Text message onboarding

[pfainc]

Teamworks SE 8.02.141
Not enrolled in online scheduling

Once in a while an existing customer texts my mitchell text number from a new number.
In the past I found it was easy to add this number to that customer record by:
- Double clicking the unassigned message
- 'Resolve text message to customer' screen comes up with 'search/create customer Step 1
- Enter customer name, and double click the correct entry
- Step 2 Verification screen, I use the dropdown on the telephone number field and select 'Cellular' which is the assigned text message field (there is a home number already entered) And click NEXT
- Step 3 - Confirmation - states the new number will be associated with text message number - I click 'Accept'
- Next screen says 'Customer onboarding successfully completed' I click 'Finish' and the text message window opens with the assigned customer record showing

Now here is the issue:
- I go to the customer screen of the newly onboarded customer and check the phone numbers
- Where there was once only a home number entered into the 'home' field and all others were empty, now the home number is duplicated into the 'cellular' field and the newly onboarded cell number is nowhere to be found

This procedure has added the cell number in the past. Onboarding no longer works.

Is anyone else experiencing this?

Thank you

Bruce

[Silky7]

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for reporting this. I do hope others chime in if we have a flaw in the process.

If it seems to be isolated to your system — I know the timing can be difficult, but if you have the opportunity the next time you encounter this case, can you call into support before on-boarding? It helps quite a bit to record the process to see where the issue might be.

[pfainc]

It isn't isolated to my system
- I called tech support yesterday and they said it was designed this way (They reproduced it on their side) and offered to submit a feedback 'feature request'

I screen shared with them and they saw it - never said it was my system, they said it was working 'as designed'

Seemed odd M1 would want this behavior to be called 'normal'

[ricmorin]

The issue I see is that by selecting the phone number by drop-down is simply a display. I don't believe it's a mechanism to ASSIGN or OVERWRITE an onboarding number. The new number IS associated with the customer, it just doesn't write it in the customer record. I'm not sure what the programmers original intent was, and I cannot verify how it worked before. The question is: is it working as intended now? Or is the intention to write or overwrite phone numbers with this process?

[Silky7]

As Ric alluded to, I don't think the intent was to ever overwrite an existing number. However, the business logic for the process was established before my time, so we're checking previous versions to see if the process did indeed change.

Bruce, do you recall when you noticed this (was it just since updating?) and what version you might have been on prior?

[pfainc]

The issue I see is that by selecting the phone number by drop-down is simply a display. I don't believe it's a mechanism to ASSIGN or OVERWRITE an onboarding number. The new number IS associated with the customer, it just doesn't write it in the customer record. I'm not sure what the programmers original intent was, and I cannot verify how it worked before. The question is: is it working as intended now? Or is the intention to write or overwrite phone numbers with this process?

I have tried it both ways- selecting drop down number, and not selecting drop down number

In every case I get consistent errors
- If there is a number in both home and cell - nothing happens - no fields are modified
- If there is a number in the home field only and all others are blank - the number in the home field gets copied to the cell phone field - so now the home and cell field show the same number
- If all number fields are empty - the default area code (from shop settings) is copied into the cellular field

Seems odd that M1 would want this behavior.

[pfainc]

As Ric alluded to, I don't think the intent was to ever overwrite an existing number. However, the business logic for the process was established before my time, so we're checking previous versions to see if the process did indeed change.

Bruce, do you recall when you noticed this (was it just since updating?) and what version you might have been on prior?

In 1 attempt the cell number populated the cell field on my attempts yesterday
I know it worked in the version where text messaging was introduced

[ricmorin]

I tried duplicating and the new number did not populate and the existing home number did not change or duplicate. That's the behavior I would expect. Granted I had to fabricate the scenario since I've never had to onboard a new text number to an existing customer. We always have the customers text number beforehand. Lucky I guess.

[pfainc]

I tried duplicating and the new number did not populate and the existing home number did not change or duplicate. That's the behavior I would expect. Granted I had to fabricate the scenario since I've never had to onboard a new text number to an existing customer. We always have the customers text number beforehand. Lucky I guess.

Also on 1 occasion - new customer, he insisted he text me 1st for his number. He gave me a home number
I onboarded as above with the exception of, I did not select phone number field, I left it on home (overlooked and didn't adjust to be more accurate)

But this time the system added an additional HOME display on the top of teamworks (where the numbers that are checked off as display are shown next to the customer name)
When I opened the phone number fields (click the button) only the HOME number was filled, BUT when I tried to manually add the cell number and moved to the vehicle screen I got an SQL error and when I went back to the customer screen, my edits did not save. I had to delete the customer and start over to fix this. I get that this might be a one off anomaly, BUT! if they are saying that onboading does not manipulate the phone number field, this behavior proves it.

[Silky7]

We've completed our investigation into this process starting with version 7.5, when texting was introduced, and through every public release since. It has always functioned the same. As such, I'll record the process you've outlined as a requested change, but it is not a bug.

[pfainc]

We've completed our investigation into this process starting with version 7.5, when texting was introduced, and through every public release since. It has always functioned the same. As such, I'll record the process you've outlined as a requested change, but it is not a bug.

So by design it is supposed to tamper with the phone number fields but not enter the cell # into any field and you guys don't consider it a bug? I don't understand this at all. Customer onboarding, by design, is not actually supposed to do anything?

[Silky7]

I'm simply stating it has not changed, and therefore is neither new, nor a bug. I'm not saying it couldn't be changed, but we're going to need to hear from some additional users on this. Some others might like it the way it is.