows.
“The shops that’ll win over the next few years are the ones that are able to connect, you know, data, people, processes, documentation into really a repeatable process,” said Adcock.
Dutra said the industry does not need to create new repair procedures. OEMs already provide those, he said.
“This initiative is not about creating new repair procedures or new standards per se,” said Dutra. “The OEMs already provide these procedures and they should remain the authority.”
He said the industry needs consistency in how calibration events are performed, documented and validated.
“What we’re discussing is creating greater consistency around how ADAS calibrations are performed, documented, and validated across the industry,” said Dutra.
Dutra said that framework should cover process, environment, training and equipment. The key questions are whether the OEM procedure was followed, whether conditions were right, whether the technician was qualified and whether the equipment met OEM requirements.
He said the issue is proof.
“This isn’t simply a documentation challenge,” said Dutra. “It’s a confidence challenge.”
He said the aim is not only to show that calibration occurred.
“The goal isn’t simply to prove that a calibration occurred,” said Dutra. “The goal is to create confidence that it was performed correctly.”
Dutra said a shop remains responsible even when calibration work is sublet.
“If you take the customer’s keys, you now have care and custody of that vehicle,” said Dutra. “You’re responsible for everything that happens, including the sublet.”
He said any framework must support OEM procedures, not replace them.
“The framework supports OEM procedures,” said Dutra. “It does not compete with them.”
Spears said AI and image-based tools can help identify ADAS-related damage earlier in the repair process.
“We now know enough through data that we can start to really identify what components are damaged,” said Spears.
He said available technology is ahead of the industry’s current data structure.
“With our infrastructure and our architecture, we’re not yet taking advantage of the technologies that we have at hand,” said Spears.
Spears said the next step is attaching documentation to the repair file early and carrying it through the process.
“What we’re really looking for now is how do we attach this transparency, this documentation to a file, get it very early on recognized and then be able to bring this through the process,” said Spears.
Barry said CIECA’s role is not to write repair processes, but to support the exchange of documentation between stakeholders.
“I don’t think it’s CIECA’s role to develop those processes, but once those processes are done and the documentation exists, we need to be able to exchange that information between stakeholders,” said Barry.
Barry said clearer best practices are also needed before AI can be used effectively.
“If we don’t have a common set of best practices, what are you building AI to?” said Barry.
During the question period, Adcock said repairers cannot assume ADAS systems are the same across automakers.
“It’s imperative to do that research and not necessarily get complacent in thinking they’re all necessarily the same or doing the exact same thing from manufacturer to manufacturer,” said Adcock.
Dutra said full standardization across sensors, calibration methods and vehicle platforms is unlikely soon.
“We have to be detectives,” said Dutra. “We have to create as many tools and processes and technology as Jimmy was talking about and Joel’s talked about to be able to deal with what’s on our plate today and fix cars today.”
Dutra closed by calling for clarity across repairers, OEMs, insurers, calibration providers, technology vendors and industry groups.
“We don’t want to create complication,” said Dutra. “We want to create clarity.”
He said the issue comes back to consumer safety.
“Every consumer should have confidence that the safety systems on their vehicle were restored properly after repair,” said Dutra.
