MOT TQI analysis

What this guide covers

This is not a repeat of "what is TQI" — this guide covers the operational process of conducting a TQI review as an Authorised Examiner or Site Manager. It covers what to do, in what order, and how to record the outcome.

The TQI review workflow

1. Obtain report
   ↓
2. Check period and group
   ↓
3. Review site-level comparison
   ↓
4. Review tester-level comparisons
   ↓
5. Identify notable differences
   ↓
6. Consider context
   ↓
7. Investigate where warranted
   ↓
8. Record outcome
   ↓
9. Follow up (QC, training, discussion)

Step 1: Obtain the report

Download the Manager Report or TQI data from the MOT Testing Service:

1. Sign in to the MOT Testing Service.
2. Go to the Performance dashboard.
3. Select the relevant period and vehicle group.
4. Download or review the data.

Frequency: No mandated schedule, but monthly review is sensible for most stations. Larger groups may prefer a structured quarterly or monthly cycle.

Step 2: Check period and vehicle group

Before interpreting any numbers, confirm:

• Which month(s) the data covers — one-month data can fluctuate more
• Which vehicle group (Class 4, Class 7, etc.) — comparing across groups is not meaningful
• Whether the period is representative — a month where the site was partially closed or lost a tester may not reflect normal patterns

Step 3: Review site-level comparison

Start with the big picture:

• How does your site failure rate compare to the national average?
• Is the difference within a range you would expect given your vehicle mix?
• Has the gap changed significantly from previous months?

If the site-level comparison is unremarkable, tester-level differences may still be worth checking — but a stable site picture reduces urgency.

Step 4: Review tester-level comparisons

For each tester:

• Compare their failure rate to the site average and national average
• Note their test volume — low-volume percentages are less reliable
• Check average vehicle age — different vehicle mixes explain many differences
• Review test duration — very short durations may warrant observation
• Check component breakdown — does any specific area stand out?

What counts as "notable"?

There is no official threshold. Use judgement based on:

• The size of the difference
• Whether it is sustained over multiple months
• Whether test volume is large enough for percentages to be meaningful
• Whether contextual factors (vehicle age, specialisation) explain the difference

Step 5: Consider context

For any notable differences, ask:

• Does this tester work shifts that attract a different vehicle mix (e.g., Saturdays, trade-only days)?
• Are they testing a specific class that the site average does not reflect?
• Have they recently joined, been retrained, or returned from absence?
• Is there a known equipment issue that might affect specific component results?
• Has there been a change in local vehicle demographics?

Step 6: Investigate where warranted

If a difference cannot be readily explained by context, consider:

• Observation — watch the tester conduct a test to check approach
• QC check — reinspect a sample of their tested vehicles
• Discussion — ask the tester about their approach to the relevant area
• Test log review — look at individual test records for patterns (short tests, contingency use, unusual sequences)

Not every difference requires formal investigation. Record your reasoning either way.

Step 7: Record the outcome

This is where many stations fall short. Regardless of whether you found a problem:

Record:

• Date of review
• Period/group reviewed
• What you observed
• Whether any differences warranted investigation
• What investigation you conducted (if any)
• Outcome / conclusion
• Actions taken or "no action required with rationale"

This evidence demonstrates active quality management if DVSA request it during a site visit.

Step 8: Follow up

Where investigation identified an issue:

• Training — additional CPD, coaching, or observation
• QC plan adjustment — increased monitoring for the relevant tester or area
• Equipment check — if component failure patterns suggest calibration issues
• Further review — schedule a follow-up in the next TQI period

Then close the loop: check whether the issue improved in subsequent months.

Common pitfalls in TQI analysis

| Pitfall | Problem | Better approach | |---------|---------|----------------| | Only reviewing when DVSA visit is expected | Demonstrates reactive rather than proactive management | Regular (e.g., monthly) review cycle | | Acting on a single month's data alone | Could be normal variation | Check three-month trends | | Treating national average as "correct" | It includes both good and poor practice | Use it as a reference point, not a target | | Assuming low failure rate = good | May indicate lenient testing | Consider alongside other evidence | | Not recording "no action" outcomes | Looks like you never reviewed | Record the review and reasoning | | Ignoring low-volume testers | A tester doing 3 tests a month is still your responsibility | Note low volume, schedule observation-based check |

How MOT Lens supports TQI analysis

MOT Lens imports your Manager Report data and structures the review process:

• Comparison views — site vs national, tester vs site, all in one place
• One-month and three-month data side by side
• Component breakdown per tester
• Historical snapshots — compare this month to previous months without re-downloading old reports
• Review trail — record your observations, conclusions and actions against the relevant period
• Handoff to QC/training — link TQI findings to Quality cases or tester training records

MOT Lens does not assign pass/fail grades to testers. It organises the evidence and keeps a record of your review.

FAQ

How long should a TQI review take?

For a small site (1–3 testers), a monthly review might take 15–30 minutes if nothing unusual stands out. For larger sites or where investigation is needed, allow more time.

What if I only have one tester?

You can still compare against national averages and review component patterns. Single-tester sites should also consider external QC arrangements (reciprocal review with another site, third-party assessor) for independent verification.

Should I share TQI data with testers?

Many sites find it useful. Showing a tester their own data (which they can already access) and discussing it constructively can be part of quality management. However, it should not be used punitively without proper investigation.

What records does DVSA expect?

DVSA site reviews check for evidence that the AE has an active quality management system. TQI review records are one component of that evidence. There is no prescribed format, but the record should show what was reviewed, when, and what (if any) action resulted.

Can MOT Lens replace manual TQI review?

No — MOT Lens organises the data and provides a structured review workflow, but the judgement about whether something warrants investigation remains with the AE or Site Manager. It removes the spreadsheet work, not the human responsibility.