Silverstein: Structure and Standardization 

As I reflect on my two careers, I note how different they are, yet seemingly united by one mission: to serve the needs of the traveling public. Not only are they different occupations, but the approach varies so widely. Aviation encompasses a world of rules, standards, consequences, and conformity of behavior. By comparison, auto repair in the non-franchised, non-corporate, independent automotive aftermarket is devoid of rules, standards, and consequences. It is largely unstructured, undisciplined, and it places far less emphasis on conformity.

This is certainly evident in hiring and training new employees where the process varies with each owner’s preferences. Some choose to conduct interviews and make decisions quickly citing the dearth of qualified applicants and the fear of losing that applicant to another shop that moved quicker. Others choose to proceed cautiously, employing a multi-step interview process, using time to judge the candidate’s commitment to their organization. This lack of consistency and lack of standardization hurts our business by wasting our most valuable asset: time.

When I was beginning my career in aviation, the first certificate on the path to the coveted Airline Transport Pilot Certificate was the Private Pilot Certificate. There was a written exam, a verbal exam, and then a check-ride in the aircraft. The FAA produced the course material that the candidate was expected to know and discuss. If they failed to demonstrate knowledge of the material necessary to earn the certificate, they failed that portion of the exam and would be required to take the exam again. No advancement would occur until that segment was passed.

Productive Doesn’t Equal Proficient

I was reminded of this recently during a discussion of what constitutes an A, B, or C tech and how the absence of standardization makes those classifications essentially meaningless.

I had an opening in my shop for a B tech. This is someone who could be entrusted to competently perform what I call “mid-grade” work with little supervision and a high degree of proficiency—brakes, routine maintenance, timing belts, steering, suspension, etc. The prospect had to be 120% efficient and 90% productive. I selected an applicant that had those qualifications and was able to prove it by submitting copies of his pay sheets and W2. He had consistently turned between 55 and 60 hours per week. He was leaving his employer (a big box store) because he felt his career had stalled and he wanted to take advantage of the training and opportunity that came with my shop. He started soon thereafter.

He was slow in the beginning (both in efficiency and production), and I was OK with that as I attributed it to working in a new environment. I figured that it would take him a few weeks to get back into his rhythm. After four weeks in, he wasn't improving. We met for his 30-day review, and I told him I needed help in understanding why his efficiency and production weren't as good at my shop as they were at his previous shop. What he said next floored me.

“Well,” he began, “It's because the work is different.”

“Different how,” I asked.

“You don't sell very many flushes here,” he replied. “I made good money by knocking out flushes fast. I could do two or three at a time and really rack up my hours.”

And then it dawned on me how I screwed up. I didn't allow for lack of standardization. During the interview process, I asked what services he performed but not how often he did them. He didn't misrepresent his abilities; he showed that he could do the work, but he hadn't performed that type of work frequently enough to become truly efficient at it. Instead of beating book time, he would usually match it. I mistakenly assumed that my shop and the work that we performed was typical of the work performed elsewhere much the same as landing at one airport was the same as any other. I was wrong.

Standardization is a key to consistency and a characteristic of professionalism. Implementing it should not be a matter of choice. Not for technicians and not for owners.