Time stamps for OLH on Hybrid or ERO

[david byrne]

I'm a Chevy Dealer on UCS and the tech's sign on/off each line as they work on a vehicle; my question is in P&P 1.6.1b and 1.6.2 it states there must be "a system generated "on-time" and "off-time" for all straight time entries". Would that be a seperate entry or would the normal on/off time stamp with my electronic AUTH for the OLH or straight time be exceptable?

Also in reviewing RO's I've seen where tech's may have more flag time then time actually signed on the vehicle, would this be an audit red-flag?

[Service 1]

My experience has been that audits are not generated by just one single item. Out of line warranty expenses, high cost per vehicle, highfrequency opcodes, and total warranty dollars list on the top of your DA report will get you in trouble faster than any single occurance.
In a warranty (friendly ha ha) audit, computer generated punch time can be a double edged sword. If your techs clock time correctly via ERO and document there step by step process with accuracy then you will likely be OK. If your techs do not log time correctly or document well you can get torn to pieces on ERO or hybrid systems.
The best way to stay out of trouble is carefully monitor what is happening in your shop, pre-authorize the tech for OLH and then put your Auth code in after you have reviewed each event. This is or at least can be very time consuming, but, at least you will know exactly what is going on.
To answer your question, regular punch time is usually sufficient, although most of the system do have a seperate function to log OLH.

[This message has been edited by Service 1 (edited 10-22-2002).]

[robc]

My general concern is always that many reps and auditors have limited experience with a pure ERO system and even less with UCS (especially for a GM shop). Having the tech log off and back on to separate punches is easy enough protection and the correct way to do it, but I agree that having one time record for the entire repair job (standard and OLH time) usually not a problem with GM.

More than likely it will be as noted above that the records as a whole will be used to invaliate a claim. If the tech is time recording a few minutes on CP and Int work and then has long periods on warranty claims it can be more damaging.

The other thing to watch for is that the P&P says that management authorization is supposed to come prior to the work being performed. If your authorization is time stamped after the tech's punches this can be an audit issue as well.

Techs that are routinely highly efficient (125%+)in GM warranty probably are an indication of incorrect time recording. GM pays next to nothing so I begin to worry when I see them always beating time.




------------------
** Rob, Editor WD&S **
Help is only a message post away!
robc@dealersedge.com