Work Ticket Division vs Opportunity Division Change

Yes, I just submitted a care ticket last week about this same exact thing because when I used Aspire years ago I thought I recalled it being setup the way you’re referencing, too! They did confirm that when looking at this info on the work ticket level, it’s  based off of whatever division the service falls under on the estimate, and that allows work tickets to be analyzed more granularly (by service division). The division that’s assigned on ‘page 1’ of the opportunity creation screen is more for sales tracking purposes, and allows for divisional sales reporting on the opportunity level. You’re not going crazy. I thought I remembered years ago it being setup the way you're referring to and also had to ask about the change! Hope that helps!

Are you dsplaying division in a Work Ticket list or Opportunity list?  Service (Work TIcket) Division is unique from Opportunity Division.  The two have never been connected to one another in the system.  The Opp division is intened as a sales (Sold job not revenue) reporting field only and does not mechanically effect the division of the Serivces (Work TIckets) within the estimate. The division assignment of the Service (WT) is driven by the assigned Service Type in the Service Record in admin.  This determines what Division revenue and actual costs are booked to by the system and then to your P&L.  In many instances, certainly likey in a WO with one (or few) Services (WT), the Opp Division and Service Division are likely equal., however this isn’t the result of system mechanics.

Yep, I’m tracking you on all that. What I’m highlighting here is that I think the data source for the displayed division has changed (probably correctly, but annoyingly). My claim is that when viewing Work Tickets, the Division displayed there was pulling from the Division in the Opportunity; and now it is pulling from the Service Division the Work Ticket is tied to. I’m fairly certain at some point in the past I could change the division in an opportunity from, say Maintenance to Landscape, and that change would then be reflected on any work tickets for that opportunity when I would view them in Work Tickets. But now that is not the case. Now, the way it is currently set up is probably the proper way for the reasons as you described above, but I’m now obligated to update the filters on some of my lists. If I want to see aggregated Work Ticket data for Landscape Division Work Tickets, there may be some tickets (that are a part of a Landscape Division Opportunity) that fall through the cracks because they now display Maintenance as their Division because of the Service Division.

Additionally, the fact that Opportunity Division and Service Division are not tied together raises complications--I’ll explain. Revenue is exported to our accounting system according to the Service Division as you explained above. So when looking at our revenue in our accounting system, it may say each division earned a, b, and c dollars of revenue. But when we compare that to Opportunity data in Aspire, it may say our divisional revenue is x, y, and z, because there are services within a single opportunity that go to multiple divisions. I see only two solutions: duplicating all the services we have that might cross divisions, and make sure we’re only putting in the service that matches the division the opportunity will be; or by making journal entries in our accounting system to align with the opportunity data, both of which are prone to errors.

I can’t swear to it….But I do not believe the division reporting at the ticket level ever worked the way you suggest.  I’ll let the Aspire tech team speak to that.

As for your second paragraph, I would never suggest (Nor would Aspire) that you look at divisional revenue in an Opp report/list.  Revenue and COGS should always to evaluated and reported from the Work TIcket level if wanting it by division.  Additionally, If you are looking for revenue and COGS by month, you must only do so from either a Work Ticket list in a P&L or EOM report.  Both the P&L and EOM are driven by Service (WT) level data not opportunity.  Opportunity level reporting should only be used to evaluate the overall job performance regardless of division.

Fair enough, like I said, it’s just going to require a lot of work on our part I think to restructure our Service and Item Catalogs…

That said, with the exception of carry-over sales, shouldn’t the revenue we sell match the revenue we earn? If I sell $1M in Landscape revenue and $1M in Maintenance revenue according to my Opportunities, that should be reflected in my accounting system (or EOM report for the year, Work Ticket data, etc.). But instead I’ll see something like $900k in Landscape and $1.1M in Maintenance because there were inevitably Maintenance services within some of those Landscape Opportunities. But it’s still a job as a whole sold by and performed by our landscape team, so they should get the P&L recognition. I don’t care that Perennial Install or Mulch Install is normally a Maintenance service, this time it was Landscape and should be recorded as such. This is my beef. I either have to duplicate these services, or journal entry the revenue.

If you compare reveneue from an Opp report and a WT report yes you will likely see a difference.  I think the idea is that Earned revenue nor COGS by division were ever intended to be reported or evaluated at an Opp level in Aspire. It was always inteneded and I have always understood it to be viewed from a Service (WT) level.