For what it's worth, for anyone in the future coming to read: We have been using ServiceLive strictly as a platform for Sears factory and protection agreement appliance work, so I can only speak to the platform in terms of how it operates. We've had no interaction with anyone other than Sears on it. My opinion of Sears is another post entirely. We have been using it for 2+ years. The ServiceLive platform itself has numerous useful features, and numerous obnoxious ones. More often than not, we have issues where the website will simply stop functioning and force a log out/log in. This is across all computers/users, not just a specific desk or browser. There's been little, if any, response in regards to this semi-constant interruption from ServiceLive (via Sears, who we have to pass functionality/webmaster requests through). The jobs management via the website is... passable. There are two primary methods for viewing and managing your service orders. The 'new' service order management pop-up has been popping-up for well over a year now... and the functionality is again passable, but not fantastic. Personally, I find the interface lacking and cluttered, and in need of a redesign. Fortunately, the search functionality is robust and provides a number of useful/detailed options you can use to locate a specific order. Given any accurate information about the customer, you can usually find their service orders without issue. It is not a live-search of your records, though, so it may irk you being so spoiled on ServiceDesk's instantaneous searching via F12 etc. ServiceLive does also require you to maintain an individual set of records and background screens for your techs. They do use PlusOne, but if you are already set up with PlusOne (for example for ServiceBench or really any other company who utilizes them), ServiceLive will still do a fresh screening of your techs. It's... a little strange, and my explanation isn't very clear I know, but suffice it to say you can not simply provide your PlusOne ID for your technicians and poof it's done. It's a bit more complicated than that, which is a bit of a drawback. All insurance documents (vehicle, accident, liability, workers comp) must be uploaded manually by you and reviewed by Sears. No calling your agent and having them handle it all. One of the best features, as mentioned above, is most definitely how quickly payment is processed. It is VERY fast, usually 2 business days or NEXT day. There is still a down-side, though: As far as we've been able to tell, there is no way to include your own reference number (IE a ServiceDesk JobRecord number) to each particular service order/dispatch within ServiceLive. When payment does come through, you have to match ServiceLive's dispatch# to your own ServiceDesk records, meaning a search and correlation to each item on the payment. As mentioned (and this is another ServiceLive benefit, tho again it is largely due to Sears in our case) the volume can be TREMENDOUS. This, in turn, adds a fair amount of time to matching payments to ServiceDesk JobRecord#s to apply. In general, the platform is serviceable (no pun intended) and functions 'okay'. Payments are quick, if slightly arduous to apply, the volume is decent (though, once more, due to Sears so your mileage may vary). The interface is not terrible but a redesign to make the important/relevant links and pieces of info stand out would not go amiss. Overall, I'd give it a 6.5/10.
We run in to the same issue frequently, and then have to waste time getting special authorization for the warranty claim when the dealer sends to us for store stock. It'd be tremendously easier to just get a pop up when a UIS is connected to a job that warns us and saves us time and effort. Especially so when the unit was in-warranty and is then sent to us for store stock. In a similar vein we have some, er, special-situation-advisory worthy property managers who will keep calling in machines to their warranty companies that are not covered, but the manager knows the company (Lowes springs to mind...) will dispatch literally anything. Other times it'd be a boon to get a warning if/when a UIS is attached just because there are property managers here who move products frequently to different locations, and if I'm sending one of my guys back into a mess of a machine it'd be great to have that heads up.
SD has a great feature built in where it will warn you if a claim has been transmitted within the last 90 days (most MFG warranties, 365 for some others!) on a UIS. Super helpful! Clone that, hook it up to parts ordering, et voi la. Handy warning that you will (probably) have to submit a part you are ordering to a MFG/distributor for a failed-part warranty claim! If everyone has done everything right (UIS hooked up, identical part # used, etc), you don't have to go digging through the history of a UIS to make sure the part you are ordering again wasn't ordered previously and thus needs some special handling.
I know I'm 5 months late, but two cents... I'd be wary of making it a default functionality, or a functionality that you can't disable. LG's website is occasionally a real pain in the butt, and operates similar to how you've suggested. Nearly every link on the website opens a new window. Parts order. Parts status. Accounting. Claims search. Dispatch search. Claims entry. Sometimes coming back inside SD's confined little world feels like a blessing after you've been trying to hold the interface together with a dozen kite strings attached to windows you can't alter the size or shape of.
Sears requires a specific document be signed by the customer every time we complete a service order for them in a customer's home. As is, we are trying to find a workable and consistent combination of 3rd party platforms to provide the signable document to the tech in the field WITHOUT hard copy, get the document signed via another piece of software, and returned/made available back to the office. Oh, and all on iOS AND Windows (we are not 100% tablets yet) The idea basically is that at the office, an office manager can put a blank copy of a document that might be required in a folder on the mapped drive (Call it 'Signable Docs' for now). Limit it to PDFs or .doc/x or whatever is easy for SD to incorporate/deal with but also prevalent enough. In SDM, when a technician clicks on the signature button, he's given a drop-down selection of the standard signature for mobile, OR any of the documents in the 'Signable Docs' folder. When he completes the signature and finalizes, it's attached directly to the PVR as a clickable link like receipts do. The awesome of this would be more than you could measure.
Currently (to my knowledge) a tech can only receive funds on one job at a time. He cannot, for example, run a card for $300 and then apply that card to 3 different jobs in SD-M, split as desired. There are some common workarounds, including adding an invoice # as a part with a cost to the current job they're working on and then making note on the other jobs that such has been done. Unfortunately, that makes the accounting at the office a bit convoluted, and it's a better practice to have the funds individually applied. Funds could also simply NOT be received by the technician as part of a PVR, brought to the office, and then the office either closes via interim of full sales journal entry, applying the funds after. However this means the tech now has cash, checks, or credit card numbers in-hand but not recorded, with no way for the funds-received check-off system to do it's job, or to even verify funds were received if the tech loses something before it makes it to the office. I'm sure this wouldn't be a 'simple' addition, but I think it's a frequent-enough problem to consider!
Most of the 'Status of Job' categories are great, useful, glad they're there. I have a tiny beef with 'Other' but my BIG problem is (and I bet others have similar feelings) 'Tech rprtd, not done'. Techs can [accidentally/willfully/negligently] allow jobs to fall into this category, and besides WIP alerts or assigning an office individual to specifically monitor it, there isn't a great deal of oversight on this status. SHOULD WIP alerts be enough? Maybe. SHOULD there have to be a person specifically assigned to watch it? I don't personally believe so. Frankly, I'd suggest removing it, and in the PVR process, when a tech tries to submit, throw an error and refuse submital if they have not done at least one of the following: A) Marked job complete (Completed) B) Ordered a part (Waiting for parts) C) Requested authorization (Pending Autho) D) Scheduled another appointment via NextVisit. (Currently scheduled) E) Marked a noshow (Working to schedule) Do you know those analogies people make that are extremely exaggerated about the burning hatred of a thousand fiery exploding suns yada yada yada? That's how I feel about 'Tech reported, not done'.
In ServiceBench (especially for Whirlpool), Alaska is wonderfully (/s) unique in that we need to add 'Alaska Freight' to the 'Comments' section of a claim for when we claim the (crazy) amount of freight we are charged on parts shipped up here. As well, we have to put the requested freight in the 'travel' field (which isn't a problem and not the focus here). Is there any ability to add such a 'Comment' to the upload? Similarly, how about attachments? Whirlpool (and others) frequently need copies of freight invoices to verify claimed freight amounts. My fear is that ServiceBench doesn't provide you a vehicle in which to transmit these things. Is that the case, or could it be done?
Type: Malfunction Reproducible: Every time If you have an archived JobRecord with an afternote on it, should you click into the history (so that the afternote momentarily disappears), when you release your click the drag button on the afternote disappears and you cannot move the afternote anymore. You have to close and re-open the archived-JobRecord form to get the drag button back.
We've run into it more than a few times where, when a tech submits a PVR with an email address that isn't properly formatted (Not having a complete firstname.lastname@example.org, such as user@domainsuffix, no period), SD-ML pops an error and will do none of it's normal tasks until the error message is dismissed. I'm getting this second hand from our Service Manager, but it seems that until you acknowledge the error that SD-ML pops, SD-ML will not send/receive/update/bupkiss. The error message is still pertinent, it's good to know when these things need fixed, but could a callsheet be popped to assigned station's desk instead of halting the entire workings of the program? Our server sits off to the side, with a monitor that goes to sleep. We don't catch it immediately every time. PS: "Well tell them not to missformat email addresses" is a totally valid response and I agree SHOULD be sufficient.. but people make mistakes.