Re-contract Process Redesign

Background

When price, business entity, disposal facility, or work location changes, the existing contract ends and a re-contract is signed. The onboarding team manually moved the recorded collection volume to the new contract and reassigned its schedules. Items were missed when volume was high. If those gaps surfaced at settlement, the settlement and sales teams also had to help check them.

Schedules already in progress could not move immediately. Operators had to wait for them to end and return to finish the transfer. Missing that moment left gaps in the new contract’s schedules and led to missed collections.

I led the planning, working with accounting and CX to identify recurring support requests and exceptions. I defined when automatic transfers were allowed, agreed on the screens and handling rules with designers and developers, and followed through with QA.

Automation scope by re-contract reason

Treating every re-contract the same is itself risky. I first defined, per reason, whether volume transfer and schedule auto-reflection apply.

I first separated changes to billing terms from changes to how collection actually happens. A price or business-entity change can preserve existing work and dispatch when the waste, processing route, and collection conditions remain the same. A different hauler, operator, or location changes who collects and where. Linking the new contract to the same vehicle, driver, and route needs a separate decision, so I distinguished transferring recorded work from keeping future schedules.

Waste type and the Allbaro disposal plan are not display-only information. Waste-treatment permits specify the waste and activities covered, and Allbaro handover records must match the actual discharge, transport, and treatment relationships. A new contract does not establish that the existing permit scope or handover information still applies. I therefore excluded changes to waste type or disposal plan from automatic transfer and required separate review.

Adding a disposal facility is also different from replacing one. An addition preserves the route recorded in earlier work; a replacement can leave the actual facility missing from the new contract. Automation therefore requires retaining existing processors and checking that the facility recorded for the work is included in the destination contract.

Permit-scope reference: Waste Control Act, Article 25 (Korean).

○ automatic · △ conditional · × excluded. Auto-transfer and schedule changes are blocked when the waste type differs, or when an Allbaro site’s disposal plan differs.

Volume-transfer automation

Transferring work volume changes which contract and rates bill that work; it is not just copying a number. Moving already-invoiced work would separate an issued invoice from the contract behind its supporting records. I limited transfers to unbilled work belonging to the previous contract and falling within the re-contract period, with the new contract’s start date as the default filter.

Operators usually move a whole period of work, but billing agreements and work types can create exceptions. They can select a date range, inspect waste type, work time, and volume, and exclude individual items. I added a separate review step so they would not have to check every transfer exception while saving the contract.

Switching between bag delivery and other plans is not a simple price change either. Delivering bags and collecting waste have different work categories and billing bases, so reusing the same records under a new plan requires separate review. Changes outside the permitted name, period, rate, and other fields block automatic transfer.

Missing discounts or surcharges could produce under- or overbilling on the new contract, so all entries valid for its period—including zero-value entries—carry over. Preventing deletion while unbilled work or unsettled invoices remain also preserves the contract needed to finish settlement.

Status-based schedule transfer

An in-progress schedule could not move immediately, but operators should not have to wait and return either. Unstarted schedules move at once; those already underway transfer automatically after completion.

A schedule’s work location is also the collection target a driver sees in the field. Changing its contract mid-run can separate the information used to start work from the contract that receives the result. Simply excluding in-progress schedules would leave operators waiting and returning manually. I chose immediate transfer for unstarted work and a pending queue that resumes automatically when the schedule ends.

Completed work and schedules before the re-contract start date must remain records of the original contract, so they are excluded from reassignment. Regular and ad-hoc work continue an existing dispatch, but one-off requests can arrive without a schedule yet. Those requests follow a separate assignment flow, with relevant recorded work handled through unbilled-work transfer. Separately managed add-on work is likewise distinct from automatic schedule changes.

The contract detail distinguishes transferred immediately, pending, and pending-then-transferred, so operators can tell a request from a completed move. Admins execute transfers and partners can inspect results, separating permission to change work and dispatch from permission to review them.

Post-launch refinements

The first implementation ran the transfer twice at the activation batch — via two paths — and left no history. I removed the history-less immediate-swap path, consolidated onto the single history-keeping path, and corrected the timing to run at contract end (when a successor contract exists) rather than at activation.

Later checks found missing work in the gap immediately after a transfer and missing schedules where the two contracts overlapped. I refined the conditions to check overlapping contract dates together with schedule state.

Reduced manual support after re-contracting

Eligible unbilled work and schedules transfer automatically, including in-progress schedules once they end, without another manual action. After this shipped with bulk copy, re-contract support requests—including schedule and Allbaro handling—fell from 80 to 27.

Combined operational counts for re-contract redesign and bulk copy. These are support-request counts, not handling time or a rate normalized by workload.