Use the same reporting period, event definitions and eligible repair group across locations. Read rates and per-repair results alongside their counts, keep missing data distinct from zero, and separate ramping locations. Investigate the underlying repairs before assigning an improvement plan with a baseline, owner and due date.
Define the comparison
Start with the operating question. “Where is more work waiting?” needs current counts. “Which shop has the higher proportion of late work?” needs a rate with a consistent denominator. Delivered sales describe scale, while sales per repair describe a different part of the business. Neither figure alone establishes better performance.
Agree on the date range, included repair statuses and the event that places a repair in the period. For cycle time, use matching start and end events and the same day-counting method. For on-time delivery, establish which promise date the report uses and how it handles missing dates.
Choose meaningful comparison groups. Consider repair mix, insurer mix, available services and whether a location is still ramping up. Keep the whole-group view, but investigate differences within comparable groups before concluding that a manager’s process is the cause. The cycle-time guide covers the definitions behind elapsed-time comparisons.
Calculate the group rate
| Location | On time / eligible | Rate |
|---|---|---|
| North | 90 / 100 | 90% |
| South | 10 / 20 | 50% |
| Combined | 100 / 120 | 83.3% |
The group’s on-time rate is 100 divided by 120, or 83.3%. Averaging the two location rates gives 70%. That second calculation answers a different question: the average shop rate, giving each shop equal weight regardless of volume. Label the calculation so a reader knows which question it answers.
Use the eligible delivery counts as weights for this metric. Do not reuse those weights for survey scores or supplement approval rates, which have different eligible records. For an aggregate gross profit margin, total the eligible revenue and costs, then divide total gross profit by total revenue and multiply by 100. Use the same cost definitions across locations; a zero-revenue group has no meaningful percentage.
North also has ten late deliveries and South has ten. Equal counts create equal-sized follow-up lists here, but they represent different proportions of each shop’s eligible work. Read both count and rate before deciding where support will help.
Check the evidence
Sample size describes how many eligible observations support a result. Coverage describes how much of the intended work has usable data. A figure can have a large delivery count but poor timer coverage, or complete records for a very small number of survey responses. Both limitations matter.
Show unknown or unscored records separately. Missing tracked time is not zero labor, absent cost is not free material, and a repair without a usable promise date is not automatically on time. Review the excluded records before interpreting a sudden improvement.
AutoHound MSO applies separate sample checks to cycle time, on-time delivery and supplement lag. Low-sample results remain visible but are excluded from that metric’s ranking. Quality and satisfaction use their own checks, and ramping locations appear separately. Check the displayed rule for the metric being reviewed; do not assume one threshold or scoring method applies everywhere.
Keep profit in context
Compare financial results on the same basis. Delivered sales, payments received and outstanding receivables describe different events. A strong billing week can coexist with collections still awaiting follow-up. When viewing receivables, retain the shop and responsible payer so the balance leads to a useful action.
AutoHound’s Gross Profit report uses pre-tax job revenue with parts, sublet, paint materials and modeled labor costs based on booked hours and configured rates. That labor model is not actual payroll. Differences in configured costs or missing inputs need review before interpreting a margin gap between locations.
Use report definitions and coverage notes alongside the multi-shop view. Carry the period, eligibility and cost assumptions into any exported analysis so a spreadsheet does not lose the context shown on screen.
Assign the next step
Open several repairs behind a concerning result and look for a repeated, verifiable cause. Ten late deliveries could involve parts, approvals, outside work or missed handoffs. A lower rate identifies where to investigate; it does not tell you which intervention will work.
For example, if review finds repeated unconfirmed sublet return dates, assign the location manager to establish a daily confirmation routine. Record the current affected count, the intended improvement, the owner and the review date. Choose a target that fits the evidence rather than inventing an industry benchmark.
At the next review, use the same definitions and check both the result and whether the action happened. AutoHound MSO supports plans with a baseline, target, owner and due date. The team and vendor communication guide helps turn that plan into clear daily follow-up.
Shop checklist
- State the question and reporting period.
- Use matching event and metric definitions.
- Select a meaningful comparison group.
- Show the numerator, denominator and rate together.
- Calculate group rates from eligible underlying counts.
- Review missing data, sample size and coverage.
- Keep ramping locations identifiable.
- Confirm cost assumptions before comparing profit.
- Assign an action, owner, target and review date.
All worked examples are illustrative, not customer results or industry benchmarks.