The Learning Mechanic

Sediment-Embedded Radiator Cap

Breaking Bogart (11)

*Disclaimer: a mechanic is a technician and both terms are used interchangeably throughout this post.

The following contains my thoughts on how an automotive repair shop could be considered an learning organization. And how I would qualify that statement through example and recontextualization.

When considering a workplace I used to be employed under, an automotive repair and tire shop, I am reframing my experiences and even work methods utilized to try and consider it to be a learning organization. I can say right now that at the very least, the company attempted to provide a form of corporate university. According to Carbery and Cross, a corporate university is defined as, "an organization-specific educational provider. It is created and owned by a specific company and provides job-specific and organization-specific training to the organization's employees." (2015) This company's corporate university was just so. The size of the company dictated a rather small-ranging and scaled approach. But, they provided the university just the same. The learning took place underneath a man named Jeff. (We all called him Jeffery).

Besides this, the day-to-day work experienced in an automotive repair shop proves that they are a learning organization.

Alright. So bear with me here. As I considered  organizational learning, I understand the learning method of loops underneath the automotive concept for diagnostic strategy. That strategy is abbreviated to the 3 C's. Concern. Cause (root cause). And Correction. The customer approaches the shop with some sort of Concern or need. The shop then writes up a repair order and tasks the mechanic with both determining the root Cause producing the issue, as well as Correcting that root cause and issue. Refer to the diagram above. Determining the root cause of an issue can, at times, be exceedingly challenging. A standard method for an auto-mechanic to work through is that of a scientific approach. The approach works systematically to empower a technician to successfully diagnose the root cause of a concern without missing crucial information and ensuring a job done well the first time. (The "first time" ends when the customer leaves with their vehicle, and/or expect that the issue is resolved).

Within the realm of the root cause, a tech must consider the customer's stated issue, and then hypothesize what the root cause for this issue could be. This undertaking is accomplished through an if, than statement which is informed through introductory and verifiable information. We call those "pre-checks" in the industry.

For example: Customer states: when driving, engine overheats and smells sickly sweet in cab.

1. The technician condemned the radiator hoses through the hypothesis: If the radiator is not at capacity, then the radiator hoses have failed resulting in a leak of coolant. The rubber hoses were fine after inspection and testing. So the technician iterates by altering their hypothesis:
2. If the radiator lacks coolant capacity, then the metal radiator tubes must have failed and are leaking past the cooling fins. (The tech knows that the radiator lacks coolant based off of the puddle in engine bay, a lack of fluid in the radiator {visible} and that the customer told them that they smelled something sweet [ethylene-glycol] as smoke rolled out from underneath their hood) -This is a simple hypothesis. Beginning with a simple hypothesis is crucial as to not miss important details in a diagnosis which may lead to a discovery of a more systemic issue.
3. A technician will then test that hypothesis. In the simplest outcome, to keep this portion short, they check the fins and tubes of the radiator and they have been eviscerated; no longer able to contain a liquid. -The technician was correct in their hypothesis and Corrects the issue by replacing the radiator.
4. This fixed the coolant leak but that smell remained. So the technician poses: If the cab still smells, then the heater core within the dash is leaking. The technician tests this hypothesis by replacing the heater core, then washing the engine bay and cab, test driving, and is pleased to not smell the odor any longer.
5. What the technician has failed to accomplish is determine why the radiator failed in the first place. Even though they have technically fulfilled the basic requirements of the 3 C's, they did not solve the root Cause which resulted in the customer's concern.

I liken this to single, double, and triple-loop learning.

1. In this example, stating and testing a hypothesis, then needing to then altered their hypothesis represents single-loop learning. (The tech learned that they did not, "do the thing right" (2015) Thing being formulating a true hypothesis).
2. After testing the new hypothesis (that the radiator tubes were leaking) the technician has supposedly corrected the customer's issue (that coolant leaked and the cab smelled). They were incorrect as they had not fully fixed the leak concern. They had to loop back and create a new hypothesis. But this time, they had to consider, "did [I] do the right thing?" (2015). As in, did they form a hypothesis that was true, but did not fix all that needed to be fixed. This is an example of double-loop learning
3. Going even beyond this is considering why the radiator was even damaged in the first place. Triple-loop learning is, "how do we decide what is right?" In this case, the mechanic should consider, "How do I decide that the customer's concerns address the root or systemic issue that this vehicle is experiencing?" In this case, an issue with a radiator fan exhibiting excessive lateral runout and sending plastic into the radiator fins and tubes at a high velocity could be the reason for a large portion of this job's issues. The true root cause would be the water pump, its pulley, and the fan if it too sustained damage in the occurrences.

More holistically, auto-repair shops must undergo organizational learning as follows:

• constantly become aware of and identify new knowledge (2015). e.g. acquire specifications and repair procedures concerning new vehicle models and technologies.
• Transfer and interpret new knowledge (2015). e.g. train the mechanics on service procedures.
• Using knowledge by adjusting behavior to achieve intended outcomes (2015). e.g. convince mechanics that their older methods no longer suffice for every vehicle and vehicle system.
• Institutionalize knowledge by reflecting on what is happening and by adjusting behavior (2015). e.g. the repair shop recognizes that the industry has shifted away from solely fossil-fuel vehicles and that every technician must be trained in service and service-safety concerning high-voltage-equipped vehicles.

Thanks to those who read this far,

Peace out!

-Vaughn.