Performance Output of ADI's

The DIA (Driving Instructors Association) have raised the subject of measuring ADI performance & conduct in their latest magazine after it was brought up at a recent > National Associations Strategic Partnership < (NASP) meeting.
Apparently consensus between the parties involved is hard to come by on this subject and I am not in the slightest bit surprised for reasons that I will explain.

Why would anyone want to be measuring the performance output of ADI's?  ADI's are in business as a result of customers choosing their driving school for training purposes - if the ADI(s) was not up to scratch, then by a process of natural deselection, the business would fold.  Consider for a moment how that differs significantly with the options parents have of choosing schools for their children to attend; and bear in mind also that there is no direct financial transaction between parents and schools - the State intervenes and OFSTED regulates school performance for this public service.

As such, it seems quite logical to me to re-frame this question of ADI performance, on behalf of the public.  What in particular would the public like to know prior to choosing their driving instructor?  The industry knows from historical evidence that the public places very little importance on the DVSA formal grading of a driving instructor (the DVSA would do well to ask themselves why that is the case).  So what would help the public to decide who to use?

It is my opinion (based on my experience) that they would have an interest in the following factors of the training provider:

• the price
• the dependability of the outcome & what happens if their son/daughter fails their driving test
• the safety record
• the reliability of the instructor

I have long held the view that our driving instructor associations and/or the DVSA could serve the industry well by surveying the public to confirm/deny the above by formal research - I rather suspect the second item listed would feature large.

The problem is that the likes of the NASP will keep 'chasing their tail' on this subject because the industry is too "inward looking" - this is something that I mentioned to Carly Brookfield when I attended the recent DIA Conference.  There is a culture in the industry which refuses to consider change that goes beyond its perceived needs of the stakeholders - that in a nutshell is all that is required to create deadlock. 

Until our industry stops looking after its own needs and starts genuinely serving the public, there will be no advancing on this issue.  If anyone involved in the NASP wants ADI's to start acting like professionals then they should start modelling the desired behaviour themselves which will inevitably involve treading on previously untrodden ground in order to raise standards.