| Purpose. The purpose of the study was to develop a list of the tasks that must be mastered by automotive service industry technicians for efficient and effective repair of automobiles in the year 2000. Using a modified Delphi technique this study investigated the following research questions: (1) What are the current and emerging tasks that a panel of automotive service industry experts would characterize as being critical for automotive service industry technicians to have achieved for efficient and effective repair of automobiles in the year 2000? (2) What degree of importance would be attributed to each of the tasks listed by the panel of experts?;Procedures. Of the 50 prospective panel members initially contacted 41 served on the panel. During the first round, the panel rated each task listed on the survey and identified new tasks. During the second round, the panel reexamined each of their responses in light of the response patterns of the entire panel. During the third round of the survey the panel was asked to agree or disagree with the consensus of the group. Data analysis occurred after the third round.;Findings. Two criteria were used to analyze the data, priority and consensus. Four categories were used to organize the findings: high-priority/high-consensus, high-priority/low-consensus, low-priority/high-consensus, and low-priority/low-consensus.;A task was regarded as high priority if it obtained a mean rating of five-points or higher after the last round. A task that obtained a quartile deviation of less than one point after the last round was considered to have achieved high consensus.;The majority of the tasks received high-priority ratings: 264 tasks received high-priority/high-consensus ratings, 212 tasks received high-priority/low-consensus ratings, 30 tasks received low-priority/high-consensus ratings, and 103 tasks received low-priority/low-consensus ratings.;Of the 93 new tasks identified, 61 received high-priority/high-consensus ratings, 22 received high-priority/low-consensus ratings, 2 received low-priority/high consensus ratings and 8 received low-priority/low-consensus rating. Although the panel did not recommend removing any tasks, 14 tasks received extremely low ratings. |
