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.