Pitching Onroute

“What we’ve got works fine”

This is the most common objection, and the hardest to answer, because it is partly true. Jobs get booked, engineers turn up, invoices go out.

The problem is what you cannot see. When the tool stops at the invoice, people work around it. The DNO notifications live in someone’s sent folder, the grant claims in a spreadsheet, the certificates in a camera roll, and next week’s plan on a whiteboard nobody photographs. The tool still ‘works’, but it holds a fraction of the job.

So the conversation worth having is not whether the current tool works. It is how much of every job lives in people’s heads because the tool has nowhere to put it.

“Switching now would be too disruptive”

It comes from a good place. Nobody wants to change systems in the middle of a busy month, and the last thing an office manager needs is a move that eats a fortnight.

But the disruption of moving is paid once. The disruption of staying is paid every week: retyping the quote into the invoice, chasing the DNO by hand, ringing engineers to find out where a job is.

It is also smaller than people expect. Onroute is free to start, so one crew can run on it beside the current tool for a few weeks and let the results make the case. Customers and jobs come across from a spreadsheet, with a dry run before anything is written. The pilot guide sets it out step by step.

“We’ve put too much into our current set-up”

Everything built into the old tool is there because the office needed it: the statuses, the job types, the price list, the templates. Onroute has a place for each of those, set up your way. A job type carries its own certificates and statuses, so the paperwork attaches itself when the job is created.

What the old set-up cannot do is the second half of the job. The question is not how much has gone into it. It is whether it was built for the job as it is now: the certificate, the notification, the claim, and a customer who books from their phone.

Make the case with your own jobs