I can't tell you how many times I'm on a call with a shop owner and they say:
"I'm drowning. I think I need to hire another tech."
And 10 minutes later we realize:
Another tech won't fix it. It'll magnify it.
Here's what usually happens on those calls.
Owner says: "We're booked out two weeks. Cars stacked up. I need another tech."
I ask: "How often do your techs wait on approvals? Parts? Dispatch?"
Long pause.
"Honestly… a lot."
"Cool. Then the problem isn't production. It's feeding production."
Here's the hard truth nobody wants to hear:
When cars are backed up, it's usually NOT because you need more production.
It's because:
→ Work isn't approved fast enough
→ Parts aren't sourced fast enough
→ Jobs aren't dispatched fast enough
→ Tech questions don't get answered fast enough
→ Cars and keys aren't moved fast enough
The real constraint is front-of-house throughput.
Hiring a tech first often makes the problem worse—because you're adding horsepower to a system that can't feed it.
Let me twist the knife a little more:
Every minute a tech waits is a minute you paid for nothing.
When techs stand around, owners blame techs… but the shop is usually choking them.
Hiring another tech doesn't fix starvation. It just adds another mouth to feed.
Your techs aren't the bottleneck. Your front counter is.
THE 30-MINUTE BOTTLENECK AUDIT
Stop guessing. Measure it for one day.
Here's how:
Step 1: For one full day, track every time a tech is stopped for a non-wrench reason:
Waiting on parts
Waiting on approvals
Waiting on dispatch/next car
Waiting on answers
Keys/vehicle movement
Step 2: Put a clipboard at the counter. Every time it happens: hash mark.
Step 3: At close, answer:
What stopped tech momentum most often?
What one role or process change removes that stoppage?
Step 4: Implement ONE change for 7 days, then re-tally.
This isn't theory. This is data. Data kills drama.
COPY THIS SCORECARD
TECH STOPPAGE SCORECARD (1 day)
Waiting on parts: ___
Waiting on approval: ___
Waiting on dispatch/next job: ___
Waiting on info/diag clarification: ___
Waiting on keys/vehicle movement: ___
Rule: Fix the highest count first. Everything else is noise.
WHO DO YOU HIRE FIRST? (DECISION FRAMEWORK)
Once you have your data, here's how to read it:
If #1 is "Waiting on approvals / estimates / customer calls"
➡️ Hire FIRST: Service Advisor (or train your current one + tighten estimate/approval flow)
Because: money is stuck at the counter, not in the bay.
If #1 is "Waiting on dispatch / next job / who's doing what"
➡️ Hire FIRST: Dispatcher (or assign a dedicated dispatch role)
Because: a shop without dispatch is a shop that bleeds minutes.
If #1 is "Waiting on parts"
➡️Hire/assign FIRST: Parts Coordinator (even part-time)
Because: you don't have a repair business—you have a logistics business.
If #1 is "Waiting on info / diag clarification / tech questions"
➡️ Hire FIRST: Shop Foreman / Lead Tech (or designate a lead)
Because: uncertainty kills flow.
If the scorecard is low across the board but you still can't produce
➡️ Then consider: Tech hire (but only after the shop can feed them steady work)
If everything is chaotic and nobody owns the system
➡️ Hire FIRST: Manager (or implement one owner-free operating cadence)
Because: the constraint is leadership + coordination.
"But Chris…"
"We're turning work away. We need another tech."
If your techs are waiting, another tech just creates another person waiting.
"I can't afford an advisor."
If approvals are the #1 stoppage, you're already paying for that advisor… in wasted payroll + lost sales.
"My current advisor is the problem."
Great—this audit proves it. Now you either train, replace, or support them with dispatch/parts.
"I don't have time to track this."
You don't have time not to. It's one day. One clipboard. That's it.
The bottleneck is wherever work sits still.
Hiring a tech won't fix a shop that can't feed its techs.
Comment "BOTTLENECK" and tell me your #1 stoppage—
I'll tell you the simplest fix and who you should hire first.
If you want, post your tally counts and I'll diagnose your constraint in the comments.