First, a little history. In July of 2010, Don Larsen’s article “Call to Action: Inspectors Need Certification to Improve Credibility” appeared in this publication. Then, in November of 2010, L’Tonya Carr picked up on this topic and contributed “Where Have the Good Inspectors Gone and Who is Filling Their Shoes?”
Between those two articles, P&A readers responded with a total of 17 substantive comments. And these weren’t just “Great job!” comments – no, they were lengthy, detailed, and passionate. Clearly, Don and L’Tonya had struck a nerve.
Managing Editor Diana Jacobi noted this strong reaction in April of 2011 with her article “A Certification Program – Boom or Bust?” As if to confirm that this topic would not go away, that article generated another 12 substantive comments on the P&A website. In fact, the total length of the comments exceeded the length of the articles themselves. In the publishing world, this is remarkable.
The trio of articles and the comments they spawned raised a number of questions in need of answers, including:
- Who will administer the certification program?
- What will certification require?
- How will training and testing be handled?
- How much will it cost?
- Who will pay for it?
Let’s answer those questions.
Who will administer the certification program?
The recently-formed F&I Providers and Administrators Association (FIPAA) will ride point on this effort. In fact, the desire for independent inspector certification was the primary unifying topic in the pre-history of FIPAA. At times, it seemed this was the only thing everyone in the room (or on the phone) agreed on!
The significance of this cannot be overstressed. FIPAA, by its very nature, is focused on Providers and Administrators – those who depend on accurate and reliable inspections and ultimately pay the bills.
The vast majority of the comments to Don Larsen’s and L’Tonya Carr’s articles were written by independent inspectors. This could lead to the assumption that they are the only constituency that sees a problem and desires a solution. FIPAA taking the lead on this issue proves that isn’t necessarily so.
What will certification require?
In the immortal words of Shakespeare, “Ay, there’s the rub.” What level of education and experience should be necessary to achieve certification? Are there any other requirements that should be considered?
The inspectors themselves have suggested several. First and foremost is technical knowledge, objectively measured. The obvious measure of knowledge is ASE certification or, more accurately, certifications (plural).
The National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (bet you didn’t know that was what ASE stood for!) has curricula and certification programs in over 40 substantive areas. Of greatest relevance to independent inspectors would be the Automotive & Light Truck Certifications. The distinct certifications under that rubric are:
A1 – Engine Repair
A2 – Automatic Transmission/Transaxle
A3 – Manual Drive Train & Axels
A4 – Suspension & Steering
A5 – Brakes
A6 – Electrical/Electronic Systems
A7 – Heating & Air Conditioning
A8 – Engine Performance
A9 – Light Vehicle Diesel Engines
Achieving the first eight of those ASE certifications earns the lucky candidate Certified Master Automobile Technician status. For inspectors, of course, that would be overkill. It is not an inspector’s role to diagnose the problem, much less fix it. Rather, it is for the inspector to confirm the technician’s diagnosis. To do this competently, A1 – 4, 6 and 7 would seem appropriate.
But technical knowledge alone is not sufficient. What about relevant work experience? Here again, ASE provides some useful guidance. To earn ASE certification, a candidate must prove at least two years of relevant, full-time, hands-on work experience. While one could argue an inspector should not require as much experience as the technician actually doing the repair work, two years seems a reasonable minimum. And requiring more experience than a technician is probably excessive.
Finally, are there any subjective factors that should be required? Those who responded to the three earlier articles consistently harped on “people skills.” But how does one measure something that squishy?
One approach would be to include levels of customer service that are expected of professional inspectors in the certification training and test on those points. This would allow one to at least objectively prove the candidate knew what kind of behavior is expected in the field. Whether the candidate lives up to those expectations is a separate matter.
But that matter can be addressed. What if FIPAA created a short, standardized feedback form for repair facilities and Administrators to complete and return to FIPAA in connection with a candidate’s application? FIPAA could take responsibility for calling the reviewers to confirm the accuracy of the forms. Some minimum number of positive reviews, or ratio of positive to negative, would be required before certification is awarded. Other suggestions are, of course, welcome.
At the end of the day, the industry would profit from some degree of standardized processes, forms, expectations and understanding. Such standards are currently lacking. As L’Tonya Carr put it, inspector standards “depend on which inspection company is utilized, and believe me the ‘standard’ varies significantly. Even when the same inspector is used by multiple inspection companies, the inspector’s work quality can differ.”
How will training and testing be handled?
Online, mostly. In order to make the program affordable, a web-based delivery is pretty much a must. The candidate would access a Learning Management System, or “LMS,” through the FIPAA website and enter a unique username and password. Material would be offered in short, digestible chunks of multimedia presentations. After each module is completed, a test covering that material would be presented. The LMS would track usage and test results.
After all required modules are completed, candidates would take a comprehensive final exam. Upon completion and verification of experience and performance (via the reviews), certification is conferred. A recertification test (shorter than the comprehensive certification test) could be offered every other year to maintain currency.
Recall that I said “mostly.” In discussion is the prospect of holding the initial certification review and test live and in-person in conjunction with the F&I Conference in Las Vegas this coming September. Watch this space for details as they become available.
How much will it cost?
Well, that depends. FIPAA’s Inspection Certification Working Group is in the earliest stages of its work, and much needs to be done before this program launches. But it is understood that for the program to gain traction, its value must exceed its cost by a wide margin.
So I ask the inspectors out there, what do you think the value of certification is, in dollars and cents? And understand that the infrastructure (LMS, bandwidth, development of curricula, staffing, fulfillment, etc.) is going to cost something. Certification is a good idea, but not a good enough idea to lose money on.
Who will pay for it?
In the first instance, the inspectors themselves will. But before you assault my home with pitchforks and torches, consider that it is in best interest of Providers and Administrators to engage certified inspectors. Isn’t that worth something to the P&A community? Of course it is. Should the P&A community pay some premium for a certified inspector? Justice and logic suggest the answer is affirmative. How much will the market bear? That remains to be seen, of course, but the certification program should allow independent inspectors a rationale for their first meaningful pay raise in years.
Jon Anderson, Vice President of Sales and Marketing for American Guardian Warranty Services, confirms the value of such certification. “Training and consistency are always things that help us all do our jobs more efficiently. The inspector is our eyes and ears at the dealership. The better equipped he (or she) is to do that job, the better we are able to serve our customers.” Certification obviously serves that end.
Final Thoughts
Previous articles in this publication and the reader response they triggered proves there is strong grassroots support amongst inspectors for a certification program. And the support of FIPAA indicates agreement within the P&A community. Now comes the hard work: making it a reality.
To that end, I encourage reader response on this topic with as much specificity as you dare. You may safely assume all such comments will make their way to the attention of the FIPAA working group that is charged with turning wishes into reality. This is your chance to shape policy and the future of the inspection market. We welcome your input, and look forward to incorporating it into the independent inspectors certification program.
I agree that certification is a good idea, but I think more discussion with both warranty administrators and inspection companies is needed to confirm the willingness of both entities to pay a higher rate for using certified inspectors. In the 20 plus years I have been inspecting, I keep seeing greater demands for my time and resources with little or no increase in compensation. Over that same time frame, average shop labor rates have more than doubled, whereas average inspection fees that can be charged have only increased slightly. In a more perfect world, those experience and training suggestions above would probably suffice, but in the world I live and work in every day, simply confirming a repair facilities diagnosis is seldom what actually happens since most of the time the technician has little desire to determine the “cause of failure”. He spends most of his time and energy determining what needs to be done to correct the problem and unless he needs to know what caused the problem to prevent it from reoccurring, he doesn’t need to know the cause. Today’s auto repair industry seldom involves actually repairing a component, so replacing parts is more common. If replacement of an engine, transmission of differential is going to be the ultimate repair option, a tech doesn’t need to know what caused the original component to fail. Having an intimate knowledge of complicated automotive systems is often, although not always, needed to provide an inspection report that is useful for the purposes of determine warranty coverage. Without that knowledge and experience, too many reports would end up with ambiguous statements such as “the tech was unable or unwilling to demonstrate a cause of failure”. I think that depending on the type of inspection, more experience and qualification should be required for an inspector certification than the minimal amount needed to attain basic ASE certification.
Its no great surprise this subject spawned such a response. When you understand we are a small group of professional that are paid to have an answer for everything. I for one think the topic has been beat to death. How bout I will start a company that interviews and screens inspector candidates and sells the lists to prospective clientele. The reality of it all is that almost every inspection company on planet earth is owned by persons that were inspectors. So if the inspection company doesn’t pull the plug on the non inspectors than usually the dealers and or the warranty companies will sort them out. If you don’t think that is so then you haven’t been paying attention. There are some inspection companies that are making some very innovative changes and I’ll just bet they also have the smarts to keep folks that keep them moving forward.Its complicated but it works. Thank you to those who still keep me busy after eight thousand mechanical failure inspections. Phil
Jim, In this article you state “Recall that I said “mostly.” In discussion is the prospect of holding the initial certification review and test live and in-person in conjunction with the F&I Conference in Las Vegas this coming September. Watch this space for details as they become available.” If I undestand this correctly, we inspectors would be required to go to the convention for the first exam. If I’m correct, this is like having all technicians across the country go to one location to take their first ASE exams. This seems like a large expense for the inspectors and for the FIPAA. Has anyone given thought to contacting The National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence about creating a certification and testing program? The exams could given at the same time as the other ASE exams. I agree the cost should be the responsibilty of the inspectors just as having the proper tools is. Certified inspectors should be able to charge a higher fee than is currently being charged and inspectors would need to know the respective agencies would ONLY use certified inspectors. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Jeff Frazier San Antonio, TX. Inspecting since 1999.
Jeff:
Thanks for pointing out my lack of clarity. No one needs to come to Vegas to take the initial certification test. We believe that there will a sufficient number of interested people to do a live version, which will allow us access to direct feedback from the candidates. Subsequent testing will be on-line. No airfare necessary.
Jim
Jim, I whole heartedly agree with Jeff, the problem over the 15 years I have been doing this is the inspection agencies are recruiting inspectors more based on what they charge per inspection than the amount of experience and knowledge. I have seen many inspectors come and go that are not certified in anything, their only experience is working on some assembly line. When I started doing this for a living I had 20 plus years as a tech I was told that the inspection agencies were only using inspectors with ASE masters and at least 10 years experience, seems that this not so. I consider myself as one of the best all around techs and to be under cut by an agency that is not ensuring their inspecters are meeting those requirments is disheartening. In my opinion, there is no need for a certification program as that only takes money out of the inspectors pocket. Instead FIPPA needs to establish and enforce guielines on the inspection agencies which also could be part of the NADA guide lines as well. Using none certified and no experience inspectors is basicly unethical and shady and serves only one purpose and that is to keep the inspector pay down. Its bad enough now everyone is wanting photos and reports from the facilty which that eats into time and cost use money to do. AS far as going to Vegas for a test, thats not going to happen, the trend will come and go, and I’ll still be hear chugging along doing my best to make a living and still be proud to look at myself in the mirror in the morning.
I have only been an inspector since 1989, but have been in the auto industry since I was 16(old enough to go on Medicare this year, but won’t).
John has some very valid and relevant concerns.. I was ASE master twice recertified but let it lapse. Why? Because I believe I keep up with new technology by reading magazines and in the field.. Taking tests(especially the ASE, which seem to pride themselves on “trick” questions) and working hands on, in the field, are often two very different entities. ASE testings prove nothing to me now, as I know people who are technicians, and inspectors who passed ASE tests, but I would not hire. When ASE builds an inspectors testing program, then I would be curious about checking it out. But for now, I feel that my time would be better spent with things like MotorAge….
having been a bumper to bumper tech for over 20 years prior to inspecting for the last 15 years, i would say persons entering this field lately need to have extensive knowledge in auto repair. i find it is necessary to know more than the tech demonstrating the failures. ASE tests are close to confirming a level of proficiency, but still won’t ensure competency. would be interesting to see what ASE inspector tests would entail. i stopped taking ASE tests sometime ago due to the expense. i find my previous experience more valuable than showing i can read and pass a test.
One thing I fail to see mentioned in any of there articles is the “people skills” needed to be successful in this field. Many times i enter a shop and get the ” I’m glad it’s you ” introduction. As important as technical experience is, being able to get along with both the tech, advisor, and sometimes the vehicle owner is equally important. Also having the ability to track down the RF and vehicle when given the incorrect location is a required skill. Yes we need to be on top of all the latest technical info but also be flexable and friendly. How would those skills be measured/tested? How do you other inspectors feel about this?
All worthwhile professions have a means by which they measure themselves, and we inspectors have all encountered those in our industry who have not been measured to any standard.
The professionals among us should encourage a worthwhile means by which we can command a higher level of respect from the entire industry and thus, proper compensation for what we know and do.
I think that a properly constructed on-line test might be the answer. I would be willing to volunteer some of my time participating in the initial collection of ideas to make this happen.
I have only been inspecting vehicles for three years, but I have over 40 years in the industry as a technician, a service advisor, and then as a service manager.
One difficulty that I encounter on a daily basis, and I’ve not heard this mentioned in these discussions up to this point, is the “New Face” of the dealership. These are the young men and women “service advisors” that the dealers put in their service lanes who have absolutely no knowledge of the industry, let alone the workings of the automobile. Technicians are taking advantage of these people, who will “sell” and are “sold”, on whatever the technician tells them. There is no longer the “filter” of an experienced “old tech” in the service lane as in the past, the one who would walk back to the shop himself to verify the needed repairs. This is why we encounter so many “lists” of non-issues and incomplete diagnoses after the famous “World Class Inspection”. The result is much time-wasting for us attempting to verify non-issues, and heavy discussion over what is normal seepage and what is a leak, for instance. Adding the burden of uploading pictures from the RF after dealing with inexperienced RF personnel means added stress to an already full and busy day. Often an inspection company will add to this stress by calling to ask “what’s your ETA to ………..? because now we’re running late.
The inspection company that has me fax my three-page report from the RF, so that I only have to upload the pictures when I get home gets my vote.
I enjoy what I’m doing, wish I’d started ten years ago, but it’s harder than it was only three years ago.
I must say that the sentiments of all the participants here are well thought out and that I must concur with the majority of the ongoing discussion. I have been inspecting in North Carolina for 22 years, and prior to that, I was in the transmission field for as long as I can remember. As an inspector, I stay on the cutting edge of what is causing our vehicles to malfunction. I think most of us do this. But we also stay on top of (and we do so quietly) the failures of the technicians we work with, the breakdown in communication between the technician and the service advisor, between the service advisor and the customer, and the service advisor and the administrator’s claims adjuster. This is where we supply the “lubrication” to get those relationships back into sync. All the while, we are embedded news reporters not afraid to get our hands dirty (or at least one hand—got to keep the other hand clean for the camera, you know). Yes, sometimes we are the diagnosticians when the RF does not have anybody suitable to diagnose, although that is not IN our job description. All the while, we have to remember that when we enter a dealership or an independent repair shop, we are not THE BOSS. We are guests! We do not sign anybody’s paycheck, and we can politely suggest, but we can’t TELL anybody what to do. It’s not our place. With that in mind, now we participate in the documentation of as many failures may be on the gig sheet and the repair order. We encounter technicians who have already once documented the failures, and are unwilling to walk through some or all of the steps that brought them to their brilliantly (or not so) conceived conclusions. We encounter service advisors (some, not all) who are ignorant of the shortcomings of the technicians’ diagnosis, and will not sign, but stand there and argue with us over a well thought-out inspection report. We encounter the customer—sometimes and have to about-face and walk (or run) the other way. After all this, I might say that I have simply scratched the surface of what makes up a very complex field. But how many times have we been asked. “I’d like to do what you do; how do I get a gig like that?–you know going around all day JUST TAKING PICTURES?” (The technician who sees us as a guy “just taking pictures” is probably the last person who should be an inspector.) If we love what we do, and therefore do a great job of it, we make it APPEAR easier than it actually is to do. The result is that we lure people into this field that learn the hard way that it is not just going around and taking pictures, and just like anything else is a lot of hard work, and requires a consistent work ethic, and a striving for excellence in one’s work. Would certification be welcomed? What took us so long to realize this? Unfortunately, the able amongst us will not necessarily be better off from receiving the certification. But rather, it will be those individuals that are thinned out from the field that will benefit the industry as a whole. Bring it on!
Well said Howard..
I had my first shop 30 yrs ago, and three since, along with constant education, and 12 years in dealerships and their required certifications. I think it would be simple enough to vett current inspectors and measure their overall knowledge. I have created training programs for 30-50 techs over the years and it becomes clear quickly who is on board.
I do think this industry is in flux constantly, the needs of volume sales for new warranty companies or for dedicated dealers that sell a ton of warranties and expect to be covered most of the time.
I have been ASE certified for decades, as many have and inspecting for almost ten years, it is my way of doing business in the field I trained and labored in for so long, it seems to be a natural thing to do.
There is no doubt a huge disconnect between sa tech warr co and inspectors, me being certified is not fixing that problem.