Keep “On Hold” Work Orders Visible on Tech Prioritization Screen
Precision Automotive
Currently, when a work order is placed “On Hold” (waiting for parts, client authorization, etc.), the tile disappears from the technician’s prioritization screen. This creates a breakdown in workflow visibility and accountability.
We are requesting an enhancement where:
• “On Hold” work orders remain assigned to the technician
• These jobs are displayed in a clearly defined “On Hold” section under each technician’s column
• This section should be visually separated from active work
• “On Hold” jobs must NOT count toward the technician’s daily workload or load percentage (consistent with how they are excluded on the Overview screen)
Why this matters:
• Technicians lose visibility of jobs they are still responsible for
• Service consultants and managers lose an accurate real-time picture of workflow
• Jobs risk being forgotten or delayed once removed from view
• Creates unnecessary back-and-forth to track status manually
Operational Impact:
In a high-efficiency shop environment, technicians are often juggling multiple vehicles at different stages. Even when a job is paused, ownership does not change. Keeping these jobs visible ensures:
• Better planning when parts arrive
• Faster re-engagement on paused jobs
• Improved communication between service consultants and technicians
• Stronger accountability across the team
Suggested UI Behavior:
• Add an “On Hold” section at the bottom of each technician’s column
• Greyed-out or visually distinct tiles to indicate paused status
• No impact on load %, hours available, or prioritization calculations
Priority Level:
High – This is a critical workflow improvement for real-world shop operations.
Photo Viewer
View photos in a modal
C
Carrie Hall
"Out of Site, Out of Mind!" It is human nature for "On Holds" to be missed even with best practices. Why is it we are able to see the "On Holds" on the Overview Screen but not the Technicians screen? I believe this feature is long overdue!
Mike Bealer
I wonder if they can group these together. If they are deciding what to prioritize based on number of votes it might be better to combine them.