Opinion: Rx Minus Diagnosis = Maintenance Malpractice
This Opinion piece appears in the Oct. 22 print edition of Transport Topics. Click here to subscribe today.
By Michael Buck
President
MCB Fleet Management Consulting
It’s flu season again, so for the sake of an analogy, imagine for a moment that you feel something nasty coming on. It’s nearly impossible to get a timely appointment with a physician, but you find one new to the area who is willing to squeeze you in.
When you arrive, the physician’s staff seems far more interested in your wallet’s health than yours. Nobody asks for a medical history or, once you’re in an examination room, takes your vital signs. In your mind, red flags are waving furiously. It doesn’t help that when the doctor finally joins you, he gives you a quick once over and writes a prescription he “thinks” will help . . . probably.
What you are thinking is: “I need a second opinion!”
Unfortunately, many automotive maintenance technicians, like that problematic doctor, will jump heedlessly into troubleshooting mode rather than following a methodical diagnostic process, perpetuating the sad industry statistic that one out of three times, parts are replaced in error.
Just as a good doctor should check vital signs, review medical history, discuss symptoms and order appropriate lab work before making a diagnosis and handing over a prescription, a maintenance technician should follow a specific process when diagnosing what ails a vehicle. And, like the doctor, the technician must be able to allot enough time for gathering data and checking the basics.
The recent Technology & Maintenance Council-sponsored SuperTech competition is a case in point. The technicians who wound up competing were those with the intestinal fortitude to pick up a manual when they didn’t know something and apply a methodical process to their diagnoses, instead of just throwing parts at the problem and hoping one will be the cure.
The SuperTech winners were the technicians who had learned to apply a diagnostic process to each and every system on the vehicle.
Take, for example, the case of a technician handed a write-up for an improperly operating engine. The first thing he/she does is to pop the hood and check the oil. That includes checking for a burnt smell — and for evidence of metal particles, moisture, antifreeze and viscosity breakdown and then proceeding to the remainder of the engine’s “vital signs,” such as tailpipe color.
Next, the methodical technician follows the basic checklist every manufacturer provides. That reveals if any sensors, solenoids or actuators were left disconnected or if other basic defects are present.
The technician then should verify that the engine temperature is within the normal operating range and that accurate information is being transmitted to the electronic control module, along with reviewing the vehicle’s repair history.
At this point, a major difference between the doctor and the technician should be noted: Trucks can’t sue for malpractice. If late-night TV advertising was cluttered with lawyers trolling for “engine malpractice” lawsuits and techs had to pay malpractice insurance, maybe misdiagnosis wouldn’t be happening a third of the time.
There have been numerous — albeit usually undocumented — cases where failing to follow a process resulted in unnecessary in-frame overhauls costing $15,000 and up.
Consider the last time you used an establishment offering to change your oil in 10 minutes or less. These ubiquitous operations learned early on that following a regimented process reduced errors made by entry-level technicians.
Reducing maintenance and procurement costs is a matter of developing and implementing defined processes and holding individuals as well as vendors accountable to follow them. Technicians who follow a process should be recognized — and even an average mechanic will improve with a structured process.
In this highly competitive and regulated industry, the two areas where a stringent process is imperative for keeping costs, service and utilization in line are (1) diagnosing a problem and (2) performing a preventive maintenance inspection, or PMI. Without long, involved training, you can increase the efficiency of the mechanics and then capitalize on the results by communicating issues found so other equipment in the fleet with looming problems can be prevented. Furthermore, the inspection process can then be used as the foundation of the PMI.
The good news is that the cost of developing, implementing and insisting on a regimented process is very low and provides:
• Reduced cost.
• Improved technician confidence.
• Increased utilization.
• Improved equipment knowledge and component location.
• Improved technician efficiency and productivity.
• Improved confidence by the organization in its maintenance function.
• Improved PMIs.
• Improved vendor accountability.
• Low implementation cost.
Briefly revisiting the doctor/maintenance technician analogy, you can see now that cutting down on the number of “prescriptions” made in your shop but not based on proper diagnoses will cut costs, improve service and boost morale and confidence, not just in the maintenance facility but throughout the organization.
And it’s worth remembering that another big difference between physicians and technicians is that doctors can bury their mistakes, but mechanics can’t.
MCB Fleet Management Consulting, St. Simons, Ga., offers fleet maintenance advice and guidance to private, public, corporate and government fleet operations.
