FREE PDF Report - Automotive Industries Association of Canada

2010 CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE & REPAIR SHOP SURVEY 

BENCHMARKING PERFORMANCE MARCH 2010 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

AIA would like to extend thanks to the following volunteers of the AIA Market Research 

Committee for their efforts in assisting in the design and execution of this report: William 

Stanzeleit (Chair) of DuPont Automotive Finishes, Dave Fifield of Wakefield Canada Inc., Martyn 

Johns of Newcom Business Media Inc., Tony Kuczynski of Canadian Tire Corporation, Gloria 

Mann of Media Matters Inc., Rolf Muench of Osram Sylvania Ltd., Michele Raymond of Uni‐ 

Select Inc., Andrew Ross of Business Information Group, Gord Sadler of CARQUEST Canada, Sam 

Sgro of Robert Bosch Inc., Malcolm Sissmore of Delphi Product & Service Solutions, Marc 

Therrien of Veyance Technologies Canada, Inc., Chris Thorne of NAPA Autoparts, Nelson Tonn 

of Fountain Tire, and John R. Watt of Petro‐Canada Certigard. 

AIA would also like to thank Business Information Group for their handling of logistics, survey 

distribution and tabulation of the results. 

Finally, AIA wishes to thank the Automotive and Transportation Industries Branch of Industry 

Canada for their generous support of this project. 

I



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The objective of this report is to benchmark the performance of Canadian Automotive Service 

and Repair shops and identify key management practices that impact overall performance 

results. Survey respondents were divided into three categories – Top performers, Average 

Performers and Bottom performers. Four dimensions – Operating, Throughput, Performance 

and Productivity ‐ were analyzed and compared between the three categories. 

The results indicate that there exists a marked difference among surveyed shop operators 

regarding how they run their day‐to‐day business. On the one hand there is the school of 

thought that “more cars mean more business”… and on the other hand there is the “balanced 

throughput for the staff on hand” practitioners. The outcome produced by each of these two 

schools of thought translates into a significantly higher sales and staff productivity for the 

latter. In fact, the “balanced” approach has actually delivered the higher average transaction 

value that was estimated by AIA’s Canadian Automotive Aftermarket Demand Study released in 

the fall of 2009. This single “Touch Point” implies that the operating model of “balanced 

throughput” is what the Canadian fleet is in need of, given a previously identified need for 

improved vehicle maintenance. 

For the top 25% of performers, higher levels of front counter staffing and daily repair order 

control translated into $5,000,000 in additional sales for this group of shops, while servicing 

only half the number of vehicles as the bottom 25%. Both groups had identical full time 

Technician staffing. 

Although the overall number of responses to this survey was much higher than what was used 

in analyzing the results, many of the responses were incomplete and therefore excluded from 

the sample. Given the small number of responses used (71) in the final analysis, there cannot 

be national significance associated with the conclusions. While the responses were interesting 

and worth noting, it must be clear that there that these are observations only and that no 

statistical significance can be attributed to the document or results. 

These observations may be used or not at the discretion of the reader. 

II



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................. I 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. II 

Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Defining Performers ................................................................................................................................................ 1 

Operating Dimensions ............................................................................................................................................ 2 

Throughput Dimensions........................................................................................................................................ 5 

Performance Dimensions ...................................................................................................................................... 8 

Productivity Dimensions .................................................................................................................................... 11 

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 

Figure 1: Average Annual Sales ($) .................................................................................................................. 3 

Figure 2: Average # of Bays ................................................................................................................................ 3 

Figure 3: Average # of FT Techs Per Shop .................................................................................................... 4 

Figure 4: Average FT Service Advisors on Duty ......................................................................................... 4 

Figure 5: Ratio: FT Techs to FT Service Advisors ..................................................................................... 6 

Figure 6: Average Daily RO’s/FT Service Advisor (on 250 days open) ........................................... 6 

Figure 7: Average Annual RO Count ................................................................................................................ 7 

Figure 8: Average Daily RO/FT Tech (Based on 230 days at work) .................................................. 7 

Figure 9: Average RO Value ($) ......................................................................................................................... 9 

Figure 10: Average Annual Sales/FT Tech ................................................................................................... 9 

Figure 11: Average Annual RO Count Per FT Tech ................................................................................ 10 

Figure 12: Average Daily Sales ($)/FT Service Advisor ....................................................................... 10 

Figure 13: Average # of FT Techs/Bay ....................................................................................................... 12 

Figure 14: Used Capacity of FT Bay Employees (Based on $300K/Empl/Yr) .......................... 12 

Figure 15: % Unlicensed Techs among FT Techs ................................................................................... 13 

Figure 16: Ratio: Apprentices to FT Licensed Techs ............................................................................ 13 

Appendix 1: 2010 Canadian Automotive Service & Repair Shop Survey Data 

‐i‐



BACKGROUND 

An invitation to Automotive Service Providers to submit a variety of shop data was 

communicated in early 2010, via a survey questionnaire. The questionnaire was delivered 

through an industry trade magazine in both an electronic and hard copy format. 

From hundreds of responses, data from71 shops (comprised of 60 independent generalists and 

11 franchise operations) was submitted accurately and assessed. These 71 shops represent 

close to $50 Million in annual sales and over 167,000 transactions. 

The observations detailed in the following report were broken down into “Top Performers,” 

“Average Performers” and “Bottom Performers” to reveal distinct operating traits and 

management styles that may assist the reader to understand and improve future performance. 

Although the overall number of responses to this survey was much higher than what was used 

in analyzing the results, many of the responses were incomplete and therefore excluded from 

the sample. Given the small number of responses used (71) in the final analysis, there cannot 

be national significance associated with the conclusions. While the responses were interesting 

and worth noting, it must be clear that there that these are observations only and that no 

statistical significance can be attributed to the document or results. 

These observations may be used or not at the discretion of the reader. 

DEFINING PERFORMERS 

The fundamental premise of this report is that average transaction value is an appropriate 

metric in evaluating other dependent variables such as operations, throughput, performance 

and productivity. Accordingly, all shops included in these survey results were ranked according 

to the average transaction value they reported. The Top 25% and Bottom 25% were assessed a 

number of different ways. These results have also been compared to the average of the total 71 

shops. Of the 11 franchised operations which reported, 4 are in the Top 25% and 1 is in the 

Bottom 25%. 

These results do not represent the average performance of all independent generalist shops in 

Canada; however the conclusions that follow do represent solid observations of the results 

reported. 

‐1‐



OPERATING DIMENSIONS 

There is a significant difference (45%) between the annual sales reported by the Top 25% of 

shops versus the Bottom 25%. This difference of over $270,000 is illuminating, considering the 

relative similarity in the number of bays of (5.1 vs. 4.9) and the identical average number of full 

time Technicians (2.83) reported at the top and bottom levels. 

While there are many variables that could contribute to this startling difference in annual sales 

(local market differences, door rates, other shop efficiencies), one consistently significant 

difference that emerged through the analysis of the results for this report is the “lower than 1” 

statistic of full time service advisors among the Bottom 25% group. This means that some of 

these shops actually do not have a full‐time Service Advisor, while some of the top shops had 2 

or more. Again, both had the same number of full‐time technicians on duty. Without a full‐time 

Service Advisor, shop efficiency is reduced because other staff must fulfill the duties of the 

Service Advisor, thereby disrupting such things as throughput and thorough inspections and 

limiting attention to proper scheduling. 

‐2‐



FIGURE 1: AVERAGE ANNUAL SALES ($) 

FIGURE 2: AVERAGE # OF BAYS 

‐3‐



FIGURE 3: AVERAGE # OF FT TECHS PER SHOP 

FIGURE 4: AVERAGE FT SERVICE ADVISORS ON DUTY 

‐4‐



THROUGHPUT DIMENSIONS 

The Bottom 25% group saw a dramatically greater number of transactions than the TOP 25% 

(almost 98% more). This translated into a major difference in throughput activities per full‐time 

employee. 

As shown in the charts below, Service Advisors in the TOP 25% were organizing work for fewer 

technicians per service advisor. When spread over 250 days (Excluding weekends and Holidays), 

this also shows that the Bottom 25% group of Service Advisors saw an average of 14.9 vehicles 

per day while the TOP 25% group saw 5.5 vehicles per day… a factor of 2.7 times more traffic 

per Service Advisor. 

The same occurred with full‐time Technicians, whereby the Bottom 25% group saw almost 4.7 

vehicles per day while the Top 25% group saw almost 2.4 vehicles per day, almost half the car 

count of the Bottom 25% group. 

‐5‐



FIGURE 5: RATIO: FT TECHS TO FT SERVICE ADVISORS 

FIGURE 6: AVERAGE DAILY RO’S/FT SERVICE ADVISOR (ON 250 DAYS OPEN) 

‐6‐



FIGURE 7: AVERAGE ANNUAL RO COUNT 

FIGURE 8: AVERAGE DAILY RO/FT TECH (BASED ON 230 DAYS AT WORK) 

‐7‐



PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS 

The Top 25% group almost tripled the average transaction value of the Bottom 25% group. 

Their average transaction value of $516 actually reflects the values of “benchmark spenders” 

published in AIA’s Canadian Automotive Aftermarket Demand Study. 1 

Even though the Bottom 25% conducted significantly more transactions at their lower value, 

they failed to achieve annual sales per Technician as high as the Top 25% group. 

Of significant interest is the congruence of sales performance among Service Advisors 

regardless of the group. This suggests that, as average daily sales in a shop approaches $3,000, 

the service advisor is approaching the upper limit of capacity to manage customers. This data 

also suggests that the Bottom 25% group missed $ Millions in sales versus the Top 25% group. 

In order to capture the unrealized sales, the bottom 25% group would have required several 

additional Service Advisors and Technicians. 

1 

Hidden Potential Unmasked: The Canadian Automotive Aftermarket Demand Study, Desrosiers Consultants for AIA Canada, October 2009. 

This study identifies benchmarks spenders as those within the 75 th ‐95 th percentile and averaged within the range of $307 ‐ $553 depending on 

the age of the vehicle. For vehicles aged 8‐12 years (the average of vehicles on the road today is 8years), benchmark spenders averaged $553 

per transaction. 

‐8‐



FIGURE 9: AVERAGE RO VALUE ($) 

FIGURE 10: AVERAGE ANNUAL SALES/FT TECH 

‐9‐



FIGURE 11: AVERAGE ANNUAL RO COUNT PER FT TECH 

FIGURE 12: AVERAGE DAILY SALES ($)/FT SERVICE ADVISOR 

‐10‐



PRODUCTIVITY DIMENSIONS 

Full‐time staffing per bay was almost identical among the different groups. The elements of 

staffing which did vary were an elevated presence of unlicensed Technicians within the Bottom 

25% group, as well as a higher presence of apprentices for the licensed Technicians on duty. 

This increased expectation of mentoring definitely placed a large burden on the licensed 

Technicians of the Bottom 25% group. 

The increased presence of apprentices coupled with a significantly higher vehicle count resulted 

in a serious erosion of the capacity of full‐time bay staff within the Bottom 25% group by as 

much as $90,000 per year per Technician (when compared to a $300,000 per year capacity 

benchmark). 

‐11‐



FIGURE 13: AVERAGE # OF FT TECHS/BAY 

FIGURE 14: USED CAPACITY OF FT BAY EMPLOYEES 

(BASED ON $300K/EMPL/YR) 

‐12‐



FIGURE 15: % UNLICENSED TECHS AMONG FT TECHS 

FIGURE 16: RATIO: APPRENTICES TO FT LICENSED TECHS 

‐13‐



CONCLUSION 

The Top 25% group conducts its business with the same number of full‐time Technicians as the 

Bottom 25% group. The Bottom 25% group, however, have significantly less full‐time Service 

Advisors on duty. 

The Bottom 25% group allows an enormous number of vehicles to come into the bays for the 

staff on hand; this does not provide Technicians adequate time to conduct proper vehicle 

inspections, road tests, and quality checks. 

The combined impact of too few Service Advisors and a high vehicle count is a loss of daily 

transaction control that leaves the average vehicle with unperformed (and needed) repairs and 

services. The repairs and services required by a vehicle does not change based on the shop 

visited. These repairs and services should be viewed as a constant that need to be identified 

and managed. It is the shop’s ability to recognize and accommodate that account for 

transactional and overall sales differences. 

Simply stated, the Top 25% shops found and sold $5 Million more in repairs and services while 

seeing one half of the vehicles that the Bottom 25% group saw. The Top 25% were better 

staffed at the front counter and controlled the daily work flow. 

‐14‐

FREE PDF Report - Automotive Industries Association of Canada

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?