Follow

Samples of data validation

We ask for LogMeIn access to your system and we are often asked why so I am including some examples that represent typical data validation issues.

 

*** 

Subject: FW: Tech Activity Report ID34

On the attached report, Technician Robert Jessup shows a parts cost of $37,304. When I run the custom report live and drill down, I show SC93747 was closed a parts cost of $37,304. When I look at this call under eview Service Calls Invoiced I show a material cost of $1,492.15. What is the correct Parts cost for Robert Jessup?

***

Tim,
The alert and report assume the best practice of only one labor entry per service call - if the call is not complete when the labor is done the call should be Incompleted and a new call Rescheduled for further work. This is embedded very deeply in the logic, and you can see the result - five labor entries on this call (SC93747) result in a reported parts cost 25x the actual amount.
The alert was originally designed with field techs in mind (at one point you could ONLY run it for field techs), and it's been on our radar for awhile that the best practice doesn't always translate perfectly for shop work - in some ways it's nice to be able to 'throw random available labor' at a reman job or strip-down until it's complete. In our opinion one-labor-entry-per-call is a best practice in all cases, but there's more of an argument to be made for shop work. Re-working the logic, however, is a BIG deal based on the complexity of the report and the amount of work involved (we'll have to re-write some pieces from scratch) so it's not currently on our development calendar.
Makes sense, I hope. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks,

***

Tim a couple of things i also noticed, on that call for robert that brought forth the issues. The time entries startedin Jan...and spanned thru March...on one call. And, he marked all the subsequent time entries after the first one as 'Assist'. We handle 'assist' calls completely different in that we do give the Assisting tech credit for the call as well as the original tech (technically, if two techs worked a call..then both get a completed call tick right? but then your Total Calls closed is overstated. So we have to be careful to understand that a 'Techs' activity report by tech may not reconcile to a company total calls closed number due to the multple techs working on one call. Not saying one way is right or wrong..just if the assisting tech is to get credit for a call ..then any call with 'assist' will be counted twice in the report total (it totals up the data from the report.) So we purposefully by design had to eliminate the 'Parts' from any tech labor entry where the tech was 'assisting' so that we do not count that parts against the assisting tech. Robert checked 'Assist' on the subsequent call labor entries and therefore is confusing our report logic. So i have corrected the issue of 'duplicating' the parts cost when it sees duplicate time entries..however the fact that he checked 'assist' on the labor entries for the time span that included the call closed date means now we're reporting no parts usage.
For purposes of this erroneous time entry of 'assist'...you should void the service call invoice for call#sc93747, edit the labor entries for Robert and turn off the 'assist' checkbox, and rebill. That might create some inventory issues since parts were involved. I can update the database directly for those labor entries and flip that assist bit to off (it's only a reporting filter bit...does not impact any financials or data integrity)...but i'll need permission from David first before i flip those bits. David, if you want you can contact me to verify.
This functionality btw is company wide and all branches should be using the service calls for shop tickets in a consistent manner. We recommend that no calls considered in the Tech productivity reporting (we added the ability to filter out calltypes specifically for users to ignore all shop calls so that those would not screw up the reporting metrics) do not have time ticket/labor entires spanning more than 1 day..at the end of the day if the tech is not complete..they should 'incomplete' that days call and open a new one so that the report can accurately report the # of calls per day a tech worked on. As we all start doing more helpdesk type calls in eautomate..we are going to have to design a new report for those calltypes whereby the report's metric is focusted on Hours worked and not # of calls. In orderto keep the technician productivity report reflecting accurately (it reports on calls 'closed' for the reporting dates selected') we are also filtering the labor entires to the same date range. So again, the problem call had time entries going back to January..ugg.
I'm going to get with Gary and Deb and Todd here to setup a WebMeeting and invite everyone so we can discuss the issues that multiple time entries on a call present, and how best to accurately report them in a way that does not screw up the traditional call metrics (calls completed, incompleted, rescheduled..etc).
I will wait to hear from David (or you IT Help) if they want me to flip that assist bit on this one call for this one tech so that you can see the report is working as designed and accurately reporting parts cost. If they don't want me to do that, then you will have to void the call, edit the entries, and rebill the call and inventory.

***

We will fix the call here and make sure that procedures are followed so this does not occur in the future. 

*************************************************************

ID176

HI,
This is the 1st alert I received for this device. Unfortunately, there were 3 service calls prior to this one for this device after install that I did not receive an alert for.
SC37386 opened 7/8 and closed 7/8
SC37396 opened 7/8 and closed 7/8
SC37467 opened 7/10 and closed 7/11
I am not sure why we did not get alerts for these service calls. Can you please look into this?
Thanks,
Debbie

***

Debbie,
     The problem here is that the alert only triggers on calls of Category CM (Corrective Maintenance) or PM (Preventative Maintenance) CallTypes. It's specifically designed to avoid triggering on Install or miscellaneous calls (for instance Network Services calls) because those are to be expected on a new machine in the field. 
     Of the three calls you specified below, the first two of them are ofCallTypeCategory O (Other) and the third is SH (Shop Call). That third call might be coded incorrectly, unless you actually went out and fetched the machine to bring it back in for work.
    Hope that explains things, if you have further questions feel free to ask. Thanks,

**************************************************************************

ID55 Part(s) Cost Alert on Call

Can you tell me why the cost column are all 0’s?

***

If these are new parts that have recently been created in EA and haven't had enough purchase history for EA to calculate the average cost then it will show 0 until the average cost populates in EA. Also if they are assigned to a zero costing warehouse they will show 0. Is either the case on these items? Let me know. Thanks.
Ashley

**************************************************************

 ID316 Supply Items Missing Yields

This won’t go way. The yield are set? I get this all the time.

***

Hi Brian,
These 2 items have the yield data set but they still need the usage limit meter type set on the item records. So, for the black toner you need to set a B/W meter type on it's item record and for the yellow toner set a Color type meter on it. Then they will stop alerting. Let me know if you need any further help with this. Thank you.
Ashley

**************************************************************

Was this article helpful?
0 out of 0 found this helpful
Have more questions? Submit a request

0 Comments

Please sign in to leave a comment.
Powered by Zendesk