By Kevin Roberts
Certification tests can be a challenge for the emergency vehicle technician. For today, let’s look at the purposes of certification testing.
First, it provides an evaluation of technician knowledge and understanding. Second, it brings in a third party that can do so objectively. Finally, it provides evidence (and paperwork) for anyone who may question the proficiency of a technician.
The Evaluation of Technician Knowledge and Understanding
Because of the breadth and depth of expertise needed to be a proficient technician, evaluating that expertise is challenging. This is one reason that there is no single test developed by either ASE or EVTCC.
The ability to diagnose and service electrical systems does not translate into the ability to diagnose and service HVAC Systems. Yes, there is overlap. But the distinctions are significant.
Notice that I included both knowledge and understanding. These are clearly not the same thing, and neither is sufficient alone. If I were to tell you that the dwell angle of a point fired ignition coil must be adjusted to within specification before distributor timing is adjusted, you could memorize that fact and be able to repeat it well enough to correctly answer a test question that closely matched that idea. But that would not mean that you understood why that fact was true.
Yes, there are some perfectly legitimate questions that can be answered solely based on knowledge. But a test filled with these questions would be inferior to one that probed technician understanding.
Achieving this quality on the test is the responsibility of the committee that writes questions.
A good metaphor for the test taking process is one common to the automotive industry. It is that of a filter. A filter serves the purpose of allowing something through it, perhaps fuel, and prevents something else from passing through it, contamination. In the case of today’s topic, the purpose of a certification test is to allow an informed technician to pass the test and to prevent an uninformed technician to do so. Both outcomes are exactly what is desired by all involved, whether it be the fleet manager, the shop foreman, the driver operator, or the test developer. Perhaps not the technician himself – he simply wants to pass – but that conversation will be reserved for another day. This metaphor further applies in the following way. No one wants a fuel filter that over restricts fuel from flowing and no one wants a fuel filter that allows contamination through. To be worthwhile, the line must be sharp, and the test question must perform “just right”. (Yes, I know that no filter is perfect)
The Third Party
Both ASE and EVTCC are known as third parties. The two primary parties are the vehicle owner and the repair shop/service provider.
A third party is one that can perform evaluations objectively, and with no conflict of interest.
The vehicle owner/customer brings his vehicle to the repair shop/vendor. He wants to know if the vendor can and will take good care of him as a customer. In the beginning, at the rise of automobile use in the U.S., word of mouth reputation was all the vendor needed to draw in customers and often a decades-long relationship would be established. Today, in our mobile society, people may not live in a neighborhood long enough to make this paradigm work. In the interest of finding out about the quality of a vendor without beginning a long-term relationship, the customer may look for a third party. This new paradigm has both advantages and disadvantages.
On the plus side, using a nationally known third party is a time saver. Someone new to a neighborhood can find ASE or EVTCC Certified Technicians very quickly because the incentives to advertise this are strong with the vendor.
Also, the complexity of modern vehicles is so far beyond the understanding of the average vehicle owner, knowing that the technicians hold these certifications minimizes the need for the customer to do his own research.
Finally, taking your vehicle to a vendor who employs certified technicians is similar to an insurance policy. If your vehicle fails and liability is involved, using a shop thus staffed can lessen exposure.
All the above is as true for fleet managers as it is for private vehicle owners.
But there is more.
Perhaps “disadvantage” is too strong a word for what I am about to describe, but there are mitigating factors to the above advantages.
Primarily, there is significantly more to being a proficient technician than can be evaluated with a written test. As stated above, the breadth and depth of expertise needed to be that proficient technician exceeds most, if not all, other service professions. The modern technician must work with electricity, fuel chemistry, emission devices, computers, communications networks, and mechanical physics; this in addition to the physical skills necessary for component replacement. While there is overlap of skill sets in the daily tasks of the tech, being skillful in answering a test question is different from most of what a proficient technician does every day. Most of us in the emergency vehicle field know that there are technicians that breeze through tests, and there are technicians that are on the top of your list to call if a rig breaks down and 3 a.m. Occasionally, these are not the same guy.
Having a tech that can pass a test but cannot efficiently diagnose and repair a fire truck is not an advantage. The cure for this dilemma is a large topic in itself and will be addressed in a future article.
The Primacy of Paperwork
The reality of our culture is that there is no longer a distinction between different types of entities that perform services for the public.
Decades ago, (I’ve been told) there existed a “goodwill exemption” for Fire Services, Emergency Medical Services, certain nonprofit organizations, and individual good Samaritans. Then human nature intervened, and the lawsuits began. As the pendulum moved away from “goodwill” idea and toward the “deep pockets” idea, we found ourselves in a culture where being a good Samaritan entailed significant personal risk. In a rare exercise of common sense, legislators determined that this was a serious risk to the function of society. Whether the passage of “Good Samaritan” laws reversed, or merely slowed the movement of the pendulum is not germane to today’s discussion. Plus, these protections only apply to certain bystanders, not professional individuals or departments.
As departments faced increasing liability risks simply for operating fleets of emergency vehicles, the above-described change in society that led to increased liability exposure, also led to positive outcomes.
“Best Practices” in emergency vehicle maintenance and repair was more broadly implemented. Record keeping was found to be valuable in lessening liability exposure. Also, the value of technician proficiency, including certification has become more appreciated.
If you know of a shop, either private or public, that:
- Emphasizes “Best Practices” in service.
- Implements detailed recordkeeping.
- Supports Technician training and certification.
You have likely found a shop that experiences minimal breakdowns, and minimal liability exposure.