New Work Order PDF Format
December 18th, 2006 by danaAs part of Version 3.4, we are launching a redesigned work order PDF. The new design comes after lots of feedback and research into how our work order PDFs are used, both from providers and buyers. We are really proud of the new format, and believe its a big step forward in making OnForce more usable when you are offline.
!http://blog.onforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/sample-work-order-pdf-p1.png!
The first thing you’ll notice is that there are 2 different page formats. Actually, there are 3 sections to the work order, but sections 1 and 2 use the same page format. The portrait (tall) sections of the work order is for end user consumption. The landscape (wide) section is for provider use only. Changing the page orientation makes it much easier to tell these sections apart. In addition, there’s instructions, in color, at the top right corner of every page that let you know which section of the work order a page is from. Those instructions are:
* Get End User Signature And Keep
* Leave With End User
* Provider Instructions
That first section is always only 1 page long, and has a field for you to enter notes about the work that was performed so that the end user can sign off on that work. Some buyers want providers to fax back a signed copy of the work order, and page 1 is what you should get signed and fax back. If a buyer doesn’t want you to fax back a copy, its still a good idea to get that first page signed and keep it for your own records.
!http://blog.onforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/sample-work-order-pdf-p2.png!
You’ll also notice that the information on all sections has been cleaned up and re-organized. Both buyers and providers have told us that our new work order pages are much easier to read and understand, so we took that design and adapted it to our PDF.
!http://blog.onforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/sample-work-order-pdf-p3.png!
We’ve also eliminated the 2 pages of work order and IVR instructions, integrating the content directly into the work order layout. You’ll notice that at the top of each page of the Provider Instructions is a brief list of the essential IVR information, including our 800 number, the work order access code, and required and optional sub-statuses.
!http://blog.onforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/sample-work-order-pdf-p4.png!
Plus, we’ve eliminated lots of wasted space, so you should have even fewer pages to print out. Especially on longer work orders, the Provider Instructions section will expand from 1 to 3 columns taking up as much space as possible while remaining very readable.
!http://blog.onforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/sample-work-order-pdf-p5.png!
For buyers, all of the settings that you had on the old work order PDF are still in place. If you’ve hidden the OnForce logo or your own logo, they will be hidden on the new PDF as well. Also, all of the custom fields that you’ve configured for providers to set, and for end users to see are visible on the relevant sections of the PDF. And we’ve also made the buyer version of the the work order PDF reflect exactly what the provider gets (with the exception of those custom fields), so you can see exactly what your providers see when they print out their PDFs.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:12 am
I think the new design is better. There would be less paper used when printing out work orders and it also makes it easier to read.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
I like it. It is easier to read and there is little confusion as to which copy is for the End User.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
I like the way this new work order format looks. Easy to read and Identify information. Lets get it up!
December 19th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
New templates look alot easier to read. I would love it if Onforce added signiture,date, onsite time fileds in the pdf template so it would work with tablet pc’s. This way we can capture the customer signiture and fill out the form on a tablet pc.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
I really do like this new format the only thing that concerns me is my last name which is listed in the provider’s field. I don’t really feel comfortable leaving that information with the end users. Don’t mind the first name though and the tech id.
December 19th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Our expert tech’s use tablet PC’s and the love the new onforce WO PDF format. Specially the orientation of the WO PDF Document.
HW IT
http://www.hackersatwork.com
December 19th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Not sure how Brian figures it will use less paper…I print the OF instructions on one sheet and -if- either the technician or EU copy gets over one page I duplex that as well. Easy to do whether you have a duplexing printer or not, just utilize the printer controls of Acrobat/Acrobat Reader. If no duplex print only the front side then put the sheet back in and print the back.
I do however like the portrait format of the workorders and it seems all of them should be portrait rather than landscape for simplicity. The look is nice but I haven’t had to fill one out yet with a customer, just saw the new format 10 min ago when I printed a new workorder. Has a more professional look to it from first glance and hopefully it will be as easy (or easier) to use than the old style.
Now if we could just get a fill-in text block (like the reject a workorder area has) in the conditional accept instead of (or in addition to) the drop reasons we could educate the buyer a little as to why we want $150 for a job they post at $50 that has a drive distance of 45 miles, will likely take 2 trips (1 to troubleshoot, 1 to repair) and the fact that the OF fee drops our end result by 10%….many don’t get why we make higher conditionals and many times it makes us look cocky or glutonous or even like we’re playing games witht he buyer.
Russ Blakeman
RBCS
Clarkson, KY USA
December 19th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
I have noticed that the IVR numbers on the new work order are incorrect. They have them as 1-800 numbers when they are actually 1-888 numbers. It was a good thing I remembered that out in the field when I tried calling in to report I arrived onsite today.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
The new look is OK. I would like to request some changes. It would be easier if the Provider Custom Fields were moved to the first page of the work order instead of the last page. That would cut down on printing. It could be placed under the Service Date section, there seems to be wasted space there.
It seems that the third page of the work order is redundant. It has the same info on it as the first sheet with a few exceptions.
I do like the fact that our last names are not on the work order. I have received phone calls at home from someone who looked my name up in the phone book wanting me to come out for additional work. I referred them back to the original “Buyer” for that to be scheduled.
Thanks for all your hard work!
December 20th, 2006 at 12:04 am
aslong as the page side count is odd, so the printed mapped out location has a place to fit.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:05 am
Nice job on new forms.
Now all you need to do is ensure that providers have the proper fields they need to have
special jobs paid correctly, such as
Is tech “lead technician”
is there extra pay or supervision involved with this job?
how can the tech ensure he can supervise the other techs?
December 20th, 2006 at 3:59 am
Excellent job on the new format.
Some buyers do not want the default form to be seen or signed by the EU. A simple checkbox on the buyer side could replace the red instructions at the top of the form with something like - DO NOT USE - END USER MUST SIGN OUR CUSTOM FORM
December 20th, 2006 at 7:12 am
Nicely done staff… This looks MUCH nicer than it did.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Jack,
We will look into making the PDF interactive for use on tablet PCs. This is a great idea.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Gene,
We’ve fixed the last name issue. Provider first name and last initial should be displayed, not their whole last name.
Brad,
Oops.. We’ve updated the IVR phone numbers too. That one was entirely my fault! Thanks for catching the bug.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Troy,
The Provider Custom Fields are on the third page on purpose. They are for provider eyes only, and shouldn’t be seen by the end user. The reason why there are 3 sections to the work order (see the blog post) is because each section has a different purpose, and the PDF is supposed to work like a carbon copy form for the end user.
As is indicated by the instructions on each sheet:
December 20th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Can you just put the IVR access code next to the Provider Page (Get signature and keep) please, the instructions are already in both pages, I don’t see why we need the extra page or two at the end just for the IVR passcode.
With the previous format I would just print pages 3 and 4, as 1 and 2 would have stuff I didn’t need and page 3 had the IVR number/code.
Now I suppose we have 1-2 that are completely necessary and 3-4 just have about the same info as the previous ones.
Also, one big suggestion, please remove the words “SPEND LIMIT” from the work order. Before there was a subtle “SL XX” at the top right corner, now it’s extremely clear in the work order itself.
Thanks in advance for removing them.
So basically:
1. Remove the word “spend limit” and make it a subtle “SL XX”
2. Add the IVR password to Section 1 or 2.
In fact, I have a strong suggestion for the IVR system. Why don’t we make it so that we call the 888 number, then enter the password, in this sense our Tech ID, and then enter the work order. Our tech ID could work perfectly as a passcode, this way we can just enter the whole sequence in our cell phones and when propmted just enter the work order number and either 100 for on site or 110 for done.
But everything else looks good, I honestly don’t see much difference, I liked the fact that you could cram a lot of info in the past format. But keep up the good work, we really apreciate you listening to our suggestions (and complaints too
December 20th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Farid,
Thanks for bringing up these recommendations. We actually thought a lot about both of these issues when designing the new work order PDF format, and made very conscious decisions regarding them.
For the IVR information, we specifically print it on every page of the provider section of the work order on purpose, and not print it on the end user sections on purpose. The IVR information is for provider use only, and shouldn’t ever be seen by the end user. Additionally, we generate a unique passcode on purpose to ensure that only you can update the IVR (this is a security feature).
You should print all pages of the work order PDF and take them with you on site. Each section has a specific use and purpose. If you only take the end user sections, you will be missing critical information that you will need to properly execute a work order. If you only take the provider section, then you are violating OnForce policy and the requirements of a number of our buyers regarding how you should interact with end users. Buyers don’t want end users to see the details on the provider section of a work order PDF. That’s why we have separate sections, and why we designed the different sections to look unique (see the descriptions above). So in short, in order to execute any on-site work on a work order, you must take all sections of the work order PDF with you.
As for the word “Spend Limit” on the work order, you can’t hide the spend limit of a work order. If you’ve been through our training, or have done OnForce work orders, then you know the meaning of the term “Spend Limit”. One of the goals of the new work order PDF format is to have very clear labels so that all of the information on a page is easily understood. We don’t want “subtle” information — the work order spend limit is important information and should be clear and easily visible on the provider section of a work order.
December 20th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
I love the new Format! It is easier for me and the customers to read.
December 21st, 2006 at 12:04 am
Good job Onforce system designers, our team have no problems using the new PDF paperworks, just I think that it has too many black bars so it takes more ink as well and I know that they are to separate the diferent sections but you can replace for another light color as gray. I like the new design and we are upgrading our systems to table PC’s so it will be work really good.
Thanks
December 21st, 2006 at 8:42 am
For all of you that use tablet PC’s. You can make the Onforce PDF Documents to be writable using the PDF Annotador Software by grahl. Our techs like the new onforce PDF design.
HW IT
http://www.hackersatwork.com
December 21st, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Both the Provider and End User copies have the signature block at the bottom, both of which say “End User”. There is no need for the End User to sign the copy they are going to keep. Doesn’t it make more sense for the Signature block on the End Users copy to show “Provider” and have the Provider sign the copy they leave with the End User?
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:44 am
I have used the new format for several work orders now and, though the layout is a little easier to find information on, it does not help when trying to explain what was done on the job. There is still not enough room to make notes which are the critical part of any work order. If the provider can not, in readible format (having enough room to write something that can be read), write down what was done on the job then the work order is nothing more than instructions. It should be both instructions, concise and to the point (some really ramble) and a place for work completed comments so that, if one has to refer to the work order later, there is plenty of information to remember what was done. In fact, the illustrated work orders above do not have any place to write anything. Fortunately none of the work orders I have received so far are near as busy as what you show here. The most important part of any work order, once you know what needs to be done, is to document, document, document…what you did to cover what was to be done. I have, though rare, had buyers call later needing information regarding what was done on a job. Having a nicely documented work order to refer to makes your response a lot more crediable and enhances your standing with that buyer. …Bob
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:55 am
Robert,
Documenting your work while on site is, as you say, a very important process.
You mention that the example work order above has no space for documentation, but it does. On the first page, there’s a section to write in notes about work that was done.
Can you be more explicit about what you are looking for? Do you need more space on that first page? or do you want more space on the provider section of the work order for documentation? And is using the back of a page not a reasonable thing to do?
Thanks for your input. We can certainly make changes, but we do need to understand what the issues are first!
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:58 am
Also, just for your reference, Mr. Blakeman’s comments are very correct. I just found out yesterday that a very prominent buyer suppervisor whom we have worked many work orders for had no idea we were being charged a flat 10% across the board, off the top, for every dollar they were paying us. He assumed there was a flat charge for the work order and offered to, rather than issue a second work order, just increase the spend limit for a return trip to finish the fix. I explained that by paying onforce 10% off the top, it made no difference whether the spend limit was increased or a new work order issued. It did make a difference in how soon my tech would get his money for the trip completed if the work order was held open pending the second trip. Either buyers are ignoring the commission that we are being charged or someone is missing the boat in making sure they are aware of our costs. In fact, I don’t think a flat 10% regardless of the size of the work order dollar amount is a fair method for charging for what onforce is providing. On high dollar work orders, we make conditional offers that are as close to our costs as possible so as to optimize the chances that we will get the work order. 10% off of a $100 work order is a lot different than 10% off of a $1000 work order. Conditional offers can bite you if you don’t factor in this significant work order cost.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:11 am
re: dana’s comments. The copy of the work order that I keep, I like to make lots of comments on regarding conversations with buyer techs, customers, etc. The copy the customer keeps I briefly explain what was done and what, if anything, will be happening if the work order could not be completed. When a tech returns from a job, the ideal work order with documentation is one I can read without having to ask the tech what was done, that way if the tech is not available should someone call on the work order, I am able to refer to the work order to respond to their questions without having to run the tech down. The copy I keep should have sufficient space for a detailed explanation and I expect this type of documentation from my techs and myself. The work order I just completed yesterday involving a TV repair required extra documentation AND had to be faxed to the buyer. Having to write in between the lines is not something that would impress a buyer who apparently wants the information for future reference. When one is onsite trying to make notes, writing on the back can be difficult, but I have to admit I never considered that. I generally only use the front side of a page because, unless you make a specific reference on the front about info being on the back, most people never turn a page over. But that is a valid place to put information. It would require sending two faxes to the buyer, however. Or copying the back so you could send the two sheets as one fax. Space is a critical commodity when trying to make things as usefully as possible in a limited area, maybe even smaller type would be useful. …Bob
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Rob if you look at the instructions you aren’t just getting 10% of the labor paid in total ($200 closed WO is paid $180 to you, etc) but if you provide parts it’s included so if you close a workorder of $200 labor with $150 in parts/tax you get $315. I generally don’t take WOs that aren’t going to supply parts due to the problems in accounting this mess.
I also use the Technician Copy of the WO for my record and file it with a printed copy of the invoice I create for in-house use. The invoice details the paid amount minus the 10% as a discount or fee to keep things straight. Works great with labor only WOs but it’s crazy with pars that are taxed when part of that is a 10% fee.
What happened to the spaces to record the service visit date and times? I record it in the blank space of the service date box in the top but if the buyer inserts a lot of info there it squeezes my blank space out. If it was a one-visit and complete WO that works fine but most require one trip to troubleshoot and order parts and another to replace and finish, sometimes more if certain vendors contracted by the OEM to refurbish parts send you a junk part as a repaired part. Had one the other day with a HP power supply repaired by a place I know of in Louisville that is known for high failure rates - had to reorder and go back again. Buyer understood and increased spend but it cost them more for a less than acceptable replacement part.
Speaking of visits - the buyer should CLEARLY be required to note the maximum number of trips to the site within the spend limit before acceptance - many imply that it’s a go-to-site and be done job to get it accepted when the job can require 2 or more trips but the buyer is not committed to incrementing the spend limit for trips over the flat rate. Most outside outsource WO’s I get show a per-worker, per-visit fee. If I get one that says $70 per-visit, per-workorder and it takes 2 trips I get $140. The flat rate without max limits or max trips is a loophole to the buyer to allow them to further save funds and gouge the provider yet we have no idea if they bill a per-visit fee to the client they hired us to service. Not good ethics but some do it yet there should be a way to help the one doing the work do a good job and be rewarded without the need for K-Y jelly.
All in all the changes are great and getting better but these little angles and suggestions are needed badly to keep things smooth and to get better.
Happy Holidays to all buyers, providers and Onforce staff.
December 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Posting on the back of a sheet can also be construed in many industries as not only unprofessional but not part of a legal document without being contained within the borders of the main document. I notice also on the EU copy that the block for what was done is gone and if the buyer inserts a lot of information the empty white space on both EU and provider copies goes away quick. There is more than enough room with the Thank You footer removed and the border frames moved down along with no more than 2 lines of Additional Work Performed and even reducing the height of the top header to bring the Work Performed or Resolution back, even possibly a few lines for service dates and hours.
Back to my mention above about visits and previous about flat rate and hourly options. Why not allow the buyer 3 options that also work better for buyer and provider - flat rate with notes on what they expect and maximums before increases occur, hourly with notes on whether travel is included in hours and max travel hours claimable, and per-visit rates. I have seen some buyers try to work around the flat cap system by making notes that the SL is what they expect but it will be billed and paid by an hourly rate of X dollars, or some state that they will pay X dollars per visit after the first or second that the initial covers. Most don’t either by ignorance or by intent to be sneaky but if buyers and providers both aren’t in unison then problems will continue.
December 24th, 2006 at 3:27 am
Thanks a billion to Onforce for making the work orders PDF format look much more better and fancier. I do have request when I make an conditional offer, there should be an text box to explain the conditional offer. Other than that, the new format looks awesome and very fancy looking, and professional. Although, much more improvements can be made in the near future. But let us take baby steps!
thank you Onforce!!!!
Merry Christmas, & Happy New Year!!! God bless!!!
Asif
December 25th, 2006 at 1:08 am
I like the new WO format and appreciate the effort you’ve made towards removing redundant information and cleaning up the layout, please keep up the good work.
I’d like to add my voice to the suggestion box:
1) The end user copy should have a signature space for “Technician” not “End user”
2) Black bars - though currently visually appealing - a waste of resources when it comes to printing. The new format is definitely friendlier to paper usage but now unfriendly to toner usage. I’d like to see a 20% screen or just a white background with normal text instead of the black box and reverse text. You could even go as far as removing the “boxes” completely, and use just a horizontal or vertical rule to separate the sections, again significantly decreasing the needed toner.
3) I’d also like to see the red instructions at the top to be removed. I’m not sure anyone would have an issue understanding what “technician copy” or “end user copy” would mean. This bright red “hey moron, leave this with the end user” is rather insulting. As highly trained technicians, do we need to be treated like children?
Also, I couldn’t help but notice that both the provider copy and the end user copy of the WO have a “page 1″ on them. It feels redundant. I’d prefer to see this removed again to aid in cleaning up the page.
Thank you.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:40 am
This new format proes that Onforce is the leader in it field.
This format also protect the confidentiality of the buyer.
Keep up the good work tean Onforce.
Tech ID 44300
December 27th, 2006 at 5:16 am
“As part of Version 3.4, we are launching a redesigned work order PDF. The new design comes after lots of feedback and research into how our work order PDFs are used, both from providers and buyers”. —
Well, I was never consulted on the new format. I think much improvement is still needed. Just for starters: 1. In designing something that will be printed/faxed; it is a waste of toner/ink when printing/faxing heavy black lines [i.e. Section Headers: “Work to be Performed”, “Additional work Performed”, etc…]. Those of us that have to actually pay for consumables should agree with me on that one. 2. If your going to use “Portrait” then use the Portrait style all through out the work order. If your going to use “Landscape”, then use the Landscape style all through out the work order. After printing out 4 to 5 work orders a day, it becomes very annoying having to re-position pages back and forth while trying to update or read through a work order [for those of you using tablet PCs, have fun with that]. 3. Robert Weaver [December 22nd, 2006 at 9:44 am] has it correct: I agree, not enough space to leave notes on what transpired during the job with these newly designed work orders. But, unlike Robert’s comments [December 22nd, 2006 at 10:11 am]; using the back of the page is not an option for me. When faxing a work order to a client, I have to pay by the page [the more pages I have to fax, the more expenses I incur, which results in less net income for myself - it’s bad enough that I lose 10% of every work order right from the start (reference: Russ Blakeman: December 19th, 2006 at 6:27 pm - nice point), then add the additional kicker of having to pay out of my own pocket to fax back documentation. ugggghhh]. Until “everyone” accepts email attachments for their deliverables [which are free to send or receive by the way] in the place of faxes or mailing in hard copies, all my notes need to be on the printed/top side of the page. Then there is also the fact that on the back of the page there are no lines. I need lines for in order to keep a sentence from running amuck across the page. Duplexing is not an option [single sided laser printer and the fact that I spend too much time with paperwork as it is, manual duplexing would just add to my net hours per work order, leaving less time for play. 4. The “On-Site Dates” needs to mirror the old format. In the old format I had enough space to accommodate at least 4 days of on-site times and room to spare [an additional 2 days if need be] Which is not uncommon for the work orders I accept. Case in point: One of my last jobs took me five days to complete. luckily I was using the old format. 4 days already printed for me, plus additional space to write in the fifth days times, and a “Notes” section I used to keep track of how many PCs I did that day, plus a running total of hours spent on site. If I were using the new format, I would not have been able to fit all that information in a 1 1/4 inch x 2 inch box. Either I would have to have written really, really, really small and hope i could read my writing the next day or have written all that information in the margin of the pages [not very professional]. 5. If your going to use italics, the rule of using italics are [or at least in my book]: characters start diagonal from bottom to top [slanting forwards, not backwards]. 6. You know, I could pick at the new format for days…, but all-in-all, it’s a start in the right direction. Much improvement “is” still needed though . Something easier to read, contains all vital information, space for additional hand written notes, & less pages to print. In my opinion, there really wasn’t much wrong with the old style work order [just add IVR info into the margins and you’ve got yourself a winner]. I do give credit for adding the IVR information among the pages header [shaved two printed pages right off the bat - kudos for that]. If the goal is to have less printed pages; then limit the amount of information that the Buyer can input into each work order in the “Work to be Performed” section [old “Service Details” area] - Thanks for reading, Mark.
December 27th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
After a week or so with this new format I still fail to see (other than better visual appeal) the value in this format over the old horizontal format. It does look better but as mentioned uses more toner/ink and has too much header and footer - this could be squeezed to make more body and this black bar format could be horizontal as well. At first I thought I liked it but too much is on the instructions page that should be on the tech copy and end user copy. Anyway it’s your format so I guess we can work with it. I do have to agree that the “hey stupid leave this with the customer” at the top of the EU copy doesn’t need to be there. Anyone that is that dense that they need this probably needs to be applying for work in food service rather than IT. I’m sure the forms will evolve more and become better and in the meantime I’ll get used to the new system.
I still am pushing for a comments box in the conditional acceptance section of the routed jobs and remove the comments from the rejection section. I know this blog is for the form but it all ties together eventually.
Russ Blakeman
RB Custom Services
http://www.rbcsweb.net
December 29th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
I feel the black bars are wasting black cartridge ink especially if your using an all in one printer.I have written to suggestions@onforce.com a few times to please change this as these black borders are ridiculous to have because of the consumption of blank cartridge ink..If you look at the what use to be the Technician sheet which is now Get End User Signature and Keep there is no place to put the onsite date and times.I know you have it on the provider sheet but why should I print that sheet and waste paper and ink when I only keep the Technician copy for my records.I also feel there should be a line for the technician to sign as well which was taken away.It verifies who you are and that you performed this job with your signature.You can just copy the access code # on the back of the Tech sheet and when onsite just punch it in.I also have a template sheet that has all the codes on it as needed when I have to change the status.In overall I’m not to happy with the new Work Order design.
Best Regards,
RhinoTech
December 30th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
The new look is 100 times better. It has more of a professional, invoice/receipt look to it.
There is one thing I would still like to see:
As a buyer I would like to see a way of slightly modifying the WO’s look. For example there is no place to have our company phone number listed. I would like to display it at the top or bottom of the WO. Our logo is there but we dont have the number in our logo. A perfect option would be to make the “Thank You” text at the bottom modifiable by the Buyer as it is basically our receipt to the client and we should have more control over it.
December 30th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Bravo! Finally a revision that works correctly with Apple preview.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
The new format is easier to read however after using it for a couple of weeks now, I do have a few issues similar to the previous providers.
1) The End User and Technician copy used to be formatted the same. I used carbon paper to print both sections. This way any notes made on the Tech copy were the same on the End User copy instead of me having to take extra time to write twice what tasks I performed on site. We both had a detailed copy with the same information. We both only had to sign the work orders once. Now with the new format, there is not enough room to include this information. And the two copies no longer align the same as sometimes the Work to be Performed area changes between the End User and the Technician copy. Also the Additional work to be performed area does not align with the End User copy. As a result I usually only have a small area on the two forms that matches in alignment where I can write details. Before the customer received an identical work order receipt.
2) The End User and Technician copies need the Tech signature and sevice date fields re-added. Some customers are a little uneasy when we do no sign off on our own work too. Also they felt more confident in signing off on the service dates and time on jobs that paid hourly.
3) I agree the black borders look nice, but use up an unnecessary amount of ink/toner when printing and faxing.
4) The top margin space could be reduced so that the Work Performed areas would have more space for the technician to write in what he did.
5) The Service date and Provider boxes take up too much room as well.
6) The entire work order should be Portrait. When you have several work orders it becomes annoying and unorganized to keep re-orienting the pages. Especially when you are taking notes on the other pages and going back and forth between the Copies to sign and the Technician work order itself.
7) I love the Thank You at the bottom!
Overall, it is a better looking design. Good work!
January 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I’m sure a ton of us use Apple (sarcasm off)
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I like the new work order layout. I’m not sure about using Latin though
In vino veritas.
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
The copy of the workorder that the client signs and he copy send back to he Buyer needs to have the techs resolution on it. So the client is signing off on the work performed
January 4th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
The huge black bars are uncalled for it’s a total waste of ink/toner. Putting the ivr access code just by itself on the first page with nothing else would be nice so I don’t have to try to flip and turn to try to find it and by that time the ivr hangs up on you.
Also space for dates and times of service is Much needed. Also a place for work done would be great.
January 4th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
O and the “Get end user signature and Keep” is way too childish and unprofessional.
January 7th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
It would be nice if ALL WO’s has a logo or name of CO producing WO (like the old ones did)
so when we sort them it makes it eaiser to see where the job came from.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Richard,
The new PDFs and the old PDFs both display buyer logos if the buyer wants them to be displayed, and hides them if the buyer chooses to hide them. This functionality hasn’t changed.
The buyer name is always available on the provider section of the work order PDF.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Well, I guess I’ll chime in with my two cents worth. Overall, the appearance of the work orders is much more appealing. For my part, I have no problems with the red labels. That makes it a little quicker to find which copy goes to the end user.
One thing that I do note is the redundancy of the “Work to be Performed” information between all the sections. I feel that only the Provider Instructions section needs all of the “Work…” information. The end user does not need to see where the parts are drop shipped, tracking info or where we need to fax the finished forms, as the case may be. What the end user should see is a concise desciption of the work to be done, ie: Problem; no power, Solution; replace power supply and test. Or, “Install new workstation, image the drive, connect to intranet and configure printer and test”. That way the end user can clearly understand what is scheduled to be done and can more readily verify that that is what did get done. Without all of the provider only instructions on what the end user sees and signs, there would be ample space to write in any additional notes as needed and have the tech and end user sign.
As with anything in this world, this is a work in progress. Unfortunately, nobody can design a form that will satisfy everyone. I do see improvement with each revision, though.
Happy New Year to all and may we all prosper.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
What happened to the notes and resolution? They don’t print on the finished WO.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Work order notes are printed at the end of the work order. Resolution is not printed since the PDF is intended for use while on-site, and by the time you enter resolution information, you shouldn’t be on-site anymore!
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Well, I know I am late in adding to the blog (as usual) but I like the new ones. I don’t have to adjust printer settings to get the full EU home info anymore.
the “Get the EU sign. and keep” header can go.
I noticed the time thing too, but there is usually plenty of room to add that info on the Provider page 1 - in the “service date” box.
On EU page 1 maybe have the tech’s sign there at the bottom with something like Service Performed by __________ on __________ ?
I don’t buy colored ink… just black and refill them. (saves money that way)
All the recent w/o’s we have had all have 800 # fax # ’s on them so no problem there.
Even tho I don’t like them — sprint does have a deal for unlimited long distance if you have a cell phone of theirs.check into it. Also I have that with the local phone company and an all in one printer that includes a fax.
I really like the IVR info on the same page as the Prov. Ins.
Over all Good Job O.F.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I like it… I do agree that the ‘Leave with customer’ page should have the techs, not the clients signature, and a box to describe exactly what was done.
Otherwise, great.
And to those whiners out there that are complaining about the black bar using too much ink… get for real… dump the inkjet special they gave you for free whith the 299.00 computer you bought at walmart and buy a decent laser, even a used one like a HP5 and you will only spend about 50.00 a year on toner… gee… what a novel idea.