 |  |
Alan Williamson wrote:
Re: Usage billing
From: Shawn Hogan
Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2004
Time: 11:09:27 am
> I understand what you're thinking, but in reality it doesn't matter where we
> set the limit. A percentage of customers will always go over it, and most
> often by fairly insignificant amounts. If we write those amounts off (using
> "omit"), they'll soon learn that we do it and eventually they'll push it too
> far. (We already have three different plans/limits for one type of product,
> and we see over-usage every month at every level).
Well, putting a "must be over $xx.xx to charge for usage" would still end up
being the same thing. As they would never know unless they went over that
amount.
> (Customers follow Boyle's Law for Gases: they instantly use all of the
> available capacity you give them. Unlike gas though, they don't know when to
> stop.)
>
> Here's an idea I was thinking of that I hope you like. I think it would be
> great, giving us the flexibility we'd like with minimal manual work.
>
> The idea involves two steps to the process of billing excess usage, using
> Pending Charges as a sort of "preview". Here's how I picture it.
>
> Part 1 of the process involves a monthly function (could be launched by the
> auto-tasks workstation maybe, or from the GUI) that bills the excess usage
> charges (for completed months in our case) as pending charges. It doesn't
> raise invoices, but it does turn the excess usage amounts into dollar amounts.
> This has the advantage that excess usage is charged at the then current rate,
> which is great if you change rates down the track and have old charges at old
> rates that haven't been invoiced.
>
> Part 2 of the process would be a new function which would enhance the
> abilities of pending charges in the process. Simply, a function like
> "Generate Invoices" (or maybe becoming part of that) which checks on pending
> charges not yet billed, shows a $ total for each customer and has an "Omit"
> button (like generate invoices). Think of it like a preview mode for
> invoicing pending charges.
>
> A system like this would be ideal for us, and I think it would add value to
> "Pending charges" too. I also suspect it wouldn't be as much work as it first
> appears based on my limited understanding of filemaker intricacies.
>
> I guess I'll leave this thought with you. I'd love to see it, I think others
> would also, but it's your code. I do appreciate the change you've already
> made though.
Hmmmm... that might be a good idea... I'll look into it.
- Shawn
----------------------------------
Shawn D. Hogan
President, Digital Point Solutions
http://www.digitalpoint.com
(858) 452-3696
---------------------------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe or to search list archive
please visit http://www.optigold.com/lists/isp.html
---------------------------------------------------
Messages In This Thread:
Return to Digital Point Solutions' Home Page
| home | |
| products | |
| services | |
| support | |
| email lists |
| optigold isp | |
| optigold isp news | |
| home inspection | |
| inspectrix | |
| java companion | |
| oracle | |
| quickdns pro | |
| search engine | |
| veterinary |
| tips | |
| employees | |
| free tools | |
| portfolio | |
| jobs | |
| contact |
888/4-DPOINTSupport:
858/452-3696