In the metal shop, effective quality control results from well-reasoned processes introduced into the right body shop culture. Finding the right blend for your shop can spell the difference between excellence and mediocrity.
When it comes to maintaining quality, the metal department poses unique challenges, especially in contrast to the paint department around the corner. That’s because the refinishing process has a couple of things going for it. First, the painter sees the job through from beginning to end. Second, the work is uniform across vehicles with minor variations. The first characteristic provides control over workmanship, the second supports process consistency—both keys to quality.
Contrast this to the workflow dynamic of most metal departments. Technicians work on several vehicles at once. Within each job, component operations and required repair techniques vary, often widely. The division of attention and lack of uniformity hinders quality control, where a predictable, repetitive approach encourages high standards.
“The metal department can frustrate those seeking consistent quality output, so the most progressive owners and managers have begun to think out of the box,” says Dave Dunn, owner and founder of the Masters School of Auto Body Management in Santa Barbara, Calif. “Tracking, measuring, lists...these activities have been associated with quality control for decades—and rightly so. But other factors—personnel, shop organization and environment—need to be considered, too.”
A growing number of shop managers, industry professionals and consultants have come to group quality “controls” within two categories. The first classification is procedural—clearly defined processes and programs applied consistently throughout the operation, including technical procedures (see sidebar, “Paving the road to quality”) and performance tracking.
The procedural approach has come to dominate quality control theory, but this has begun to change. “Having the right processes, measurements and checks in place is only half the battle,” says Mark Olson, vice president of VeriFacts Automotive, a consultancy based in Newport, Calif., that coaches shop personnel on proper repair techniques. “The real challenge is to get your staff to embrace them and pursue them with a passion,” he adds.
That’s where the second group of controls comes into play—cultural strategies that help build behaviors that support and encourage high quality standards. In their own way they are as concrete as procedural factors, emphasizing concerns like personnel organization, management style and workplace design.
Owners and managers who achieve consistently high quality in their metal departments integrate behavioral and cultural strategies into their quality formula. In the pages that follow we’ll first describe some common procedural tools before examining how the surrounding culture influences their effectiveness.
The Procedural Approach
It’s easy to see why the operations checklist has become an integral part of the procedural school of quality control. While the number of lists used, the tasks listed on them and their insertion into the repair process may vary from shop to shop, its value remains the same. Presenting the technician (or production manager or estimator) with a specific list of the work for which he or she is responsible and obliging that employee to initial or check off each item establishes: a declaration of standard operating procedures; the standardization of those procedures across tasks; a work document that can be referenced when conflicts arise; and accountability for the job. It adds stability and uniformity into dynamic, unpredictable metal department workflow.
“Our approach to quality starts with getting an accurate checklist in the hands of our production personnel,” says Mike Anderson, owner of WagonWork Collision in Alexandria, Va. “We make sure that what’s listed reflects reality and fine-tune them as necessary. Our technicians play a major role in developing these; they’re the ones doing the work and know what’s happening.”
The metal department checklist used by WagonWork Collision travels with the vehicle as it moves through the body shop. It details 48 tasks organized into three categories (disassembly process, pre-paint process and re-assembly process), each with a space for the technician to date and initial after the item is completed.
WagonWork Collision uses other variations on the operations checklist, including a parts list that travels to the technician’s stall with the parts order, and a final quality-control list used by the estimator before any vehicle is delivered to the customer.
Anderson believes each vehicle must be inspected for quality before, during and after repair, and Olson agrees. “If you wait until the end you may end up overlooking structural problems that affect safety, appearance and add hours to cycle time,” he notes. “On top of that, you’ll have a difficult time working your way back through the repair to find out who’s accountable.”
Standardizing operating procedures, getting them on paper and placing them in the hands of technicians as an active part of the repair process characterize other tools that can be thought of as “cousins” to the operations checklist.
A well-written estimate is a prime example. Edwards and Associates, a consulting firm that assists collision repair facilities in improving results, provides quality control checklists to client shops (see sidebar, “Putting it on paper”), but champions the damage report as a starting point for quality assurance.
“Getting the details in order before disassembly sets the stage for the right result,” says Larry Edwards, the firm’s founder and president. “That’s what a detailed, descriptive estimate does. Quality control comes from paying mind to the little things, like covering the upholstery and wires during welding, so a properly itemized estimate points the technician in the direction he or she needs to go. It also comes with a very real associated benefit—it helps you get paid for everything you do.”
To help the body department cover its bases on items that don’t necessarily appear in the estimate, Edwards recommends that the estimator (or whoever introduces the job into the production cycle) print a hard copy of included operations—commonly known as P-page items—and give them to the technician with the job.
The charting of workflow processes from estimate approval to final delivery, along with the job duties associated with each, is another technique Edwards advises for client shops. He considers this a standard operating procedure that provides the benefit of perspective. “I don’t think technicians can be expected to perform at optimum unless they understand how they fit into and affect the rest of the operation,” he says.
The Cultural Approach
Even the best operational and technical procedures can’t ensure quality on their own. “If standard operating procedures were enough, the airline industry, which has as many rules and regulations as any business, would run without a hitch,” Dunn states.
The right culture must be created in the metal department—one that’s steeped in quality and encourages workers to be active in its pursuit. Olson calls it a “grassroots” approach to quality. “It’s a place where the individual shoulders the responsibility for superior body repair,” he explains. “It’s up to the management team to champion high standards and communicate them, but you need something in place to make the philosophy take hold.”
That “something” usually involves getting technicians to share responsibility for quality assurance.This is exactly what Anderson’s team does at WagonWork.
“We get as many sets of eyes on the repair as we can,” he says. “If there’s a problem in the metal department, we want to find it before it leaves to go somewhere else.”
Anderson organizes his personnel into teams—two metal technicians and a claims representative (estimator) who wears the hat of team coordinator. “Technician and estimator work side-by-side and gain a mutual understanding of the job blueprint. One technician might catch something another one doesn’t. And when the estimator performs a final quality control check on the car, he’s dialed in because he’s been with the job every step of the way.”
Dunn endorses a similar strategy for his shop clients, pairs of technicians that he refers to as “commando teams.” “For jobs that contain multiple tasks—say a weld-on panel that needs some straightening—doubling up makes the shop more efficient,” he says. “Why have a metal tech working in two stalls, when he or she can only work on one vehicle at a time? With a team, the work gets done faster, in less space with fewer oversights.”
Of course, if it were this easy, everyone would do it. The challenge is that traditional shop culture is engineered to reinforce the technician’s individuality. Commission pay plans breed this by design, as technicians concentrate on beating their allocated hours and aren’t compelled to assist others. Even the physical design of work stalls can be insular.
“The industry does a great job of breeding an island mentality in its technicians,” says Olson. “They don’t appreciate someone looking over their shoulder, even in the name of quality.”
The problem becomes compounded with the wrong management approach: pointing the finger. “We have to move away from a model where we’re telling the technician what is wrong, instead of what they’ve done right,” Olson adds.
Dunn cites several techniques that management can use to induce technicians to cooperatively seek quality. “You can’t be afraid of delegating the responsibility for quality to employees,” he states. “A manager must set boundaries, but within those boundaries technicians should be allowed to make decisions.”
Not that investing ownership in others means a manager has to take a hands-off approach. “I check on every job that leaves the department,” Anderson says. “The staff doesn’t resent it because it’s been established that we’re united toward the goal of quality.”
Dunn believes that a friendly competition between teams can help create a positive experience. “Of course you want to track defects and delivery efficiency, but why make it drudgery?” he asks. “If you’ve set up a way to score that kind of stuff, post it and let the teams compete. It motivates them, even when no money is involved. It engages them, which makes it much better than passive compliance to quality.”
Edwards wholeheartedly supports the view that management participation is integral to maintaining quality. “It’s human nature for technicians—especially in a well-run shop, ironically enough—to think they’re doing the right thing,” he says. “It’s easy to lose perspective, and management can provide that.”
Olson has witnessed technician “tunnel vision” first hand in his role as “coach” and consultant, where he finds himself next to the technician in the work environment. “I’ve seen technicians, who know every correct procedure in the book, fail to follow them in real life,” he says. “It happens again and again, which just reinforces what I know to be true: it takes more than knowledge, classroom or otherwise, to maintain superior quality. It takes the right kind of reinforcement. They have to live it.”
In the end, it is difficult to consider an approach to metal shop quality control that doesn’t include an integrated blend of behavioral and procedural strategies. The beauty of the twin foundation is that it is broad enough and flexible enough to apply to a wide variety of specific strategies, providing that the shop’s management team finds and sustains the proper mix of attributes from each category.