Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: Tortoise And The Hare
Fred has a small service shop and employs two technicians, Jim, who is about 26 years old and Joe who is closer to 40. Jim is very quick on diagnosing problems, usually less than a half an hour. Joe takes much longer, usually one to two hours.
Jim might miss something on diagnosis about once in ten times. Joe might miss something about once in fifteen times. Thoughts?
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 146 Location: Garden City, KS
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:05 am Post subject:
Usually in such a scenario, Jim would have about a 10% missed something rate, Joe would be much much lower. In this case, both are excessive, in my opinion. I don't know what the average is, or what a true acceptable limit is...I mean, we are human and we will miss stuff. I would be very very interested in seeing or hearing their processes. I want to know if they are the same process, just one goes through it faster, or if there is a difference in approaches. I would not insinuate that either is correct or incorrect. Together, they could probably take what works consistently and develop a similar if not the same procedure on most issues. Also, does the systems they are diagnosing remain the same? Said another way, are they being employed in such a way as to maximize their strengths? Maybe Joe really enjoys, and is pretty good at, diagnosing driveline and NVH issues, where Jim tends not to enjoy himself and struggles. On the flip side Jim loves electrical and driveability, while being proficient at it, and Joe struggles. They would make a good team if their skills and interests are maximized.
Just a couple of thoughts. I'm not sure if that is the direction you were looking to go with that, Louis. Thanks! Later, Matt.
_________________ Matt Fanslow
ASE CMAT/L1
Crag-Technologies, Inc
www.wavehook.com
Joined: 19 May 2007 Posts: 206 Location: Camp Verde, AZ
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject:
I find it interesting that you list their ages.
Jim is young, he has not been in the trade very long. This may be his first or second job. He has not been burned by many mistakes. He also may not understand cause and effect. I suspect that with youthful exuberance he jumps in, finds a bad part, replaces it and is done with the job. He does not check to see if there are other problems.
On the other hand, Joe has been around the block a few times. He is trying to cover all bases and make sure that no other issues exist. He may find the bad part as quickly as Jim, but he continues to check for any other problems. Is the bad part the only problem or is it the result of something else being bad. Having been burned a few times he is much more cautious and careful.
If the shop pays a set amount of time for diagnostics, lets say one hour, Jim is beating that time. He is able to make twice the money in half the time. The owner probably encourages this because the shop makes more money. When there is a comeback, it is the techs fault for missing it, or it is charged back to the customer as a new problem.
At 40, Joe has worked at several different jobs. Most of them have probably been flat rate shops. He has had to eat a lot of missed diagnosis problems and fixed them with out being paid.
_________________ David Wittmayer
Owner / Manager
Hansen Enterprises Fleet Repair, LLC
Camp Verde, AZ
www.hefrshop.com
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:39 pm Post subject: Re: Tortoise And The Hare
louis wrote:
Fred has a small service shop and employs two technicians, Jim, who is about 26 years old and Joe who is closer to 40. Jim is very quick on diagnosing problems, usually less than a half an hour. Joe takes much longer, usually one to two hours.
Jim might miss something on diagnosis about once in ten times. Joe might miss something about once in fifteen times. Thoughts?
Thanks Guys, I appreciate the replies. Both techs are valuable and both have a place. Jim is quick but 10% of the time requires additional service to solve the problem. This approach is viable, with clients that do not require a firm price up front.
Joe likely uses a more redundant method and is 50% better at up front diagnosis, but at up to four times the cost. This is valuable when the client needs an exact price up front or where parts availability may be an issue.
My point is, increased precision often comes at a price and is not necessary in every situation. Often, people may be more flexible if they realize they can save a good deal of money. An example might be a vehicle with reduced fuel mileage. A preliminary inspection reveals worn spark plugs and bad wires. There might also be other problems.
Some would wish to fix the primary problem first and then see if other problems need addressing. Other people want to know everything that might be wrong. That can also be done, but at increased cost. Good office procedure can identify both and lower cost.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 146 Location: Garden City, KS
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject:
A demonstration of that may come from A/C service. A common practice, especially among franchise shops, is on a lack of cold air complaint. The "procedure" involves identifying the refrigerant and its purity, reclaiming the refrigerant, refilling the system, adding an UV dye, verifying cold air is restored and recommending the client return when it stops cooling again to be looked over with a UV lamp in an attempt to pinpoint the source of the leak.
A) You can practically "can" the cost of this procedure.
B) There's very little hands on labor involved.
C) A lower level tech can perform it.
D) You can have the vehicle completed quite readily.
So, for the client, this seems to be a low cost and low hassle "repair".
Personally, I don't agree with the procedure in most cases.
Later, Matt.
_________________ Matt Fanslow
ASE CMAT/L1
Crag-Technologies, Inc
www.wavehook.com
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject:
MattFMN wrote:
A demonstration of that may come from A/C service. A common practice, especially among franchise shops, is on a lack of cold air complaint. The "procedure" involves identifying the refrigerant and its purity, reclaiming the refrigerant, refilling the system, adding an UV dye, verifying cold air is restored and recommending the client return when it stops cooling again to be looked over with a UV lamp in an attempt to pinpoint the source of the leak.
A) You can practically "can" the cost of this procedure.
B) There's very little hands on labor involved.
C) A lower level tech can perform it.
D) You can have the vehicle completed quite readily.
So, for the client, this seems to be a low cost and low hassle "repair".
Personally, I don't agree with the procedure in most cases.
Later, Matt.
Hi Matt,
I would not see that as the quite same thing. A leaking A/C has environmental consequences and can easily damage the system further. The point I had hoped to raise was, there is a place for an involved diagnosis and there is a place for a less expensive approach.
Another example might be a Ford product that dies at idle. Tap the IAC and it returns to idling correctly. Some people would be happy to replace the IAC, understanding there is a small chance they may have to return because there could also be another intermittent idle concern. Others might wish every component verified to be certain there is no other concern.
The first client spends maybe 0.5 and the price of the valve. The second perhaps 3.0 and the price of the valve. Each have received value, according to their preferences. The purpose of diagnosis is to lessen risk. It is valuable to the degree that it performs this function. When the cost of replacing a part is exceeded by the cost of checking the part, the procedure is far less sound.
We are equipped to analyze and check things to a very, very detailed degree. For instance I can verify the structural integrity of a body member that has been damaged or welded. Very expensive and largely not needed in a very small collision. In order to be certain a vehicle that hits a pot hole is as good as before, such testing could be done. I feel that is a ridiculous waste of money as the risk is extremely low and the cost quite high. Rather I would do an alignment with a few measurements.
Otherwise, we might give every person with a headache an MRI, because an infinitesimal few might have a brain tumor. This lowers risk very slightly but possibly also bankrupts the system. Many things in our society are approaching this degree of CYA behavior.
This is a very large topic, with huge implications as to cost. If there is interest, I would love to discuss it further. Thanks Matt, I appreciate your reply.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
