LOF: To Rev 9 OR Not Rev 9?

[GUTHTIRE]

This is a classic case of where some automation would make things easier for all of us on the front lines (I mentioned this in another thread but I don't believe it's gotten any traction).

I would request a LOF (Lube-Oil-Fitler) button that does a database lookup for the last oil change for that vehicle and populates the RO with all of the pertinent info (why are we looking up or Rev 9-ing and cutting/pasting anything when it could be a single button click?). If the vehicle is new to your shop or has never had a LOF a message could be presented stating "No prior LOF found" in which case you add the LOF manually as normal...the next time the customer comes in simply pressing the LOF button would populate the RO. It wouldn't have to be limited to LOF, it could be nearly anything that's repetitive.

[timbre4]

This is a classic case of where some automation would make things easier for all of us on the front lines (I mentioned this in another thread but I don't believe it's gotten any traction).
(why are we looking up or Rev 9-ing and cutting/pasting anything when it could be a single button click?).

The logic required to create a "most-recent-LOF search in history would be a heavy lift of development efforts to achieve such a single "single click". What text did the shop use to describe their LOF labor? Which parts on the order represent the oil filter? Does the shop have any other associated parts to include? Gets complicated trying to validate which lines are valid to transfer and there'd be a lot of fiddling with that logic and that's only the beginning. A similar enhancement request to add a static "10th slot" for repeat service information would be far simpler to accomplish with far less development effort.

There is a process to evaluate and prioritize where development time is "spent" in terms of new features (Scheduler, Message Center, ProSpect, etc.) and addressing feature requests. We write stories for everything. Because Revision - Sub-Est #9 does a reasonably good job of addressing this need today - without extensive programming, this project request would receive a lower priority .

[GUTHTIRE]

This is a classic case of where some automation would make things easier for all of us on the front lines (I mentioned this in another thread but I don't believe it's gotten any traction).
(why are we looking up or Rev 9-ing and cutting/pasting anything when it could be a single button click?).

The logic required to create a "most-recent-LOF search in history would be a heavy lift of development efforts to achieve such a "single click". What text did the shop use to describe their LOF labor? Which parts on the order represent the oil filter? Does the shop have any other associated parts to include? Gets complicated trying to validate which lines are valid to transfer and there'd be a lot of fiddling with that logic and that's only the beginning. A similar enhancement request to add a static "10th slot" for repeat service information would be far simpler to accomplish with far less development effort.

There is a process to evaluate and prioritize where development time is "spent" in terms of new features (Scheduler, Message Center, ProSpect, etc.) and addressing feature requests. We write stories for everything. Because Revision - Sub-Est #9 does a reasonably good job of addressing this need today - without extensive programming, this project request would receive a lower priority .

Understood there is some complexity. However, for those that wish to implement such a feature you could specify a template of sorts for us to conform. Using LOF as an example, our shop could use 3 lines for an LOF whereas another shop could use 2 or 5. A template would minimize that complexity. Likewise, if another "quick-service" button were to be implemented you could have a different template that you would specify. I agree it's complicated but this impacts EVERYONE using the product. If you were to add the minutes spent searching history or using rev-9 then cutting/pasting from/to then multiplied that by everyone using the product there's quite a time savings to be had with a button-click.

[ricmorin]

IMO, this is completely unnecessary and likely problematic at the programming and usage level. Canned jobs, LOF packages and the ubiquitous Rev9 already exist. It takes about 5 seconds to copy/paste from Rev9. I can't imagine the man-hours it would take to program a button to do in 1 second something that already exists at 5 seconds. Rev9 is my vote. It's simple and it NEVER FAILS. NEVER.

How we do this is we've built canned jobs around oil types. The service is built using the canned job once the oil type is known. The quantity is adjusted for the vehicle and the necessary parts are added. Some vehicles require a special gasket. Some require a new plug. This is built and stored once. Done.

BTW, you'll need to do this even if an 'LOF Button' existed. Is the programming going to recognize the gasket? The plug? What happens when you didn't use a plug last time because you were out? Ooops. No plug this time. It just seems to be an overly complicated Rube Goldberg way of doing something very simple. Copy/paste. Done. I like simple.

We actually add other services to Rev9. Air filter, cabin filter, trans service, etc.

[ricmorin]

So I've been thinking about this over night, mostly because I like to exploit every idea, and I had thought of something that might work. What if M1 implements the Rev10 slot idea, solely for the purpose of storing the 'quick service' job? And what if there was a single button on the order screen that transferred that job onto the order? There's likely not much heavy lifting on the programming side to get that going. It's easier than copy/pasting.

[timbre4]

Additional benefits with a "10th slot" is that it would be excluded from outstanding Revision 1-9 calculations = Green tab, outstanding Revisions report, etc.

[ricmorin]

Additional benefits with a "10th slot" is that it would be excluded from outstanding Revision 1-9 calculations = Green tab, outstanding Revisions report, etc.

The only downside I could see is when you need to 'sell' this service and document it through the standard 'sell revision' process. One may need to paste that into a 1-9 slot and sell that way.

[timbre4]

Additional benefits with a "10th slot" is that it would be excluded from outstanding Revision 1-9 calculations = Green tab, outstanding Revisions report, etc.

The only downside I could see is when you need to 'sell' this service and document it through the standard 'sell revision' process. One may need to paste that into a 1-9 slot and sell that way.

Does an oil change really need documentation? When copy & pasting we've not been concerned with it. Asking for a friend.

[ricmorin]

I say yes. Every job added should be documented. It's CYA in my opinion. And some oil changes can be 150 bucks or more.

In regards to copy/pasting, we only do that when we are creating a new order so it's establishing the cost before turning into an RO. ANY oil change that's being added after an initial cost is established ALWAYS gets transferred the documenting way.

[Rich]

I say yes. Every job added should be documented. It's CYA in my opinion. And some oil changes can be 150 bucks or more.

In regards to copy/pasting, we only do that when we are creating a new order so it's establishing the cost before turning into an RO. ANY oil change that's being added after an initial cost is established ALWAYS gets transferred the documenting way.

So in this odd case, why not revert to Rev 9?

[ricmorin]

True. Still need to move from the new 10 slot. I think I still like the Rev9 option because I can copy/paste or 'sell' the job. Just thinking out loud.

[brianp87]

I keep more then that on the revision. I keep caf, lof/rot/eng air, def, combo routine stuff etc specific to the vehicle. I have never had an issue copying and pasting from that revision. I do not know how it can pull from the history. Plus what if part # had changed?

[GUTHTIRE]

I keep more then that on the revision. I keep caf, lof/rot/eng air, def, combo routine stuff etc specific to the vehicle. I have never had an issue copying and pasting from that revision. I do not know how it can pull from the history. Plus what if part # had changed?

If a part number changed today, using the Rev 9 scenario, most likely you wouldn't notice until it's on an RO. Then you would change the RO to reflect the new part number. Then you would change Rev 9 to reflect the new part number.

Using an automated lookup from the database it would automatically copy over the "incorrect" part number (the one used last) into the RO. You would update the RO with the correct part number. That's it. Once it's saved in the database the next time the customer comes in and you use the automated lookup it would copy over the most recent record(s) with the updated part number.

[GUTHTIRE]

Quite honestly I'm surprised that there's so much feedback against automating such repetitive tasks. Once the code was developed it could be used for other repetitive tasks.

IMHO Rev 9, even though it's been there for years, seems like an afterthought. Store stuff over here so you can then copy it later even though it's stored somewhere else. Does Rev 9 work, absolutely. Does manually looking in history work and copying and pasting from there work, absolutely.

To my point, if the data is already stored in database why aren't we using it from the database?

[Rich]

I don't think the issue is that it "can't" be done. I think the issue is all of the work to make it happen. Mitchell has to triage issues. Most serious issues, most common issues need to take priority.

To put this into my thinking, it would be like me stopping at a MCI (Mass Casualty Incident) and sending an hour fixing a broken toe, when in that hour I could apply tourniquets to 20 people that are CTD (Circling the drain). Is your broken toe an issue? YES it is. But things have to be prioritized.

[Rich]

Another off topic comment. In "revisions" the text button is in a different location that in "order", and it drives me insane. But I know that that should/would be a very low priority for M1 compared to yours, and know that your issue - when fixed - would give the "mass" much more benefit. Just as other issues will be more important than programming your idea......which by the way I do like.

[timbre4]

Quite honestly I'm surprised that there's so much feedback against automating such repetitive tasks.

Such feedback is not about automation itself; it's 1) the drastic oversimplification of SQL programming tasks and 2) it's about a task that at least has some workarounds that the majority can use.

There are many valid requests for processes that are not addressed at all (no workarounds; cannot be done), therefore these will always have a higher priority position within our development budget.

[CARTECHPLUS]

Maybe I am not understanding the situation properly here. I guess my question would be why copying & pasting from the vehicles history to the new estimate, order, invoice, whatever it may be doesn't work both from a convenience standpoint as well as a documentation standpoint. When the vehicle comes in for the LOF, I simply pull up the history, find the last oil change info [filter, oil used, amount, and labor] highlight it and copy & paste it. I am a small shop compared to most of you here, Its just me & the owner, but all of my stock filters are in my inventory and the copy and paste pulls them out just as it would if it was a new entry. Just my 2 cents. I'm sure I'm wrong as my knowledge of the program is minute to you guys on here but that it what I do here!

[Rich]

Maybe I am not understanding the situation properly here. I guess my question would be why copying & pasting from the vehicles history to the new estimate, order, invoice, whatever it may be doesn't work both from a convenience standpoint as well as a documentation standpoint. When the vehicle comes in for the LOF, I simply pull up the history, find the last oil change info [filter, oil used, amount, and labor] highlight it and copy & paste it. I am a small shop compared to most of you here, Its just me & the owner, but all of my stock filters are in my inventory and the copy and paste pulls them out just as it would if it was a new entry. Just my 2 cents. I'm sure I'm wrong as my knowledge of the program is minute to you guys on here but that it what I do here!

That is basically what we a re doing. However, if you paste the information into revision 9, you don't have to search through history. As for part number changes and etc, I change those in rev9 as they come up.

[GUTHTIRE]

Maybe I am not understanding the situation properly here. I guess my question would be why copying & pasting from the vehicles history to the new estimate, order, invoice, whatever it may be doesn't work both from a convenience standpoint as well as a documentation standpoint. When the vehicle comes in for the LOF, I simply pull up the history, find the last oil change info [filter, oil used, amount, and labor] highlight it and copy & paste it. I am a small shop compared to most of you here, Its just me & the owner, but all of my stock filters are in my inventory and the copy and paste pulls them out just as it would if it was a new entry. Just my 2 cents. I'm sure I'm wrong as my knowledge of the program is minute to you guys on here but that it what I do here!

Copy and paste from either rev-9 or history do work. The suggestion was to automate repetitive/mundane tasks. In essence, you would click a button and the system does the lookup and puts that in your estimate, order, invoice for you.