It's been about nine months since my last customer crossed the threshold of my shop and I retired. Much has happened between then and now. There's more time to sleep in, to enjoy a lazy day, catch a midweek afternoon nap, and reflect on the changes I have experienced. Many changes are occurring, but more importantly, they are not occurring in my former trade.
There are changes that I know we need to see happen. Specifically, competency-based testing for auto technicians. With so many vehicle systems integrating the latest advancements in technology while relying on complex electrical circuitry it is imperative that technicians have a solid working knowledge of electrical principles and a thorough understanding of that complex circuitry. Unfortunately, our current method of testing, and ultimately certifying technicians through multiple choice written tests is not up to the task. A simple truth not frequently discussed is that written tests can be vulnerable to cheating and memorization, which can lead to technicians being certified without truly understanding the material. There are 'test prep” courses online that 'guarantee” a passing grade. While in the best case these tests may evaluate the technicians understanding of theoretical concepts, they often fall far short in assessing the technicians ability to apply that knowledge in a real-world setting.
Coming from an airline background where demonstrating proficiency is mandatory because the cost of making mistakes can literally be measured in terms of life and death, I've never understood the lack of competency-based testing which is the norm in our trade. We too can be held directly responsible if an accident occurs as a result of our carelessness, incapacity, or neglect. What logical reason can there be to leave something as important, as vital as safety to chance?
The benefits of competency-based and performance-based testing are numerous. The most important of which is that it provides a more accurate assessment of both a technician’s skills and weaknesses. By evaluating a technician’s ability to perform tasks in a real-world setting, under stress, the testing can help to identify areas where additional training is needed. By highlighting areas of strength and weakness the employer can better know how to dispatch work with the goal of reducing errors, lowering warranty claims, and increasing customer satisfaction.
Implementing Competency-Based Testing
I'm not going to sugar coat this … Implementing competency-based training is going to be a struggle. Creating a standardized program and protocols that assess specific skills and competencies would be essential to ensure consistency and fairness. We need to hire appropriate personnel, develop the correct curriculum and ensure accessibility to technicians in different locations. This will include mobile testing units and online simulation-based testing. Crafting public relations campaigns to educate the motoring public about the need for such certification will all be expensive. If this is to be a grassroots movement without government involvement it will require substantial financial participation of both corporate and independent shop owners. This presents challenges as well.
In my experience in this trade for over thirty years, I've found that many if not most shop owners, are a parsimonious bunch. Getting them to invest in training can be a chore. However, the potential real-world benefits far outweigh the costs. By providing a more comprehensive evaluation of a technician’s skills and competencies this testing regimen will also help technicians. A technician who has earned credentials based on proven performance can command a higher wage. Fortunately, there are organizations committed to elevating the automotive technician career path through research, accreditation, and skills-based training.
What's Next?
It's time for a paradigm shift in training, testing and accountability. We need to get ahead of what's coming in terms of technology. According to the organization Our World in Data, the pace of technological change is much faster now than it has been in the past. It took 2.4 million years for our ancestors to control fire and use it for cooking, but 66 years to go from the first flight to humans landing on the moon.
Teaching and testing younger people who are just entering the field will need to evolve. Using the same decades old techniques will likely not yield a competent, technically proficient workforce. Investment in the future is needed now. In future columns I will write about another path involving governmental regulation.
Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
