POLL: Revisions Tech Assignment

[timbre4]

RE: SE 6.3 issue - inheriting technician assignment when Revision lines hit the Order screen

If you're not aware, it goes like this. 1) Transfer a Revision to an Order, 2) Notice the labor (and part) line tech assignments didn't pick up the techs you had assigned to this order.

NOTE: In 5.9.x version, if you happened to enter a tech assignment into a Revision line BEFORE Transfer to Order, *that* assignment would make the jump. It would also ignore any changes you make under Options, Assign Technicians (global for order) droplists; you'd have to open that line and tweak the tech drop list in there manually if you wanted it changed.

Our question today is, in repairing this issue, how should the technician assign fields behave in Revisions?

Let's hear some opinions on this! Thanks

[brianp87]

YaI hate whenI transfer a revision to the order I always have to go through and input the time to the tech. Maybe i misunderstand.

[ricmorin]

I feel that if you bother to do a tech assignment in a revision (I don't), then it should transfer as assigned.

[timbre4]

YaI hate whenI transfer a revision to the order I always have to go through and input the time to the tech. Maybe i misunderstand.

Not a question of time at all here; that sounds like no Defaul Technician selected (Please, Select, etc) because that fills the Pay & Actual Hrs fields automatically.

[timbre4]

I feel that if you bother to do a tech assignment in a revision (I don't), then it should transfer as assigned.

Tend to agree; downside is if you made that assignment weeks or months ago and it doesn't apply today.

But you could update it of course manually.

[brianp87]

Ok now I understand yes I agree who does assign a tech on a revision? I do not. I guess I voted wrong.

[timbre4]

Ok now I understand yes I agree who does assign a tech on a revision? I do not. I guess I voted wrong.

I didn't really think anybody did before a discussion today; you can change your vote.

[fortknoxx]

i think it should transfer over what ever you have entered. even if it was 2 months ago. if Ric did an oil change and rec a tune up. I think ric should be the one on the job.

thats my take on the question. i might of misunderstood it.

[Pauls Automotive]

Heres my two cents. I like it the way it is. When we create our revisions say for a (rev1) tuneup (rev2) front brakes (rev.3) rear berakes and "Joe" found all this work today. Well he gets picked as the tech for those revs. so I can check profit before the call. Now say the customer only wants to do (rev2) front brakes today and in a month he wants to do the rest. Well next month it is all there for me. I don't have to go figure out who found the work (this works well for flate rate tech so they dont get huffy if it goes to someoen else) Untimately if it does have to go to someone else it's only a couple clicks...

[steven kiser]

well i guess i agree with paul. my memory stinks and i rely on the program to remember things. it's all good until i think i need to make a change or go into set up and poke around.

[John C.]

Ok now I understand yes I agree who does assign a tech on a revision? I do not. I guess I voted wrong.

I didn't really think anybody did before a discussion today; you can change your vote.

I assign a tech to revision, only to check profit.

[crmeyers]

I think that if you assign the labor to a tech in the revision, then when you transfer, it keeps that technician - regardless of who's assigned to the work order. But if no technician is assigned to a labor line in the revision, it should use the technician that's assigned to the work order and change all the "none"s to the technician assigned to the work order. This would save a ton of time!

[timbre4]

That's what we have in mind.

[Pauls Automotive]

I think that if you assign the labor to a tech in the revision, then when you transfer, it keeps that technician - regardless of who's assigned to the work order. But if no technician is assigned to a labor line in the revision, it should use the technician that's assigned to the work order and change all the "none"s to the technician assigned to the work order. This would save a ton of time!

Yes I second this.

[dusylube]

I like this idea as well and a date stamp on there would also be helpful to prevent old parts pricing affecting a eventual job.

[Crescentbunny]

OH MY GOSH I was SO excited to see this thread this morning!! We have been desperatly wanting to be able to mark a technician in revisions, without having to mark them individually on each labor line. (That is horrible on things like engine jobs wooo boy!)

[Rich]

Did you see the post is like 6 years old??

[timbre4]

We've chatted about it.

[fortknoxx]

Did you see the post is like 6 years old??

Looks like somebody successfully used the search function Rich.

[Crescentbunny]

Yes I did the search! I figured since the poll was still open I was safe to post, (Usually they are closed after some time has passed) That'll teach me to post before my coffee!