"tech" - why I don't appreciate being referred to as such
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2024 11:16 am
"Techs" (technicians) carry out operations.
My concept of a "technician" (as far as repairing equipment is concerned) is someone who has a structured list of things to "try" when something doesn't work.
ex:
1. Make sure that it's plugged into the wall.
2. If plugged in - and it still doesn't work - check the fuse/breaker box.
3. It the fuse/breaker is ok, check the internal fuse.
4. etc.........................
Auto mechanics - the way they are trained to approach problems today (were they not referred to as "mechanics") might well fall under the above description/definition of a "tech".
The HVAC man - who comes to our house - is not a "tech". He doesn't have to "try" a bunch of things on a list (from most likely to least likely). He always IMMEDIATELY sees/knows what's wrong, and either repairs/replaces fast, or knows precisely what to order (or, if the oem part is no longer available, knows what will perfectly substitute for it).
Predictably (besides knowing his $h!t), his prices are lower than most because (as he knows his $h!t, and immediately knows what to do and how to do it) he rarely spends more than ten or fifteen minutes at my house, and (though he's tremendously skilled/knowledgeable/experienced) shruggs it off, asks for $75, and drives on to his next call.
I (ok..."envision") myself as someone who examines a musical instrument that isn't functioning properly (eyes, tactile, sound, other ways, etc.) quickly discovers what isn't right, and addresses THE problem (or possibly two or three that are - in combination - causing a problem or problems) without finding any need to "try" things...and certainly not "just because those things on a list are the most common causes of a particular problem/malfunction". If/when there's a buzz or rattle, I'm not going to go through a bunch of operations (where it's obvious that none of those things are causing the noise), but am going to continue to examine things until I find the problem and ONLY remedy the problem itself...rather than (let's say it's 22 on some "list" of things to "try") "trying" 1 - 21 first.
specific example: OK...If there's noise coming from a particular rotor, OF COURSE I'm going to first make certain that all the screws are snug, but AFTER that (and the noise is still there), I'm NOT going to go back and "snug 'em all up better" (to see if that works anyway/after all...even though I already immediately discovered that it did not).
anyway...If you've noticed (in the past) that I don't care for that term (at least, when applied to me) that's why.
If you disagree with the my interpretation of the definition of a "tech", I'm still not going to be persuaded to embrace your definition of the term.
OK...Go ahead and tease me with the appropriate and well-deserved smart-ass comebacks - particularly since I just openly admitted to a "trigger".
My concept of a "technician" (as far as repairing equipment is concerned) is someone who has a structured list of things to "try" when something doesn't work.
ex:
1. Make sure that it's plugged into the wall.
2. If plugged in - and it still doesn't work - check the fuse/breaker box.
3. It the fuse/breaker is ok, check the internal fuse.
4. etc.........................
Auto mechanics - the way they are trained to approach problems today (were they not referred to as "mechanics") might well fall under the above description/definition of a "tech".
The HVAC man - who comes to our house - is not a "tech". He doesn't have to "try" a bunch of things on a list (from most likely to least likely). He always IMMEDIATELY sees/knows what's wrong, and either repairs/replaces fast, or knows precisely what to order (or, if the oem part is no longer available, knows what will perfectly substitute for it).
Predictably (besides knowing his $h!t), his prices are lower than most because (as he knows his $h!t, and immediately knows what to do and how to do it) he rarely spends more than ten or fifteen minutes at my house, and (though he's tremendously skilled/knowledgeable/experienced) shruggs it off, asks for $75, and drives on to his next call.
I (ok..."envision") myself as someone who examines a musical instrument that isn't functioning properly (eyes, tactile, sound, other ways, etc.) quickly discovers what isn't right, and addresses THE problem (or possibly two or three that are - in combination - causing a problem or problems) without finding any need to "try" things...and certainly not "just because those things on a list are the most common causes of a particular problem/malfunction". If/when there's a buzz or rattle, I'm not going to go through a bunch of operations (where it's obvious that none of those things are causing the noise), but am going to continue to examine things until I find the problem and ONLY remedy the problem itself...rather than (let's say it's 22 on some "list" of things to "try") "trying" 1 - 21 first.
specific example: OK...If there's noise coming from a particular rotor, OF COURSE I'm going to first make certain that all the screws are snug, but AFTER that (and the noise is still there), I'm NOT going to go back and "snug 'em all up better" (to see if that works anyway/after all...even though I already immediately discovered that it did not).
anyway...If you've noticed (in the past) that I don't care for that term (at least, when applied to me) that's why.
If you disagree with the my interpretation of the definition of a "tech", I'm still not going to be persuaded to embrace your definition of the term.
OK...Go ahead and tease me with the appropriate and well-deserved smart-ass comebacks - particularly since I just openly admitted to a "trigger".