HOT TOPIC
‘Cable
certifiers
are one of
the most
expensive
pieces of
equipment in
the kit bag.’
However, it is clear that for
many, purchasing a number
of cable certifiers makes cash
flow difficult and, on occasion,
occupies budget that may have
been better spent on other
projects or equipment. This
challenge to cash flow can have
a knock-on effect, reducing
flexibility to spend within the
business as other needs arise.
The research found that
investment in equipment often
delivers seemingly poor ROI.
This was par ticularly true in
businesses with a lower level
of cer tifier usage. In these
cases, the fixed purchase cost
of a cer tifier can be an almost
crippling capital expense.
Furthermore, in some
operations, different test
equipment is being purchased
for copper and fibre. As well as
increasing the burden of equipment
in an already full kit bag or on the
van, this increases expenditure
and reduces ROI still further.
Send test data
from anywhere
with the LanTek III.
Sharing testers doesn’t work Data sharing is a disaster
To try and reduce the quantity
of certifiers that need to be
purchased, the research found
that many businesses attempt
to share them between their
workforce. So, rather than
equipping each van with a certifier,
as and when a certifier is needed,
it is couriered out to a particular
installer at the job site, usually
from a central office location.
While on the sur face this
may seem to offer a commercial
benefit, our research shows
that, in actual fact, the costs
and administration involved in
shipping cer tifiers to different
locations can amount to a
considerable expense. This is
especially true where installers
are working across a large
geographical area.
Another problem with this
approach that the research
uncovered, is that it can cause
delays in carrying out and
completing jobs. Jobs that require
a warranty simply cannot be
completed without a cer tifier.
However, sometimes all available
cer tifiers are in use elsewhere,
or it takes time for the unit to
reach the installer on site. This
can prevent installers from being
able to carry out billable work.
It can also cause jobs to run for
longer than planned, preventing
installers from moving onto other
jobs, which may potentially be
more profitable. Even if an installer gets their
hands on a certifier, goes on
site and conducts the required
tests within the desired time
frame, there are still challenges
to overcome in order to complete
the job. The research discovered
that in some cases, installers
conduct the necessary tests
for certification, but then have
to send the certifier back to
the office for the data to be
transferred. It is only once this has
been done that a customer can be
given a warranty.
Data cable installers going
from job to job on the road are
facing similar issues, sometimes
waiting for days before reaching
a hotel where the internet
connection is sufficient for
uploading the test data. Only
after this has been received
can the necessary repor ting be
done at the office and the job
completed and billed.
The research showed that the
time to complete this process from
testing with a certifier to invoicing
the customer can be up to two
weeks. These delays inevitably
hurt cash flow.
In addition, both of these
data sharing scenarios risk the
loss of test data. In the event
that test data is lost the site
will need to be visited again for
re-testing, resulting in reduced
margins for the job and delaying
invoicing further still. Likewise,
neither process enables technical
managers to check the job has
been done correctly until after the
technician has left the site, which
may mean an installer has to take
the time revisiting the site.
Unfair upgrades,
unexpected costs
During the course of the research,
some interviewees revealed their
frustration that support was being
discontinued for certifiers that
they had only recently purchased.
With certifiers being such a
significant capital outlay, many
of the businesses spoken to were
simply not in a position to upgrade
their certifier, despite this seeming
like the only option available.
In addition, unexpected costs
associated with repairs and
maintenance were identified as
July 2017 | 17