Field Service & On-Site Technician JudgmentField Service & On-Site Technician Judgment. The fault is the easy part.
Millions of people fix things in other people's buildings, and almost every test written for them asks whether they can name a component. This one measures the judgment the visit actually needs.
No specification, no voltage, no brand - and it still separates people
Thirty-two exercises across a working day. A fuse that blew for a reason. A machine still running while the customer says it will only take a minute. A fault that will not appear while you are standing there. A part that is not on the van. A second problem nobody sent you for. A hazard that is not your job. Two jobs left and time for one. No item turns on a remembered specification, a voltage, a regulation or a brand of equipment, so the same form works for an appliance engineer, a lift technician, a plant fitter, a medical-device engineer or a network engineer, in any country.
Scoring uses a sparse construct-credit design. Every option carries a graded quality value and a credit vector, and each option credits only the one or two capabilities that choice actually demonstrates rather than loading a little onto all four. That sounds technical and it has an obvious consequence: it is what makes the four readings on your report four different findings instead of the same finding printed four times, which is what happens when every option loads on every construct.
The score is also expressed against what a typical technician would achieve, not against zero. A graded partial-credit test has a floor near half by construction, and a report built on the raw percentage would have put the bottom tenth of a real sitting above the midpoint and told almost everybody they were moderate. Correcting against a published expectation is what stops that, and the raw percentage is printed alongside so nothing is hidden.
What you walk away with
Attends, Repairs, Diagnoses, Owns the visit, Leaves it better - and every rung carries the behaviour that defines it, not just its name.
Not an instruction to improve. A description of what somebody one step along does differently on the same visit, which is a thing you can actually copy.
Finding the actual fault, safe before working, the person whose site it is, and finishing and recording it - each with what your answers showed.
Which of the checks that genuinely separate one cause from another, or genuinely remove stored energy, you picked up and which you passed over.
Where a retest would land two times in three, and where it would land nineteen times in twenty, with the rung called a boundary when the narrower span crosses one.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample - your report is generated from your own responses.
Built for
- Field service organisations hiring engineers and technicians at volume
- Trades academies, apprenticeship schemes and technician development programmes
- Technicians who want a portable, scored profile of their own on-site judgment
Find out which rung your visits are on
32 scored exercises - about 35 minutes - a full bespoke report with your rung on a five-step ladder, the rung above written as a description, four capability classifications and one change to make on your next job.
₹599 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
Four capabilities: finding the actual fault rather than the first plausible one, making it safe before making it work, handling the person whose home or plant it is, and finishing or recording the job honestly. It is a judgment test rather than a knowledge test, so no item asks for a specification, a voltage, a regulation or a brand. It does not measure trade knowledge, speed, qualifications or physical capability, and the report says so on its own last page.
It is written to. Every scenario is described at the level of the situation rather than the equipment - a machine that trips on start-up, a permit that takes forty minutes, access equipment that is not quite right, a customer who has taken the day off - so an appliance engineer, a lift technician, a plant fitter, a medical-device engineer and a network engineer all read the same exercises and the same things separate them. No manufacturer, standard or country's regulation appears anywhere in it.
Every option carries a graded quality value and a sparse credit vector, so a choice counts toward the one or two capabilities it actually demonstrates rather than a little toward all four. Your composite is expressed against what a typical technician would score, worked out from published base rates carried by every option, because a graded partial-credit percentage has a high floor and an uncorrected version would tell nearly everybody they were moderate. The raw percentage is printed alongside the corrected one.
About 35 minutes for 32 scored exercises. You get a bespoke report built as a five-rung ladder, with every rung carrying the behaviour that defines it and the rung above written as a description of what to do differently rather than as an instruction. Plus four capability classifications, your strongest and weakest named, the checklist exercises, both retest spans stated in words, and one if-then change. Downloadable as a colour PDF that also reads in black and white.
Rs 599 in India including GST, or US$5.99 elsewhere, one time, for one full sitting and report. It sits at the volume frontline price point deliberately: the audience is hired in numbers and often pays for its own certificates. Trade certifications run into the hundreds per seat and test compliance recall, employer pre-hire suites are annual recruiter subscriptions, and induction checklists give no scored profile at all. Organisations can use AssessAll credits at 20 credits per person.
Each one takes a single capability, puts you inside the situations where it is actually tested, and scores your choices against published evidence — with a report designed for that capability alone, not a template. They span hiring, compliance, education, operations and personal skill.
Browse the catalogue →Methodology: Measures applied field-service judgment through original situational items keyed to published constructs. Construct statement: it measures the judgment an on-site visit requires - isolating the actual fault rather than the first plausible one, establishing safety before function, handling the person whose home or plant it is, and finishing or recording the work honestly. It does not measure trade knowledge, speed, qualifications or physical capability. Declared response instruction: behavioural tendency throughout - every stem asks what the respondent would actually do. Sources drawn on across the construct area: diagnostic-reasoning research on premature closure and the tendency to stop at the first plausible explanation; the information-cost principle in fault isolation, in which the cheapest discriminating test comes first unless a costlier one is far more likely to settle the question; the one-change-at-a-time rule and its basis in causal attribution, since simultaneous changes leave the cause unrecoverable; symptom-versus-cause work on repeat failures and the finding that a returned fault is evidence against the original diagnosis rather than evidence of bad luck; energy-isolation practice as a set of separable controls - remove, secure against restoration, discharge stored energy, prove dead with a proved instrument - and the evidence that the proving step is the one most often omitted; multi-party lockout and the reason personal control cannot be delegated; permit systems as local knowledge rather than paperwork; work-at-height incident analysis and the recurrence of equipment described as almost suitable; hazard-reporting research on the difference between telling somebody and creating a record; service-quality work in which expectation management, particularly early notice of a missed appointment, predicts satisfaction more strongly than the technical outcome; first-time-fix and repeat-visit literature on parts availability, near-match substitution and honest incomplete work; job-record quality research showing that cause and failed attempts, not the successful action alone, are what shorten the next visit and reveal fleet-level patterns; and situational-judgment-test validity with behavioural-tendency response instructions. All items are original works. No manufacturer, standard, regulation or trademarked instrument is named or reproduced, and no affiliation with any of the sources above is claimed. Scores are provisional: the base rates used for chance correction are authored priors, published in the report, to be replaced by observed marginals once live data exists.