Authorization Signature

I really like the authorization signature, however the problem is that the technician cannot fill in any data into his service ticket once the signature is captured.  I suspect the program is doing this prevent a price change but the technician needs to describe what he has done and put all the information collected, i.e: temperatures, pressures, amps...etc.

We did find a way around this...show the client the proposed work, do the work, then have them sign the approval and invoice upon completion.  This actually defeats the purpose of the authorization signature...am I missing something here?

0

Comments

8 comments
  • Hey Rich, I went ahead and moved this to the Tips and Tricks forum, since it's more of a discussion about a particular feature. There's also more people "following" this forum than the General forum, so you'll get more traction here.

    From the ESC side of things, you're correct, once you take a signature, the system is going to prevent you from making changes. Customers can get pretty upset when they have signed something and then notice a change on their Invoice.

    Hopefully some other end-users can provide some feedback on their own usage or workflows for this particular feature!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Thank your for the quick response Scott!  While I understand what the program is trying to do, it prevents technicians from annotating what they do during the repair.  For example, if you have an assembly to add refrigerant, there is a lot of data the technician needs to put into the service ticket...amount of refrigerant added, outside temperature, amp draw, pressures...etc.  

    If the tech does not follow all the steps in a repair, then it is a high probability that there will be a call back.  If there is a call back, then there is no data in the invoice to see if we use the repair approval signature?  Yes, I am a consumer myself and want to be treated fairly, however as a company, we need to have the ability to not only provide a great service experience, but we also need to protect ourselves from "that client" coming back to us...or if we are dealing with one of those pesky jobs that we took over from another company.

    I assume companies using your software are stand-up folks and are not going to "rip off" a client.  I am not a programmer but it seems to me that if you want to protect the client and protect us who are using the software, then how about if a line is added at the signature box that says: I approve the repairs for X dollars, but still lets the tech put data into the service ticket?  If the tech goes through the repair and finds additional issues (because in many cases you need to do one repair just to get the unit running) then additional assembly(s) would need added.  If this happens, the repair approval box comes back up to capture another approval signature.  It could be as simple as the complete updated total of the repair comes up again or the additional charge shows in the approval box.  I know this would require programming on your end and interest from others, so in the short term, can this just be shut off on the back end for us?  

    We have found that if the processes are followed and when all data is collected, then call backs rarely, if ever happen.  I think it is going to be odd for our techs to get approval, do the job, then get an approval signature after the repair so they can document what they do, then invoice signature.

    If there is a different way to do this and still use the approval signature, that would be great to know...because I also really like the option where you can show different levels of repairs on the tablet and allow the client to select the repair they want.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • I personally haven't hear much in regards to concerns over how that feature functions and I've been here about four years. It may be worth chatting in with us if you'd like a refresher course on the processes for mobile, it can't hurt to double-check!

    It also may be worth seeing if anyone replies here, that uses the software. It's the weekend, so generally we don't see much traffic here. Community picks up more around Tuesdays, so I'd check back then and see if anyone else has posted on this thread.

    You know, if we had a way to individually customize our software on a customer to customer basis, that would be incredible. But unfortunately that does setup an unrealistic expectation. As the saying goes, "If we do it for one, we have to do it for everyone."

    A great deal of time and effort goes into every feature, which is pretty easy to take for granted since we don't stare at the code or program the software. Sadly, that will not be something we have available - would be awesome though!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Scott,

    I don't have time to try this today, however, in theory.... If the tech completes the invoice and dispatch per the version signed by the customer it gets sent back to the shop.  If the dispatcher adds a tech and puts it back on the board for that tech, (here's the theory) when the tech makes those additional notes and completes the invoice and dispatch it should add to the first invoice in the mobile queue.

    Obviously this is a workaround, but it's the same process you use for multiple techs on a job.  It requires additional input from the dispatcher as well, although, you might try putting the tech on the same job for the scheduled day and the following day and see if it works if the tech finishes the first day, then brings up the dispatch for the second day and adds to the invoice.

    Monday musings..

    Rick

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • The signature also creates issues in a quote and as successive dispatches created from a quote create a read only invoice. It seems that a redesign to capture an authorization and an alternative to read only on a signed quote would be a good idea.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Scott, I was just about to post something similar on the forums. Our concerns mirror rich's. If the cause of a failure is not evident when our techs arrive we have to dive into the system. For this we present a customer pricing for diagnostic work on the system to investigate the failure. The customer must sign to approve it. After performing the diagnostic work our technician must note what was found and measurements that were taken, etc. This diagnostic work may also lead to additional repairs being required as the source of the failure is determined. These new repairs would require approval.

    Currently there seems to be an option to add dispatch notes to an invoice but we have not experimented with this, so I am unsure if these notes are applied prior to or at completion of the invoice. This would not work for us as we put many notes that would be unnecessary for the customer to see (phone call times, intra-office notes regarding the dispatch, etc). Perhaps, in the dispatch, a separate note section("invoice notes" or something) that could be included on the invoice would be simpler to implement?

    Additionally, instead of the approval signature completely locking the invoice, my request would be to have the signature associated with each line item. When a new item is added, a new approval signature is collected to update the authorization, instead of having to clear the prior authorization.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Our concerns are the same!!  Most of what we do can be process and diagnostically driven.  Authorizing said part and a given time in the process is only step 1 in many instances. There are many times when the 1st part must be approved and installed to allow the tech to continue the diagnostic process, and so on and so forth until the entire ticket is complete. A one signature option is a NO NO, NO GO for our company.  Each individual repair should have the ability to have a client initial to proceed with the individual repair and THEN a FINAL acceptance of work performed when the ENTIRE job is complete.  That is how MOST of us ROLL in the HVAC industry.  Just mu humble opinion and company policy.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Thanks for the feedback. This is incredibly helpful when trying to understand the best approach for everyone!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Didn't find what you were looking for?

New post