Agile Diagnostics

Published:  17 September, 2017

Barnaby Donohew examines how the aftermarket can learn from the tech sector to improve diagnostic outcome

Giants such as Apple, PayPal and Google have driven a tech revolution that has impacted all our lives. They have successfully solved hugely complex problems to deliver products and services that have changed the world. Yet, still, they continue to adapt to satisfy shifting consumer demand and out-manoeuvre their competition.


Many of these players have now turned their sights on revolutionising the automotive industry. Rather than running for cover, we should learn from them and improve our own practices in anticipation of the impending technological onslaught; after all, our industry, and diagnostics in particular, is dominated by tech.


Of the tech sector’s many contributions to the world, I believe it is their business and working behaviours that we must adopt; specifically, their agility. In this context, agility is what it implies. It is the ability to be flexible, nimble and responsive to your customers’ needs and in the manner in which you provide solutions to those needs.


In fact, the word, agile, was originally appropriated by software developers to represent a set of principles guiding their work. It has since grown to include a culture and set of working practices that are being incorporated within many industries.


A problem shared
Has the tech sector always been agile? No. During the 1990s, as their complexity accelerated, software projects became increasingly risky undertakings; they frequently failed to launch and meet customer expectations, budgets, or timeframes. At the heart of the problem was uncertainty; their final forms could not be predicted up front, After all, not every problem or solution can be foreseen. The fact that customers were disengaged from the process only made it worse; they were frequently unaware of the impending failure of the work they themselves had commissioned.
In 2001, after realising the need for change, a group of software engineers came together to define an approach that would mitigate against the influence of uncertainty; they devised the ‘Agile Principles.’ You can see these here: agilemanifesto.org/ principles.html.


Their underlying philosophy is that developers should expect, embrace and manage change during the course of a project, be they changes in customer requirements, the nature of the problem, the development team, the business or those arising from other external forces. This software development problem should seem very familiar to any of us with diagnostic experience.
Can we predict the root cause fault at the beginning of a case? No. Do we know in advance all the tests we will conduct to determine a fault? No. Are we fully engaged with our customers throughout the diagnostic processes? It’s unlikely, even though we should expect our customer’s requirements to change during a diagnostic case.
This clear corollary between the worlds of software development and diagnostics has motivated me to adapt the agile principles to see how they might apply to us. I’ll introduce the adapted principles here but, be aware, this overview barely scratches the surface of how agile methodologies might help us.


Principles of Agile diagnostics
1. Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and frequent delivery of diagnostic outcomes. We must continuously update our customers with our diagnostic observations (e.g. test results) and report which systems and components we have discriminated against. We should attach particular significance to the latter, as we can be more engaged with our customers if we discuss tangible concepts, such as physical parts.


2. Welcome changing requirements, even late in a case. Our customers do not have a single requirement equating to ‘fix my vehicle at any cost.’ Their requirements will be formed on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis, pitting the potential costs of diagnostics and repairs against the value of that vehicle. This value, influenced by the age, condition, and the perceived past, current and future utility and reliability, will change as the case progresses. It is also possible that a customer’s personal situation might change during a diagnostic case, e.g., they may have a change of economic circumstances. Therefore, we must expect, embrace and properly manage these changes.

3. Business people and workshop teams must work together throughout cases. Clear communication is essential if high first time fix rates and customer satisfaction levels are to be built and maintained. This requires all members of the business (whether workshop managers, or customer service representatives) to work together to ensure that diagnostic cases are well managed and their outcomes clearly delivered to customers.

4. Build diagnostic case-work around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done. Motivated individuals will be determined to solve a diagnostic case and will be prepared to undertake the personal investment necessary to iterate themselves toward more efficient and effective practices. Supported and trusted individuals will be more motivated. It’s a win-win situation to uphold this principle.

5. The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within workshop teams is face-to-face conversation
Forget emails, messages (whether of the instant or post-it variety) and phone calls. Establish and maintain regular face to face contact across your business and with the customers.

6. Definitive diagnostic outcomes are the primary measure of progress. A diagnostic observation acts to increase or decrease the remaining ‘search-space’: i.e. it increases or decreases the set of components (candidates) that might contain the root cause fault; therefore, this diagnostic outcome, the search-space reduction, can be the only measure of progress within diagnostics.
Only a suitably designed diagnostics system could define a search-space and track its changes – at present, no such system exists.

7. The process should be sustainable. Excessive pressure and demands on a diagnostician’s physical and intellectual state are not sustainable. Diagnostics requires learning, action and reflection and diagnosticians should be afforded the appropriate time for each. Pressure to reduce any of these is unsustainable for both the diagnostician and the business.

8. Continuous attention to technical excellence and informed and accurate decision-making enhances agility. he acquisition and application of knowledge it is at the heart of agility. It is also central to diagnostics. In either case it’s a principle that we should always champion.

9. Simplicity – the art of maximising the amount of work not done – is essential. Is there a quicker or simpler, diagnostic test, which will provide an equivalent diagnostic outcome? If so, find it and use it.

10. The best diagnostic analyses emerge from self-organising teams. Structured teamwork does not exist within automotive workshops. It should. The development of a diagnostic team would increase the potential range of expertise,
maximising the likelihood of correct diagnostic decision-making. Practices such as paired diagnostics (two diagnosticians working simultaneously on the same case) and swarm diagnostics (the gathering of the whole diagnostic team to work on a case) should be strongly encouraged.


All teamwork has the benefits that it facilitates the transfer of knowledge amongst diagnosticians, increasing their effectiveness and reducing business risks, such as those arising from diagnostic roadblocks (difficult cases) and the loss of knowledge when a key staff member leaves. Furthermore, the resulting teamwork and learning promotes a happy and satisfied, and therefore more productive group of diagnosticians.


Members of a team should be able to select their own cases depending on their expertise and problem preferences (e.g. classed according to the initial symptoms) as their motivation, efficiency and effectiveness will remain high.

11. At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behaviour accordingly
Progress through an agile diagnostic case should be broken down in to a series of incremental steps, with each taking the form a repetitive three-phase learn-act-reflect cycle.


Each cycle should deliver a diagnostic outcome of value to the customer. Within the learning phase, the business should determine the customer’s requirements and the diagnosticians should increase their understanding of the problem before them and decide on their next actions. At the end of the cycle the business and diagnosticians should reflect on any new knowledge and what went well or what could have gone better. The reflective output should be fed back in to the learning phase of the next cycle, and so on.


Behaviour
The above principles may seem a little wishy-washy and it still may not be clear why they should be adopted. However, consider this: If you have made significant investments in equipment and training and found that your first time fix rates and customer satisfaction levels have not improved, then you will understand that there must be one remaining component in which you must invest; your behaviours. I strongly suggest you learn from the world-domination of tech sector businesses and make them agile behaviours.


Automotive Analytics Limited is producing a white-paper entitled ‘Agile diagnostics’, which fully explores diagnostic agility and its potential to revolutionise diagnostics. You will be able to download it for free by signing up at: http://automotiveanalytics.net/
agile-diagnostics


For more tech innovations make sure to follow us on facebook.com/aftermarketmagazine

Related Articles

  • Non-intrusive testing 

    As technicians we’re all expected to be able to diagnose a fault within a sensible timescale, for a reasonable price, then guarantee the fix. With correct training, information and tools this is possible. However, we are often faced with multiple faults where cause and effect may not always be straightforward. We can be in a situation where we need to rectify faults before we can move on to the next. Also, if the repair cost could outweigh the vehicle’s value or customer budget then great care must be taken explaining the situation, agreeing a starting fee and preparing and executing a successful diagnostic plan.

    Recently we were presented with a BMW X3 for poor performance and a suspected DPF fault. After interrogating the customer we gathered all necessary information. Initial diagnosis confirmed multiple fault codes and a blocked DPF. Determining what caused the DPF to block is vital for the correct diagnosis and preventing reoccurrence. We created a test plan to test each fault and separated them into faults that affect the performance, faults that can cause the DPF to block or prevent regeneration and ones that don’t. In order to fully test the vehicle we would need to clean the DPF first as the exhaust back pressure was so high, the vehicle was barely drivable. As a member of the DPF Doctor network we have a very successful method of cleaning the soot from the DPF without the need for removal and access to many manufacturer-specific tips with DPF faults. The information and knowledge within the DPF Doctor network has proved to be invaluable and has given us an outstanding success rate. With our test plan ready we were able to calculate a sensible labour figure to conduct the tests required. The customer authorised the labour and the DPF clean.

    Several faults were straightforward. A multimeter gave us conclusive results and made it easy to quote for replacement parts and labour time to fit them. The main fault causing poor performance required a little more thought to keep diagnosis time to a minimum. A low boost pressure fault code doesn’t tell us why the pressure is low. Driving the vehicle whilst monitoring the boost pressure showed the fault was intermittent, so an external boost leak was unlikely. A smoke test was also carried out which revealed no leaks. In this instance, the EGR valve could be a likely culprit. This engine uses a vacuum controlled EGR valve with a position sensor built into the diaphragm. As tempting as it was to unbolt it and take a look, this would all take more time then factor in the risk of rusted bolts etc. With a position sensor one would think if the valve was to stick then a fault code would be set. We had to plan a simple, conclusive, yet non-intrusive way of testing the EGR system quickly.

    The conventional vacuum controlled EGR system consists of the EGR valve which includes the diaphragm with a 5 Volt position sensor and the vacuum control solenoid valve which uses vacuum from the brake servo vacuum pump and is controlled by the ECU on a duty cycle. The position sensor will typically show 0.5 to 1.2 Volts when fully closed and 3.9 to 4.5 Volts when fully open. One side of the solenoid valve has a 12 Volt (battery Voltage) supply and the ECU switches the ground path on and off at varying duties to vary the vacuum amount thus varying the EGR valve position. The ECU looks at the position of the valve and adjusts the duty to achieve the position desired similar to how an ECU uses the oxygen sensor to adjust the air/fuel ratio. With the following tests we were able to check every component in the system.

    Test one
    We connected the Mityvac directly to the EGR valve and the oscilloscope connected between the signal wire and battery ground. As we had already smoke tested the entire inlet system we connected the smoke machine directly to the inlet manifold in place of the intercooler hose. With the smoke machine running and the ignition on (engine off) we used the Mityvac to fully the valve to check it had no vacuum leaks (split diaphragm), then we opened and closed the valve slowly and then quickly. This confirmed the following:

  • Inject some knowledge  

    At the heart of fuel delivery is the injector. If there is a single focus point that has helped reduce emissions and boost performance it’s the injector. Despite this, we don’t pay it enough attention, and I include myself in this critique. Let me qualify this by asking a rhetorical question; How many of you have injector bench test capability?

    I do, but freely admit to not giving it a more prominent position in fault diagnosis. I am going to expand later just how intrusive testing should be conducted. To begin, a short trip down memory lane won’t do any harm in understanding basic problems.
        
    Injector problems started in earnest when lead was removed from gasoline. The Nissan 1.8 turbo and Austin Montego 2.0efi were two of the most problematic examples. Both used 15ohm single event saturated triggering with approximately 1-amp peak current. This was back in the days when we were not measuring current nor did we have an injector bench.
    All the diagnostic evidence came from the 4-gas analyser. CO and O2 should balance at approximately  0.5%, as this will achieve a near perfect lambda 1 ratio, 50-100, CO2 at its highest at around 17-18%.
        
    A lot has happened since then. The key to ideal fuelling is in reducing the lag or dead time in injector response to PCM control. As engine power increased and turbos became almost mandatory, more fuel was required. To achieve these aims, opening times were increased to a point where they were in danger of colliding at high engine RPM. We are still talking port injection here, fuel pressures crept up to four-bar and high flow injectors started to be introduced.

    Current ramping also changed to peak and hold with peak values of around 4-amps. For the time being things stabilised, with little or no obvious common injector problems. The next challenge manufacturers faced was to reduce the internal mass of the injector components. In plain English they got smaller, lighter, less robust, and with lead free legislation less reliable. Remember Fiat iaw injectors?

    Precise control
    As EU emission rules became more stringent, the need for even more precise control was inevitable, and along came direct high-pressure injection. Lets explore the variables of fuel transportation, variable delivery pressure 50-200bar, multiple injector strikes and adjustable delivery timing. Peak current now reached 10-amps and pwm switching became commonplace.
    We now have gasoline injection that more  closely resembles diesel injection protocols. They also bring similar problems. Fuel is no longer delivered through the inlet port, leading to a build up of carbon behind the valves. This effect, the critical swirl in the cylinder, is essential for complete combustion. Filtration and fuel quality are now major considerations for reliability.

    Hostile environments and anomolies
    Injectors are now mounted in a more hostile environment, more pressure, more heat, more tip carbon. So, the need for testing and cleaning has come full circle from the lead-free era. A major problem here is the stress caused to the injector body by techs not using the correct removal tool.

    Remember the comments on lighter internal mass; This means than bending stresses during removal leads to intermittent combustion anomalies. I do love that word, it more accurately describes incomplete combustion, often without any credible serial fault data.

    New fault phenomena
    Now let’s notch it up a bit and introduce some new fault phenomena. The internals are so light they can suffer mechanical failure, and the closure spring can break. The internal filter basket has been moved to a more central position, resulting in inaccessibility for replacement.

  • It CAN be done! 

    We all remember certain jobs which test our nerve but ultimately serve to strengthen our capabilities. Proper learning experiences so to speak. Unsurprisingly, these memorable jobs tend to occur when tackling novel technologies or environments which, by their nature, can be unsettling.
        
    Some time ago a customer arrived with a MINI having persistent warning lights, instrumentation faults and bearing a new instrument cluster and engine control unit. Mindful that the expensive repair history must have included some seriously ‘in-depth’ diagnosis, I decided to get involved and see what I could do to fix the issues.

    Ruling out
    A system scan reported various powertrain CAN faults in the engine, ABS and instrument cluster control units, indicating a system-wide communication issue but with no systematic patterns to help isolate the fault. The MINI had a separate diagnostic bus, which thankfully permitted scan tool communication in the presence of a CAN fault. However, CAN access was not available on the diagnostic connector to aid recording of the signals. Instead, an oscilloscope was connected to the engine control unit (Figure 1) to reveal that the wires were unlikely to have shorted together, to Earth, nor to +5V, as the signals from the engine control unit were almost ideal. The fault was more likely due to circuit integrity. After powering down the CAN this was confirmed, as a 120 Ohm resistance was measured between the high and low lines (around 60 Ohms was expected).
        
    Subsequently, the customer was called with an update and to authorise further expenditure. The next stage involved pulling the car apart to fully check the wiring and control modules. Plainly, it was unwelcome news.

    Added pressures
    When conscious that the meter is running, doubt can creep in and you find yourself asking if a wiring fault is too simple, alongside other related questions. This was not a good time for misinformation. The resources available (course notes and workshop information) identified the MINI’s engine control and ABS units as each having a 120 Ohm terminating resistor between the CAN pins. Subsequent measurements determined a resistance of 120 Ohms on the engine control unit but many kilohms on the ABS control unit. Was it faulty? Nerves started to fray. Following a thought process akin to James Dillon's mantra "what would you test next if the part you had just fitted did not cure the fault," basic procedures were recalled.
        
    Firstly, on this MINI the terminating resistors actually were in the engine and instrument control modules (all were fine). Next, a series of continuity tests isolated an open circuit on the CAN-H line between the ABS and engine control units. It was located in a well-protected and tiny portion of wire, equidistant between the terminating connectors. Figure 2 shows the damage.
        
    The process demonstrated to me how, during stressful situations, it is worth trying to adhere to basic procedures as faults are often straightforward. As it turns out, this would have been good advice for the recent Top Technician practical tasks, which proved a very similar experience – I wish I had listened! For anyone thinking of entering, I highly recommend it.

  • Cut to the chase 

    Many modern systems, such as common rail diesel injection, can appear to be so complex that they seem to operate by magic. Over time, such systems are only going to become more and more complex, so understanding them means you can gain a head start on their repair.
        
    You can be presented with a seemingly endless amount of data relating to fuel pressure feedback, fuel pressure control, cam/crank synchronisation, measured mass airflow, injector flow correction feedback, and many other areas.
        
    However, if you prepare yourself with a fundamental understanding of the system and all data available pertaining to the fault, a systematic approach to the fault-finding procedure can be carried out.  
    Data overload

    Figure 1 shows  the live data returned from a common rail diesel injection vehicle with an EDC16 engine management system.
        
    There is an enormous amount of data available from these data parameters, which can allow you to ascertain the nature of the fault. The actual operation of the fuel system can be compared to the desired system operation and using the data, a decision can be made on the condition of the system and where a fault (if any) may be.
        
    An oscilloscope is another important tool when investigating a fault with such a complex system. Figure 2 shows an oscilloscope waveform from an Audi with the 2.0L common rail engine. The yellow trace is the fuel rail pressure sensor voltage (feedback) and the green trace is the current flow through the inlet metering valve (command). The waveform was captured during a wide open throttle (WOT) condition.
        
    This image alone tells us that the fuel inlet metering valve is a normally open valve. The engine control module (ECM) decreases the duty cycle when the required fuel pressure is increased. This allows less current to flow through the solenoid and the valve is allowed to open, which increases the fuel pressure measured at the fuel rail.

    Full analysis
    When the fuel pressure demand decreases, the duty cycle control from the ECM increases. This allows more current to flow through the solenoid which results in a reduction of the fuel pressure. Duty cycle is often referred to as pulse width modulation (PWM) control.

    The duty cycle control on the ground side of the fuel inlet metering valve can be analysed using an oscilloscope, as seen in Figure 3. The waveform below displays the fuel rail pressure feedback voltage (yellow trace) and the fuel inlet metering valve duty cycle control from the ECM (green trace).
        
    The oscilloscope is connected to the control wire for the fuel inlet metering valve. The technician must be mindful that this is the ground control circuit. System voltage on this wire indicates open circuit voltage. The diagram in Figure 4 shows the best method of connecting this set-up.
        
    By careful analysis using serial (scan-tool) and parallel (oscilloscope) diagnostics you will now be in a position to identify the area of concern accurately and in a timely manner. Knowledge, together with the right equipment and experience therefore benefits technicians by leading to a reduced diagnostic time and an easier fault finding method, rendering these complex systems much less so.

  • Issues of rotation 

    I received a phone call from another garage: 'We've seen you in the Top Technician magazine and are wondering if you would be interested in looking at an ABS fault for us?' The call went along the usual lines, can the symptoms be recreated? What is the repair history? The vehicle was booked in for me to take a look.

    The car in question was a 2011 Honda
    CR-V, which had been taken as a trade in at a local garage, the fault only occurred after around 50-70 miles of driving, at which point the dash lights up with various warning lights. The vehicle had been prepped and sold to its new owner unaware a fault was present.

    Fault-finding
    After only a few days the fault occurred and the vehicle returned to the garage. They had scan checked the vehicle and the fault code ‘14-1- Left Front Wheel Speed Sensor Failure’ was retrieved. On their visual inspection, it was obvious a new ABS sensor had already been fitted to the N/S/F and clearly not fixed the fault. Was this the reason the vehicle had been traded in? They fitted another ABS sensor to the N/S/F and an extended road test was carried out. The fault reoccurred. This is when I received the phone call; the garage was now suspecting a control unit fault.
        
    My first job was to carry out a visual inspection for anything that was obviously wrong and had possibly been over looked: correct tyre sizes, tyre pressures, tyre tread and excessive wheel bearing play. All appeared ok. The ABS sensors fitted to this vehicle are termed 'Active' meaning they have integrated electronic and are supplied with a voltage from the ABS control unit to operate. The pulse wheel is integrated into the wheel bearing, which on this vehicle makes it not possible to carry out a visual inspection without stripping the hub.

    Endurance testing
    With the vehicle scan checked, all codes recorded and cleared, it was time for the road test. Viewing the live data from all the sensors, they were showing the correct wheel speed readings with no error visible on the N/S/F. The road test was always going to be a long one, fortunately at around 30 miles, the dash lit up with the ABS light and lights for other associated systems; the fault had occurred. On returning to the workshop, the vehicle was rescanned, fault code '14-4 - Left Front Wheel Speed Sensor Failure’ was again present. Again using the live data the sensor was still showing the wheel speed the same as the other three, so whatever was causing the fault was either occurring intermittently or there was not enough detail in the scan tool live data graph display to see the fault. It was time to test the wiring and the sensor output signal for any clues.
        
    Using the oscilloscope, the voltage supply and the ground wire were tested and were good at the time of test. I connected the test lead to the power supply wire and using the AC voltage set to 1V revealed the sensors square wave signal. Then rotating the wheel by hand and comparing the sensors output to one of the other ABS Sensors, again all appeared to be fine. A closer look at the signal was required, zooming in on the signal capture to reveal more detail; it became easier to see something was not quite right with the signal generated by the sensor when the wheel was rotated. With the voltage of the signal remaining constant, a good earth wire and the wheel rotated at a constant speed the signal width became smaller, effectively reporting a faster speed at that instant, not consistent with the actual rotational speed of the wheel. It was difficult to see the error, zooming out of the capture to show more time across the screen it could be seen that this appeared in the signal at regular intervals, although not visible all the time because it was such a slight difference. Using the cursors to measure between the irregular output and counting the oscillations, it was clear that it occurred at exactly the same interval every time. It had to be a physical fault on the pulse wheel.
        
    This meant a new wheel bearing was required. The vehicle was returned to the garage as they wanted to complete the repair, a new wheel bearing was fitted and extended road testing confirmed the vehicle was now fixed.


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