The process ASE uses is widely recognized and approved as a valid standard-setting and certification program wherein the industry is actually involved in the standards creation. This is accomplished through the workshops ASE has been using successfully for more than 35 years, and all segments of the industry recognize ASE certification as a valid measurement of technician knowledge. In fact, many segments actually incorporate ASE certification into their recommended training process.
The statement that ASE does not certify technicians to an industry accredited standard is not true. ASE is that industry standard and incorporates an audit process for the certification tests that would seem to meet the requirement for a true certification program mentioned in the column. Likewise, the statement that "consumers have nowhere to turn to assure that qualified individuals are working on their vehicles" ignores the fact that ASE has been providing this consumer benchmark since 1972. However, the statements made in the column do point out a significant problem within the collision industry – even those who are supposed to be providing unbiased, comprehensive and well-researched information would seem to be ignoring the obvious fact that certain industry standards do exist, if only they were recognized as such.
As a standard-setting industry organization, ASE provides accreditation to secondary and post-secondary school programs and other training organizations through the National Automotive Technician Education Foundation (NATEF). Schools achieve ASE certification through NATEF, while in-service training providers like I-CAR and the OEM manufacturers have their programs ASE certified through the Continuing Automotive Service Education (CASE) program. These educational standards, developed through workshops in the same manner as the ASE certification program, provide the framework that curriculum developers use to provide training according to industry-established criteria. In all cases, ongoing workshops provide an audit process to ensure that the standards remain valid and relevant.I spent two years as the first chairman of the CIC Standards Committee. In those first two years, the committee clearly demonstrated that much of what the collision industry is seeking in establishing standards already exists. It merely needs to be organized into a comprehensive best practices document as a first step. While it is true that thorny problems remain to finish the standards picture, repeating the claim that nothing currently exists does a great disservice to those who have been laboring for years to develop and maintain standards that are working today.
In fact, the professional development matrix the author refers to uses the same process of industry engagement that ASE has been using since 1972. Hardly a new development, but if this process promises the solution the author claims, why wouldn't the existing ASE certification program as well? The work being done by I-CAR along these lines to improve the training they offer is to be commended, and ASE has been part of that advisory group, but constantly looking for a new solution while ignoring those that already exist would seem to be a significant oversight in any attempt to organize comprehensive industry standards – certification or otherwise.
Instead of reinventing the proverbial wheel, the collision industry might be better served if it collectively got behind and supported the standards we have as a first step. Taking advantage of and participating in I-CAR training, ASE certification and other established best practices is the fastest way toward a better business and a better industry.
Editor's Note: Tony Molla is vice president of communications for ASE.
Contact info: [email protected]
