Reasoning and Diagnostics Pt 1

Barney Donohew explores logical and critical thinking

Published:  17 February, 2017

Diagnostics is all about decisions. And what is a decision? It is a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration. Therefore, efficient and effective diagnostics is about drawing the right conclusions at the right time. How do we do that? Amongst other things, by making sure our logical and critical thinking skills are up to scratch. This series of articles aims to help us with that by looking at the principles of human reasoning.

 

Motivations

I want to add a little extra context and motivation. Why? Because this is going to read like a textbook chapter (sorryÂ…!) and it might not be obvious that taking the time to understand human reasoning will help us fix vehicles. However, seeing as we go back to basics whilst fault-finding, why not do it now when weÂ’re trying to understand our logical and critical thinking? You wouldnÂ’t learn to identify all the systems and components in a vehicle without learning the physics needed to understand how they work together, so why would you learn how to make diagnostic observations without making sure you were correctly piecing them together to draw your conclusions?

 

Should we care? Yes, because diagnostic technicians are undervalued and their logical and critical thinking abilities, necessary for effective diagnostics, are often overlooked. Also, when reasoning, humans have a habit of making the same types of mistakes. If we can be made aware of them, they might be avoided. Then, we will have improved our reasoning skills and become better diagnosticians.

 

Our most important diagnostic tool is our brain. Most of us are aware of the benefits of training, which in some ways is like adding or updating a software program within our brain, bringing with it new fault-finding knowledge and skills. What about our brain’s “operating system”; are our logical and critical-thinking skills working okay behind the scenes? It won’t do any harm to check for any bugs and make sure everything is running smoothly.

 

Reasoning

How do humans arrive at conclusions? We make inferences. An inference is a step within reasoning, where we use existing information to generate new information; i.e. getting “four” after “putting two and two together”. When explaining our reasoning, we present the relevant information as an argument; a collection of statements (premises) supporting a conclusion. Usually, our arguments present either a guaranteed conclusion (deductive reasoning), a probable conclusion (inductive reasoning) or a possible conclusion (abductive reasoning). Other kinds of reasoning exist but we’ll focus on these.

 

I keep mentioning critical-thinking. What do I mean? If we are drawing conclusions, we need to check or improve the validity and strength of the arguments behind them; that is what we do when we apply critical-thinking. How though do we apply our critical-thinking to check the logic of arguments? IÂ’ll show you but the process can feel like wading through treacle as it needs discipline and precision; just like the fault-finding process! Hence, if we donÂ’t exercise and train these traits thenÂ… well, we might as well get out the diagnostic dartboard...

 

Where to begin? WeÂ’ll start in this article with deductive reasoning, use it to establish some basic principles, and then continue in a subsequent article with inductive and abductive reasoning. This order doesnÂ’t infer that any one kind is any more effective or useful than another; we use them all, both during fault-finding and in our everyday lives.

 

Deduction

In an ideal world, we would like to guarantee that our conclusions are true. Where we can use them, sound deductive arguments will provide this guarantee. Consider the following simplified argument we might hear within our workshops:

 

The engine needs fuel to run. The engine can run. Therefore, the engine has fuel. From the implication of the statement “the engine needs fuel to run” within the situation in which “the engine can run”, the argument guarantees its conclusion; i.e. assuming its supporting statements are true, its conclusion is guaranteed true. This is defined as a valid argument. Validity is necessary because having true supporting statements doesn’t guarantee a true conclusion, e.g. as in this example:

 

The engine cannot run. An engine needs fuel to run. Therefore, the engine has no fuel. In this argument, other factors might be preventing the engine from running, so it is invalid; a potentially true conclusion isnÂ’t true enough. From a fault-finding perspective, we need to be aware of a deductive argumentÂ’s validity, otherwise we might mistakenly accept a conclusion as being true, when there are alternative explanations.

 

As suggested above, validity is not the only important issue. The following is a totally valid argument, if the supporting statements are true, as it would guarantee its conclusion: All hybrid engines have flux capacitors. Flux capacitors warp space-time. Therefore, all hybrid engines warp space-time.

 

Therefore, for our arguments to be sound they must have true supporting statements and be valid, as in our first example above. If we can totally accept sound arguments, does that mean we must discard all others? For example:

 

The engine is sounding terrible. The valves must be bent. Therefore, the engine is knackered. This argument is neither valid nor sound: it doesnÂ’t logically demand that the conclusion is true and the second supporting statement is not guaranteed true; sometimes easily rectified problems can make an engine sound terrible and is it a fact that the valves are bent? Despite this we canÂ’t totally reject the conclusion, it could still be true. We just need to challenge ourselves to provide a better argument to justify it.

 

Our take away summary: deductive arguments must guarantee the conclusion, as there must be no room for any alternative explanations. If they can guarantee a conclusion and all the supporting statements are true, then the argument is sound. Sound is good!

 

Critical thinking and deduction

We’ve covered a lot of ground and it might have felt confusing – even though it is supposed to be logical – but this is just human nature getting in the way as we are programmed to take shortcuts and jump to conclusions. To bring us back to reality, let’s use an attempt at diagnostic deduction to show us exactly where critical-thinking helps:

 

Faulty coil packs cause a misfire. The engine has a misfire. Therefore, a coil pack is faulty. Seem familiar?! The supporting statements are true and the conclusion is plausible, and very tempting to accept, as we “know” it’s a common fault but, we can tell that this argument is invalid, as something else might be causing the stated misfire. So, here is the point: without any further consideration of any other facts, critical thinking can tell us that a decision to fit a new coil pack based on this argument would be invalid. Therefore, this type of critical thinking is the logical underpinning to asking “what would you test next if the part you were considering fitting did not clear the observed symptoms?” I.e. before we are even to consider any tests, we must first determine that our argument is unsound.

 

When to use deduction

We usually employ deductive arguments when the scope of our diagnostic deliberation is narrow, such as during specific system tests (e.g. “DPF regeneration does not start until the exhaust temperature is above 650 ˚C. The exhaust temperature is 450 ˚C. Therefore, DPF regeneration has not started.”) or, specific component tests, which hopefully could be the last test in your search if it has become sufficiently narrow (e.g. “A volt drop above 250mV between these two points on this wire would indicate a high resistance fault. The Volt drop is 3 Volts. Therefore, the wire has a high resistance fault between these points.”).

What next?

But what do we do if we donÂ’t have perfect knowledge regarding the way a system works (and it is arguable that we can never have perfect knowledge) or if we are at the start of a diagnostic investigation and all we have is a symptom that we canÂ’t easily connect to a possible system or component failure? This is where we can use inductive and abductive arguments to help drive the process forward. We will examine induction and abduction in future editions.

 

Related Articles

  • Bigger is better – right? 

    I was asked whether expanding a garage business to become multi-site was practical or, indeed, even feasible, which got me thinking.
        
    Fundamentally, a business exists to create wealth, both as cash and as an asset. This then benefits the owner(s) and employees, or any shareholders.
        
    The basic principles of the business are to provide goods and services to meet the needs of their customers, who pay accordingly. The turnover/cash flow generated then pays for the costs of providing those goods and services (employees, suppliers etc), leaving any surplus as profit, on which tax may be due. Therefore, in a logical process, the greater the turnover and the lower the costs, the greater the profit – simple!
        
    So, if a business is working well, surely if you just keep replicating what it does in other locations to other customers then you would just keep generating greater profits? Here comes the ‘but’. This concept applies but only in certain circumstances.

    Personal touch
    If we look at a successful independent garage, it is often the enthusiasm, commitment and business acumen of the owner which creates the success, frequently based on good customer service at a personal level. The ‘brand value’ of the business is quite literally in the hands of the owner. It is therefore challenging to successfully replicate this if another branch is opened as this ‘personal touch’ is then split between two locations. If three locations exist, this becomes even more thinly spread and increasingly reliant on the quality and commitment of other staff to deliver the original brand values.
        
    Therefore, a self-imposed ‘glass ceiling’ is created. It is felt that the maximum number of locations that can be successfully emulated is three. However, if you do plan to expand, how do you know when this should happen and what are the key issues to consider to enable you to create successful clones of your business?
        
    The most important point is to identify the key benefit of your business that has created the foundation of your success – your Unique Selling Point (USP). Once you have identified this, it is then imperative that you understand how this can be replicated. It will be important that you can ‘stand out from the crowd’ as any new site will have to establish itself quickly from a standing start. Remember that marketing is not about winning the war to be the best product or service but about winning the hearts and minds of your customers. Additionally, do not be too cautious about setting your prices higher as most customers do not buy on price and carefully selecting your target audience should support your pricing level. Aim to be the leader rather than just another player in the marketplace.
        
    So having identified what your new location will emulate, the next critical step is to understand the automated and integrated systems that need to be in place to allow your businesses to be effectively monitored and managed. This becomes increasingly important as any new site is created as your management time will become increasingly shared. You will not be able to rely on manual systems and the various elements of data will need to become ever more integrated. For example, wages, invoicing, workshop revenue, parts purchases and so on, need to be coordinated, otherwise, quite literally, your numbers will not add up.         Any system that you do implement must also be scalable and have multi-user access, otherwise you will lose the support of your managers and staff at this critical time of an expanding business.
        
    It will not be possible to retain your original ‘hands on’ management style and this will mean that you will lose visibility of the business as well as having to implement new legislative and policy requirements for new staff and premises.
      
    From the purely financial perspective, new businesses rarely fail because of a lack of profitability but fail due to a lack of cash. Any new location will be a cash consumer until it becomes established, so this will require adequate funding and a clear visibility of cash flow from both your existing business as well as the new location as this starts to grow. The key financial elements should include:

    •    Direct visibility of the daily results
    •    Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and management information
    •    Actual results versus budgets or forecasts
    •    Profitability
    •    Customer debts
    •    Supplier payments (due dates and values)

    The better you can demonstrate the financial visibility, control of the business and achievement of your business plan, the easier it will be, both for yourself and when working with your bank.

    A strong team
    This then leads onto perhaps the most difficult element of growing any business – good quality managers and staff. This creates two immediate problems – firstly, who to delegate your existing business to and secondly, who to appoint to run your new business. In both cases, not only must this individual, or individuals (it could be that you appoint a single deputy and share the tasks) be professionally competent but they must also share your company ethos to ensure that what made your company successful in the first place can continue to be delivered.
        
    Finally, if what you have is truly transferrable then ask yourself if it could be franchised.
        
    My personal opinion is that this is unlikely unless your USP is based on a specialist niche part of the market. If this is the case, although this may create an opportunity, by definition, niche market sectors offer limited potential. You will also have to ask yourself if a potential franchisee couldn’t just do this for themselves without (quite literally) buying in to your franchise offer?
        
    So, if you are considering expansion into other sites, ensure you have the right systems in place, that your existing business USP can be successfully emulated, have competent managers who share you ethos and then it is just a case of finding the right location(s) – which is another different challenge altogether!

  • New Year – Fresh perspective 

    Into 2018, John looks at the steps you need to take to make your workshop more efficient, while obeying the Laws of Diagnostics

  • Check those keys 

    The TDB003 Proximity/Smart Key Systems Tester offers a simple and cost effective way to diagnose and test problems relating to the vehicle immobiliser system, which is made up of a number of components. It enables the transponder key, remote control operation, external vehicle antenna transmitters, internal vehicle antenna transmitters and transponder antenna to be fully tested to ensure that all parts of the system are working.

  • Health check for batteries 

    The portable battery tester BAT 131 from Bosch is perfectly suitable for testing 6V and 12V starter batteries (lead-acid, gel and AGM batteries). The cold cranking current can be set as required between 100 and 2000A. The load free test procedure provides fast, precise and reliable measurement results. The battery tester has a robust housing specially designed for workshop requirements. The enhanced user interface enables simple and intuitive operation.

  • Validate critical 

    The ability to make profit does not just rest with the larger work, sometimes a garage needs to invest in other areas of tooling to ensure that smaller jobs charged by the hour are coming in through the doors.

Most read content


Search

Sign Up

For the latest news and updates from Aftermarket Magazine.


Poll

Where should the next Automechanika show be held?



Facebook


©DFA Media 1999-2018