Move Job Line w/Transactions to New WO

The ability to move a job line (that already had transactions posted) to a new or existing work order would be beneficial.

*Performing warranty work
– Original Work Order made for tensioner failure. All warranty related labor/parts would remain with the original WO. The job line added for replacement of belts (not warrantied) would need to be separated off onto a separate WO before submitting warranty claim.

*Wreck damage that is to be sent to insurance and/or responsible party
– WO originally made for wreck repairs with additional lines added not pertaining to wreck damage. All non wreck related parts/labor need to be moved to a separate WO in order to send to the appropriate party.

These problems occur partly because the software users are not all following the same procedure. I am keenly aware of this as I continue to overhaul our SOP manual. For the 21st century, fleet software seems too heavily dependent on users knowing and remembering lots and lots of procedural steps. Failure to perform every single step in the precisely correct manner results in an undesirable situation that cannot be easily fixed. Your examples illustrate this point well, as do my occasional corrupt fuel transactions that are not easily undone once they’re processed.

In order to reduce the human memory burden, it would be nice to have some software prompts, perhaps user-created ones, that essentially would ask the user something like: “are you sure you want to add more lines to this warranty job?” I’m thinking such a prompt would display only for a WO coded as warranty, or accident repair. A high priority, or customer waiting, or road call work order might have a different context-specific prompt.

Maybe the sandbox mode proposed for fuel transactions could be extended to other modules as well.

In addition, perhaps the shop manager should be able to pick what needs password protection, or supervisor approval, or special prompting before the user can move forward. There would be out-of-the-box defaults and standard setups for these things of course in order to get the users started. The refinements I propose could conceivably require a great deal of careful thought before implementation.

Those are good alternatives, and should eliminate most human error. An assurance prompt when posting parts to a warranty WO may be helpful as well.

Would the concern then be errors made by a mechanic? Mechanic actions may require additional focus to ensure labor is posted to the correct WO? For instance, recommended repairs found needed during disassembly and are in relation to that of the warranty repair, yet require additional time to remove/install. Or, perhaps a flat rate mechanic that exceeds the time allotted by warranty - the ability to transfer such time to Indirect Labor or Policy account could benefit a manager that didn’t want the mechanic to lose time and have their productivity affected by an unreasonable SRT.

This can also be achieved by reversing the transaction and manually adding to the desired location. However, less navigation may be required by the user if had the ability to transfer transactions (e.g., with a F1 lookup list such as the list used to assign a WO to a part when creating a PO).