In the mechanical trades of the construction industry, plumbing, electrical, HVAC and related fields of irrigation, low voltage and audio / visual equipment companies there are lively discussions happening this very second regarding "Fix Versus Replace".

Most of the time the participants are more fixed in their positions and intense with passion than any political or religious discussion I have ever seen.

The primary question involves a deep seated paradigm regarding the definition of honor and integrity. Is it more honorable and better for the customer to treat every mechanical part as something that must have every last bit of use squeezed out of it before replacing it? Or is it better to replace it at the first sign of breakage? Or lastly is there a middle ground?

Three Mechanical Contractor Paradigms Regarding Fix Versus Replace

Group #1 Construction companies are honorable decent men and women who serve a market that appreciates their willingness to work hard and find ways to save them money whenever possible by repairing, overhauling and rebuilding a mechanical part that has outlived its useful life.

These are decent hard working and respectable people who never quite make anything more than a sub-standard living. They possess a high degree of self-worth and see themselves as the "Advocate For The Customer" defending their customers from the unscrupulous marauders who would rip them off by replacing a part before it was declared utterly dead. They work long hard hours for low pay until they finally grind themselves into the ground and are forgotten.

Group #2 Construction companies are honorable decent men and women who understand construction psychology of "Give the customer what the customer wants and it willing to pay for...not what the contractor thinks is best". This means the give their customers and clients all the facts and let them decide what is best. If the customer wants the problem solved once and for all they do it. If it can reasonably be repaired or rebuilt they do it. If the customer decides to have the unfixable fixed they refer them to a contractor from group #1.

In a number of studies we have done where we ask people who recently had work done in their home by a contractor, any contractor, the most common issue was "I [could or could not] get what I wanted". There is a very powerful message in that sentence. The most common cause of satisfaction or dissatisfaction for the customer was getting what they wanted and not what the contractor thought was best.

This is the group we serve with in our contractors accounting services system because they are the ones who bring value to other people’s lives and as a result become very wealthy. It is almost as if they cannot help becoming wealthy and as a result they live well, have resources to provide for their loved ones and have enough left over to support charitable causes.

Group #3 Construction companies are on the other end of the spectrum those who may tend to oversell and replace everything. In the end the find themselves in the same financial condition as group #1.

Conclusions And Group Consensus

It is interesting to note the conclusions from each of the groups at the end of every discussion on this subject:

Group #1 will suggest strongly that group #2 and group #3 are overcharging and should be put out of business.

Group #2 will typically ignore group #3 and do their best to try and help group #2 Level Up and in the end give up and move on to acquiring more happy customers and increasing their personal wealth.

Group #3 will ignore group #1 and may say group #2 is leaving money on the table.

We welcome any and all replies and promise no matter what you have to say it will be met with courtesy and respect in return. I have no interest in changing your mind, only in what you have to say.

QuickBooks Expert Specializing In Construction Bookkeeping Services