ARCHIVE FOR THE ‘features’ CATEGORY

Despite different operating models, companies from all over the globe can benefit from an aggregated approach to field service mangement writes Marne Martin, CEO ServicePower

We know that differences exist country to country, industry to industry, company to company.  One of the benefits of working with some of the largest brands in the world is that you get a great feel for the latest trends and best practices.  You also get a front row seat in watching academic strategy and real world operations collide.

A great example of this is corporate moves toward global applications and business management platforms.  Sure, the philosophies and strategies behind the initiatives are sound but they can sure conflict with reality….big time.

Take the US and UK as an example.  Both are English speaking nations with many similarities in culture, religion, music and brands.  However, pick a service and industry – managing OE warranty or extended service contract fulfilment for white goods.

 

The US relies predominately on independent service contractors, requiring at least 1,500 a 5 hour difference across time zones. This requires greater network management and field leadership, and call centre coverage and software to manage a wide range of brands, products, skills, selection, and status updates. It also requires a robust claims adjudication software that is highly efficient at preventing fraud and overpayments but easy enough to manage efficiently and pay claims quickly.

The UK is vastly different. With 1 time zone, it requires only 50-200 contractors, and fewer when manufacturers employ technicians.

Improved response time and greater efficiencies have pushed the industry to adopt what ServicePower calls a ‘mixed labour model’ wherein ‘job sources’ like manufacturers, service contract administrators, retailers, and even insurance companies, utilise some percentage of contracted labour, in addition to employed labour, to deliver upon customer commitments.

In a perfect world, those job sources deploy technology to manage the contractors, intelligently determine if an employed field resource or a contracted resources is the best option (based on parameters), dynamically dispatch the highest ranked contractor, secure job updates, adjudicate claims for services provided and finally, pay the independent contractors, and get feedback from the customer.  This model varies by industry and local parameters, but can work to drive value for both customers and field service organisations the world over.

In North America, those job sources, let’s call them manufacturers for simplicity’s sake, have consolidated all jobs which require independent contractor delivery onto aggregated software platforms, like our own ServiceOperations. Aggregation onto a common platform leads itself to additional economics of scale and advantages to drive the customer response times and productivity measures that enable a field service operation to be efficient.  This is much more than a mobile dispatch platform.

In that aggregation model, the job sources dictate that all contractors performing work on their behalf are first credentialed, and then invited to set up profiles- the who, what, where and when they can deliver services, then receive and manage work orders and finally file claims on a single software platform.

 

This dramatically streamlines contractor and warranty management. For the contractors, this aggregated approach also increases adoption and reduces overhead costs because a high volume of their daily workload comes from a single platform, which in many cases is integrated with the field service management software they use to manage their own operations.

ServicePower has even gone so far as to offer an end-to-end, cloud based field service management software, NEXUS FS^TM, already integrated with ServiceOperations, to further streamline contractor operations. We also provide Optimization on Demand^TM, enabling contractors to maximize the productivity of their field representatives, much like large enterprises do with our ServiceScheduling product, on demand, rather than in real time.   So the effect is very much a ‘push’ to the platform from the party responsible for paying for the service.

In the UK, the model is slightly different.

Those same manufacturers, that meet their obligations in the UK generally through the retailer or service contract/extended cover providers, typically have a high percentage of employees to perform ‘branded service’. So, whereas in the US, the manufacturers have forced aggregation onto the marketplace, pushing work to contractors, in the UK, the manufacturers are on the receiving end of work from multiple job sources, in multiple different ways.  However, manufacturers suffer from the same inefficiencies and increased overheads based on dealing with faxes, emails and numerous home-grown dispatching systems, as the third party contractors suffered from in the US till the early 2000s.

 

Regardless of the differences in each country’s model, this same fundamental aggregation model has immense value to the UK market, perhaps ever more related to filling capacity in employee bases. Consolidation on to innovative platforms that are easy to use has real value for continued growth in adoption by the field service industry.  For job sources dispatching service on a particular branded white good, the manufacturers have begun to dictate that all work orders come through a single platform, ServiceOperations.  And this can be expanded to other product segments, whether home health care equipment, IOT sensors, electric car rechargers- you name it.

The aggregation model works because a single integrated software enables the manufacturer (or retailer or third party administrator) to receive, confirm acceptance, provide status updates and in cases where they require supplemental contractor coverage, dispatch work to their own preferred independent contractors, paying for services rendered.

This model is a very much a push to the aggregation platform from the party responsible to the consumer, and not necessarily the obligor.

The true benefit of an aggregated dispatching model is the ability to aggregate work orders or jobs from a variety of sources, improving operational efficiencies and reducing costs, for every member of the service delivery chain, from the job source, the retailer or extended cover provider in the middle, to the consumer at the end.

 

---

 

Be social and share this feature

As the field workforce of many companies begins to go through perhaps the greatest cultural shift in modern history, it is vital that companies begin paying attention to the stars within their midst and help them grow into more senior roles.

Jennifer Lescallett, Affymetrix, explained exactly why and how we can achieve this during a presentation at Field Service Medical earlier this year...

Apparently only 10% of companies spend time developing their top talent. This is despite the fact that talent acquisition and retention is a critical area for most companies. In field service where training engineers to maintain a specific set of devices can be both a long and costly endeavour this is perhaps magnified even further.

So why doesn’t nurturing our top talent take more of a front seat?

“As leaders of Service and Support organizations, we are all hard-wired to fight fires and resolve immediate issues facing our customers. We want our customers to be successful, our teams to have the resources to make it happen, and for our businesses to thrive. Given the many day-to-day issues that arise, it can be difficult to carve out time to strategize and focus on top-talent. It is undeniably, however, our most important job,” explained Jennifer Lescallett, Senior Director, Affymetrix, at Field Service Medical held a little earlier this year.

“Focusing on individuals in our company that are earmarked for those future jobs takes time and it’s time that we need to allocate away from all the distractions of our daily work environment,” she continued.

 

Identifying potential stars given the above it’s crucial that as a first step you can identify those with genuine potential.

“Imagine the bell curve” Lescallett explains “At one side of the curve you have your lower performers, people that haven’t employed all of the best practices. In the middle you have those people who are solid, steady team players who love what they do – fixing issues and working with customers.”

“And then there is the final part of the curve, the top performers; this is where the focus needs to be.”

However, Lescallett advises that we then drill deep into these high performers to find those that can fill future leadership roles.

“These are people on your team that have curiosity and deep engagement. They are the ones that face adversity with determination and grit. And they have a way of looking at a customer problem and knowing intuitively how to resolve it.” Lescallett explains

“People with these high potential qualities also want to be engaged at the strategic level. They have insight into your organisation and a keen ability to connect the dots. Their capacity for learning is vigorous and expansive. They feed off of challenges and high-stakes situations.”

Lescallett herself has adopted a three part process for identifying and developing talent.

The process is identified as:

1. Developing success profiles

2. Assessing and reviewing your talent strategy

3. Executing the plan

“The first two steps are relatively easy. You can lock you and your team away in a day-long, closed door session. Don’t forget to leave your phones and computer at the door and delegate the fire-fighting to someone else. Use this precious time to get your talent plan aligned, develop success profiles and assess your organisation."

"It is the third element, however, that is the trickiest to implement because it means scheduling time to devote to it on a routine basis,” she says.

Let’s take a look through each of the stages.

 

There are three key steps in developing your success profiles Lescallett suggests.

The first of these is defining the behaviours that drive success.

“You want someone who can identify a need and has the enthusiasm and energy to figure out a solution. You want someone that can think out of the box, that’s truly creative, that works well in a team or whatever the key behaviours are that you are seeking in future leaders.”

“You have to then build the competencies around the behaviours that you want.”

“Next you have to define the destination roles in your organisation."

Maybe it is an assignment in a new territory/geography you are expanding into, or maybe it’s leading in a small business unit  within the organisation for example.”

“It is important to help people not only build their expertise in the service and support department but also make sure that they can rotate through different groups within the organisation” she adds

The second process Lescallett suggests is to use different models to assess future ability.

“One approach that has been very successful is using 360-Degree Assessments from Zenger Folkman. The participant obtains feedback from direct reports, managers, and peers on a range of competencies along with written comments about strengths, weaknesses, and fatal flaws. You get in return an anonymous feedback assessment that helps the person identify strengths they can build upon.” The report helps the employee create a career development plan with their manager or mentor.

 

While the 360 report is a tool for the employee, the leadership team can use other tools like a talent grid to assess the organization as a whole. This provides a way of comparing and contrasting the organization and getting a better feel for the talent pool.

Lescallett explains that “there are many ways of evaluating teams, including a matrix format mapping them on a grid, with potential being the x axis and performance being the y axis – this is a particularly useful and commonplace tool for visualising exactly who on your team have both the potential and the work ethic to step into a leadership role, whilst also helping you see who could potentially be in need of more coaching and guidance.”

Another avenue for critical feedback is getting the opinions of more than just the line managers, says Lescallett.

“Certainly they [line managers] have a very good idea of where their team is, but it’s important to get assessment from a range of leaders in the business because people can see different things in different individuals.”

“It’s often easy to spot the ‘racehorses’. Those that come into an organization and are raring to go, always making contributions and searching for more. However, there are diamonds in the rough that are worth unearthing too,” she explains.

“People that might have the technical skills but haven’t fully refined some of the leadership skills you need in the organization. You have nurture them and build on their strengths. It is important not to discount those who may not be 100% polished yet.”

The final process Lescallett suggests is a broad review of the data.

“You should review the group data as a team of managers to make sure that other teams like Marketing and Sales are evaluating their teams in the same way that you are evaluating yours.”

As a manager, mentor or coach, it’s vital to set the expectations that a person’s career is their responsibility – they own it. A person may have all of the qualities of being high potential, but it’s up to them to pave the way for their own success.

One thing is certain though, building a healthy pipeline of future leaders is critical for the success of every business.

 

---

 

Be social and share this feature

Switching from paper to digital mobile forms can  transform field service maintenance operations, says Mark Scott, Vice President Marketing, ProntoForms.

Mobile technologies have taken over our personal lives, enabling us to be more productive and efficient as we shop, consume and communicate daily. When it comes to operations and maintenance in field services, however, mobile technology has been slow to permeate our workforce. Operations and maintenance are critical to ensuring safety, compliance and productivity in field services. Yet, many  maintenance practices today are still relying on paper-based processes that are error-prone, vulnerable to audits, and overall, highly inefficient.

Manual maintenance procedures hinder productivity and add unnecessary steps to operation practices hurting your company’s bottom line. For many businesses, ineffective internal practices also don’t guarantee that safety compliances are being enforced.

Mobile forms technology offers an end-to-end solution for a company’s maintenance programme, by enabling users to accurately collect and store field data, then easily share it in real time with key stakeholders.

Mobile forms bring many benefits to any field services operation. Here are five examples of how a mobile solution can make your business operate more efficiently and ensure your customers take notice:[ordered_list style="decimal"]

1. Embed rich media in your reports
   Sometimes words alone cannot accurately capture a problem or issue in field work, but a picture can tell a thousand words. Mobile forms allow maintenance inspectors to sketch and annotate directly on photos from the job site to highlight specific concerns. In addition to taking pictures on site, images like equipment diagrams can also be pre-loaded onto a form for field workers to reference. Mobile form providers are also offering barcode scanning and audio functions within forms as well so users can include richer field data.
2. Informed decision-making and a logical workflow
   Data gathered in the field is meant to ensure that operational standards are reached and exceeded, but it’s important that the data is communicated in a timely manner and shared with the right people. Mobile forms can be configured to automatically send completed maintenance forms to specific supervisors and decision-makers within a company, based on the data entered. If an inspection pinpoints a safety concern, that form can be configured to automatically send a report to a safety compliance manager. What’s more, maintenance forms can also be scored by the severity of the issue, and if a major maintenance breach is revealed, key stakeholders can be alerted through SMS messages and social media.
3. Business intelligence with analytics
   Analytics can provide a wealth of information, as maintenance trends can be compared over time. This means that a company can leverage its previous response to a maintenance issue and also determine whether this issue had arisen in the past. With mobile forms, in-depth analytics reports can also be scheduled for regular delivery to key supervisors and decision makers. Since field service data can be logged as it happens through mobile devices, these decision makers can analyse performance and spot hidden business trends in real time to predict potential issues or mitigate risks.
4. Dispatching inspections
   Field service workers need to provide accurate and in-depth maintenance inspections, however, they are also pressed for time and need to move on to the next job. Across all departments, improving productivity and automating mundane and repetitive tasks is essential, but this is especially critical for your maintenance programme. By using mobile forms technology, maintenance jobs can be dispatched to specific field workers, which saves valuable time. This means that field workers can avoid unnecessary trips to the head office to receive their next assignment, which gives them more time to spend in the field and conduct detailed inspections.
5. Calendar invites for follow-ups
   Irrespective of the size or efficiency of your field workers, it’s imperative to prioritise tasks and optimize workflows. High-risk maintenance concerns need to be addressed immediately, while less critical issues can wait. However, these low-risk concerns still require a response. As soon as non-critical issues are discovered, field workers can use mobile forms technology to schedule a maintenance technician and send calendar invites while they’re on the go at other appointments

 Now more than ever, it’s critical to take maintenance procedures to the next level by adopting the right type of technology. Businesses utilising mobile technology will see increased productivity and reduced costs, while quality of service is improved and risks are mitigated. When it comes to operations and maintenance don’t let your company fall behind the rest of the industry.

 

---

 

Be social and share this article.

With a strong Wi-Fi signal and your trusty smartphone, it’s easy to stay connected on land,  but how do communications  change when you’re in the middle of the ocean or orbiting in space?

They’re both extreme field service scenarios, but which is better for communication? Global Navigation Solutions has been investigating who can connect better — crew or astronauts?

Life at sea

The Maritime Labour Convention 2006 advises that ship operators should give crews “reasonable access to ship-to-shore telephone communications, and email and Internet facilities, where available, with any charges for the use of these services being reasonable in amount”. But just how closely are operators following these guidelines?

Between April and August 2015, the 2015 Crew Connectivity Survey was carried out to establish what crew communications at sea are really like.

On average, respondents spent over 7 months per year at sea. A mission to the International Space Station (ISS) lasts around six months. Despite being in the earth’s atmosphere, it seems crews are often less connected than astronauts in orbit .

While 58% of respondents said they had access to crew communications always or most of the time — this is up 2% on 2014’s results. However, 35% of respondents only have access sometimes. 7% have never had access while on-board. While this may seem a small percentage, it equates to 103,000 global seafarers who have no way of contacting loved ones — up 25,000 since 2014.

 

Across all sectors, of those surveyed:[unordered_list style="bullet"]

• 79% had access to satellite telephone,  the  most widely available communication method.
• Only 43% had internet access.
• 42% had access to text-only emails.
• 28% had access to onboard GSM.
• 24% had access to SMS messaging.

On land, we can stay connected almost anywhere, with the exception of mountain peaks and remote locations. At sea, it’s a very different story.

• [unordered_list style="bullet"]
  • 47% can access crew communications on the ship’s bridge
  • Just 36% of respondents can access crew communications privately in their cabin
  • 35% can access crew communications in a communal area
  • 29% can access crew communications in an on-board office
  • 13% can access crew communications in the engine control room

When these services are available, only 18 % there were no limiting factors; 59% said the services are too expensive, 27% 27% said too many people were trying to use them and 26% said they don’t get regular use.

Clearly, cost is a major drawback for many crew members.  Just over half (53%) has free access to text-only email, 49% has free Internet access and email with attachments, 41% could have video chats, 24% could access free SMS messaging, while on-board GSM for voice calls was available to only 12% and satellite phones to 7%.

In port

Where crew communications are limited on-board, there is potential to stay in touch with family and friends when the ship is in port. However, 72% never or rarely go ashore during port calls and just 6% are able to go ashore on every port call

Of those who do go ashore, 28% use crew welfare facilities while in port and 34% used internet/Wi-Fi services, 6% used the telephone and 4% purchased local SIM cards.

Is rank a factor?

Of the 3,057 total respondents from over 30 countries, 59% of were officers and 41% were ratings. 32% of officers always have access to crew communications. Just 27% of ratings always have access.

So, how effective has the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 been? On the whole, the majority believe crew communications has improved. However, 39% said it had not improved since it was introduced and 3% said it had even got worse.

Life in Space

“But even with all the technology that we have today -- satellites, buoys, underwater vehicles and ship tracks -- we have better maps of the surface of Mars and the moon than we do the bottom of the ocean. “ — Gene Feldman

Over the years, our knowledge and exploration of space has grown. As technology has advanced, it’s being used to make the lives of astronauts more comfortable during explorations.

 

The Intergalactic Internet

In 2010, NASA enhanced the quality of life of astronauts with the release of a special software update that allowed them personal access to the internet.

Expedition 22’s Flight Engineer, T.J. Creamer was the first to use the intergalactic internet, posting the following tweet: "Hello Twitterverse! We r now LIVE tweeting from the International Space Station - the 1st live tweet from Space! :) More soon, send your ?s"

Speed

While the internet may ease the isolation of space, it doesn’t offer the quickest connection, as a result of the distance signals have to travel. In 2015, astronaut Scott Kelly tweeted while in space: “We have a slow internet connection. Worse than what dial-up was like. Using it to answer your question right now.”

When an astronaut in space clicks an Internetlink, the request travels 22,000 miles to a network of geosynchronous satellites. This is passed to a receiver on the Earth before being passed back to the astronaut’s laptop or tablet.

Accessing the Internet

According to NASA spokesman, David Steitz, astronauts have laptops on board, including one in their personal sleeping quarters. They are also given tablet computers so they can video chat with family and friends at home.

Phone

Astronauts can make phone calls from space too, although the technology is a lot more complicated than a standard landline.

Astronauts can call friends and family using the Softphone, specialist software found on laptops. By using Internet Protocol (IP), signals are routed from space to Earth. Astronauts can dial numbers through the computer’s keypad and speak through a headset.

It means astronauts can dial any number and speak to anyone they wish and it’s more private than previous communication methods, which included Mission Control. However, the space station can block or go out of range of the phone call signals and because of the distance, there is often a lag in conversations.[quote float="left"]While the internet may ease the isolation of space, it doesn’t offer the quickest connection, as a result of the distance signals have to travel

 

Life at sea vs life in space: the verdict

So, who has the better deal in terms of communication: crew or astronauts?

Availability: astronauts have access to emails, social media, video calling and phone calls, while communications services for crews differ by ship operator.

Cost: Astronauts have free communication, while costs for crews differ between ship operators.

Privacy: Astronauts have personal laptops in their sleeping quarters while only a small proportion of crew members can access communication services privately in their cabin.

The results seem definitive - despite being 400km away from Earth, ISS astronauts are better connected than sailors who travel the 361 million square km of our planet’s oceans.

 

---

 

Be social and share this article

Aberdeen’s Aly Pinder asks are we smarter than we were in the past, or do we just have better access to data?

When was the last time you asked someone for directions, or used a phone book, or waited for the day’s forecast on the morning news?

Well, that last one is probably something you still do out of habit, but the others are things which have left our consciousness as we can just “Google it” from our smart phones. The emergence of technology and the IoT has flooded the service leader with more data than ever before. Machines talk to machines, technicians collaborate with each other via mobile devices while in the field, and customers interact with the service team in real-time owning their experience.

But with all this access to information and data comes a few challenges. How much is too much data? How can we turn this data into actionable insights? Who needs to know what and when?

These are all questions that the Best-in-Class service leader is tackling right now. As seen in Aberdeen Group’s recent State of Service Management in 2016: Empower the Data-Driven CSO (March 2016) research, one of the top goals for service leadership was improving the quality and relevance of data for the service team. This is a top 3 goal, only trailing the need to improve customer retention and drive service profitability.

Happy customers, profits, and then data quality in that order shows how the impact of data is rising on the agenda of the senior service leader today. But how do we get to a place where data is useful?

Is the answer to our data problem more technology?

Top performers recognise that ensuring the service team has actionable data is a journey and not something that can be solved with one-off investments. It takes a strategy, leadership, and resolve. Connecting the field team to insights helped these organisations resolve issues faster, deliver more value to the customer conversation, and make the field team better at their jobs!

 

All these are great, and the Best-in-Class have some lessons for the rest of us:

Empower the service team with the data they need to make decisions, more isn’t always better.

Top performers ensure the field team has customized data views which provide only the pertinent information for technician for the specific task they are working on. Having the data necessary to solve complex issues at the time of service is integral to ensuring resolution can occur on a first visit, technicians are efficient, and the customer can be back up and running with minimal downtime.

Give the field team the mobile tools to have access to insights.

The field workforce is rapidly changing. We have been fearing the aging workforce for some time now, and it is finally here. But the Best-in-Class ensure that as technicians leave the business, their knowledge does not. They are able to capture best practices and expertise, and store these insights in an accessible location which can be tapped into via mobility in the field.

Leverage machine, customer, and technician data to identify the future of service excellence.

The IoT means different things to different people and industries. But the value isn’t just in the fact that we more devices are connected. The value of the IoT is in connecting the service chain to resolution, value creation, and collaboration. Smart machines and products open up a whole new world of possibilities as savvy organisations can take this data and better understand how to optimise assets performance, build better machines, deliver more targeted services to customers, and ensure technicians know the answer to the problem before they even get on site in front of the machine.

The proliferation of data in this era of the empowered customer can be a challenge for many organisations. Too much data leads to delayed action or inaction altogether. Top performing organisations have invested in technology and their internal processes to ensure they can turn all of the valuable data being captured every minute into actionable insights which drive value.

Top performers were able to take improved data capabilities and turn that into outperformance in key metrics such as customer retention, SLA compliance, and worker productivity.

Don’t be left behind looking at a phone book or reading a map. Tap into real-time data to make the decisions which will lead you into the future of service excellence.

---

Be social and share this feature

Nick Shipton of scheduling specialists Kirona outlines why flexibility is as much a key ingredient in scheduling as optimisation...

Mobilising field based staff is high on the agenda at the moment with many organisations looking to increase the effectiveness and efficiencies of their workforce alongside offering increased levels of customer service and satisfaction.

It is obviously key that in order to mobilise your field staff effectively a complimentary scheduling solution is required to efficiently organise the jobs before dispatching them at the appropriate time to the mobile device.

However, what is sometimes overlooked is an understanding that that scheduling solution may need to react to different types of work in different ways, and therefore it’s key that the solution offers flexible methods of scheduling to suit how you need to drive your organisation.

Organisations often offer a wide range of services to their customers which can result in diverse requirements in terms of how those services need to be accessed by the customer and how that demand needs to be planned, which can cause issues if your scheduler has been built to suit a particular vertical or service, and drives you to fit the service to the schedulers constraints rather than configure the schedule to suit the requirements.

Some services will require fairly simple allocation of one off tasks based on matching skill-sets to the type of work, but if you throw into the mix customers expecting appointments at the first point of contact whether that is via a phone call or self-service this simple offering becomes much more complex, especially if you also want to throw into the mix planned works and programmed works.

 

The key with offering an appointed service is that you need to be able to offer and steer the customer towards taking a slot which not only satisfies them in terms of service levels but also takes into account all the other jobs in the system at that point in time, and allows you at that first point of contact to firstly offer the most efficient slot for you organisation, therefore building in maximum efficiency for the workforce.

Even if your organisation has only a small proportion of these ‘fixed’ appointed jobs they become the key jobs in the solution to plan other work around that has a more flexible time window, as we can’t break the direct promise we’ve made to the customer via that appointment.

Generally planned works have a more flexible planning window so we may need to carry out the job within the next X days or complete the jobs once a week, or once a month but we are not too worried about when we carry it out within that period.

Most scheduling systems will handle this well as there is plenty of flexibility within the large planning window to continually optimise your routes until you are satisfied with the schedule, but if you have an appointment to satisfy then that can throw an expensive spanner in the works as the scheduler doesn’t have the ability to move it where it may want to.

To further complicate matters other services may be carrying out far more complex works such as those which have dependencies and sequencing of tasks required to ensure they are carried not only in the most efficient manner but also in the correct order, or have a service that needs to deal with a very high volume of jobs with a short duration within small geographical locations.

All of the above pose different scheduling questions and of course you could look at implementing different solutions for these different scenarios however you lose the ability to get a complete view of the workforce and lose the ability to look at whether further efficiencies can be gained by carrying out more work at one location whilst you have resources there.

Reporting also becomes a trickier task as you are unable to easily view within one system how different services or regions may be performing.

Analysis can then be done to look if the location and levels of field based staff are correct and whether with a slight adjustment to these levels and locations performance can be improved.

You can also start to look at hierarchical KPI’s, so right down to operative level we can start to look at where and how the business can be improved.

The ability to implement a truly flexible scheduling solution such as Kirona’s DRS not only allows you to both improve the day to day operation of the organisation but also analyse how it can continually improve.

 

---

 

Be social and share this feature

As we continue our series of features helping you decode the jargon and terminology of rugged device manufacturers, we turn our attention to one of the most important yet potentially fragile areas of any device, the screen. Kris Oldand takes a look at what some of the key screen technology developments mean exactly when it comes to selecting devices for your field service workers ...

 

---

 

Read more form this series here

 

---

 

We live in the age of the touch-screen. Indeed my own son, who is now an inquisitive three and a half year old with an obsession with the word why, really struggled to understand recently why when he swiped back fore on the TV it didn’t do anything.

In a world of smartphones and tablets touch-screens have become a universally understood means of interacting with a device. Whether it is inputting data or simply navigating through an operating system, I would put a hefty wager on the fact that anyone reading this article is both familiar and comfortable with using a touch-screen device, such is the prevalence of the technology today.

Touch-screens are an important, even critical part of the user experience of almost all modern tablets and smartphones.

Also, amongst handheld computers that for many years were the go to device for field service teams, touch screens are becoming more and more increasingly common, whether combined with a keypad like the more traditional form factor, or on their own as is appearing in new hybrid products such as the Gen2Wave RP1600.

Yet at the same time, the screen is of course the potential Achilles heel and obvious weak spot in a rugged device.

 

The balance therefore between delivering a screen that is sufficiently capable of with standing drops and knocks, whilst maintaining high usability, is absolutely critical for a rugged device.

So lets look at some of the various options you may find in differing rugged devices when it comes to the screen and explore exactly what these options actually mean.

Capacitive vs. Resistive

Almost certainly the biggest debate when it comes to screen choices in rugged devices is whether capacitive or resistive screens are better suited for the task. But what is the difference between the two?

The older of the two technologies is resistive which relies on pressure to register input. This pressure can be applied by your finger, a stylus or any other object - think of the handheld computers that many delivery companies use, often covered in ink because when the original stylus is lost, the delivery driver often just uses a regular pen to collect a signature instead.

Resistive touch screens consist of two flexible layers with an air gap in between and in order for the touch-screen to register input, you must press on the top layer using a small amount of pressure to make contact with the bottom layer. The touch-screen will then register the precise location of the touch.

 

Rather than relying on pressure, capacitive touch-screens instead sense conductivity to register input—usually from the skin on your fingertip but also from dedicated styluses.

Because you don’t need to apply pressure, capacitive touch-screens are more responsive than resistive touch-screens. However, because they work by sensing conductivity, capacitive touch-screens can only be used with objects that have conductive properties, which includes your fingertip (which is ideal), and special styluses designed with a conductive tip.

Initially one of the big advantages of capacitive touch screens was that they enabled multi-finger gestures - perhaps the most obvious example is pinching or stretching a document to zoom in or out. However, resistive touch screens have also supported multi-finger input for about three or four years now also.

The big advantage resistive screens have over their capacitive counterparts is the fact that the operator can still use the devices whilst wearing gloves - as the input is dependent on pressure rather than the electrical current being completed through a conductive material such as a finger.

An additional benefit is that light touch, such as rain landing on the screen, won’t register so the devices are far better to suited to being used in the wet.

Both of these factors are of course particularly useful in a number of field service environments.

However, another key factor for rugged devices is of course reliability and durability and in this respect capacitive touch screens have the advantage - especially in heavy use applications.

Resistive screens can have a tendency to eventually begin to wear down in frequently used areas. Such areas may be prone to becoming faded and may ultimately even become unresponsive.

 

Also in terms of reliability, if a capacitive touch-screen does happen to become pierced or cracked it is still likely to function - think how many times you have seen someone using a smartphone with a cracked screen?

However, a break anywhere on a resistive touch-screen will often mean that it no longer works.

In terms of field service this is a potentially huge advantage for capacitive screens as it allows for a field service technician to continue to utilise their device until they can get the screen repaired.

Going Gorilla...

A special mention here really needs to go to Corning, a specialist materials manufacturer based in New York whose Gorilla brand glass has achieved what very, very few component manufacturers have achieved by becoming a recognised brand beyond the confines of the technologically minded.

Other than chip manufacturer Intel, can you actually think of a component manufacturer with a brand you recognise? Such is the impact that Gorilla Glass has had on smartphone and tablet manufacturing, with devices ranging from Samsung’s latest consumer flagship smartphone the S7 Edge, through to the Motion F5M by Xplore Technologies rugged tablet, proudly declaring their use of the product. In fact Gorilla Glass has been designed into over 4.5Bn devices globally.

The process developed by Corning to create Gorilla Glass is to chemically strengthen the glass through an ion-exchange process that creates a deep compression layer on the surface of the glass substrate and this layer essentially acts as “armour” to reduce the introduction of flaws.

 

Produced in thicknesses ranging from 0.4 mm to 2 mm, Gorilla Glass is positioned as an ideal cover sheet for touch-screens. It’s tough enough to handle the surface pressures intrinsic to these devices, and exceptionally thin to enable more sensitive and accurate responses.

However, a quick look at the spec sheets of some devices at the higher end of the rugged spectrum from the likes of Panasonic, Xplore, Getac, et al, will reveal that Gorilla Glass isn’t quite so frequently used amongst such devices.

One reason for this is that the whole point of Gorilla Glass is that it can deflect impact significantly without breaking and while extreme deflection seems on the surface like a great a great characteristic for rugged devices, once a Gorilla Glass touch panel is installed over an LCD and a point impact occurs, the Gorilla glass deflects and the impact is transferred to the LCD glass which could potentially break, leaving you with a an undamaged sheet of glass covering a no longer working tablet.

Visibility

Finally, whilst the ability to use a touch-screen in various conditions is important, being able to read the screen in direct sunlight is the other significant factor to consider for field service operatives - who will be often working outdoors.

The key terminology here that you will often find listed in the spec list of rugged device is a level of NIT. Basically a NIT is a unit of visible-light  intensity, commonly used to specify the brightness and it is the crucial the number to look for in device specs for devices that are used outdoors.

On average, your general consumer device will offer something between 300 and 400 NITS, which as anyone who will has tried to watch a movie on their iPad (iPad 4 is specced to 364NITS) at the beach will attest is not bright enough to use in direct sunlight. By comparison, the ultra-rugged Xplore XC6 boasts 1300 NITS, whilst Panasonic’s Toughbook 20 and Getac’s V110 convertible laptop both offer 800 NITS, which makes the devices far more usable in the direct sunlight.

 

Also, in addition to improved NIT levels, many rugged manufacturers also offer their own enhancements to improve visibility such as Xplore Technologies’ ‘View Anywhere’, Getac’s ‘sunlight readable technology’, or Juniper Systems’ ‘Sun-to-Shade’ solutions.

Of course, as with all other considerations around device selection for your engineers, an understanding of their workflow and working environment should be considered. Are they likely to be working in direct sunlight for example or are they likely to be wearing work gloves?

Such questions should shape your requirements when it comes to the type of touch-screen you require in your field service engineer’s devices.

 

---

 

Be social and share this feature

As the worlds of academia and industry came together once more at the annual Aston Spring Servitization Conference the message was clear. Servitization has moved from concept to reality and now it is time to start moving the conversation beyond the theory and into real world applications...

The concept of servitization, whilst still fresh to many is not actually particularly new.

Indeed, many of the often cited examples of servitization such as Caterpillar, MAN UK and Xerox have been providing advanced services and outcome based solutions business models to their clients for many, many years.

Rolls Royce, the much celebrated poster boys of the servitization movement have been delivering ‘power-by-the-hour’, their own brand of servitization, ever since the late sixties when they were given an ultimatum by American Airlines to offer a new business model or lose their business.

From an academic standpoint, the first reference to Servitization as a concept is widely accredited to a paper published by Vandermerwe & Rada entitled “Servitization of Business: Adding Value by Adding Services” which appeared in the European Management Journal in 1988.

Yet here we are some 28 years later and still the terminology is foreign to many, outside specific circles of industry and academia.

 

But at the same time, we are seeing a growing number of examples of servitization by significant companies.

Last year in Field Service News, we reported how John Cooper at Sony Professional Services had moved their business towards what was essentially a servitized business model in their broadcast services division by equipping Tele-Madrid with an entire new TV suite on a cost per usage basis, an agreement that puts the full onus on Sony to ensure they delivered 100% uptime.

Yet at no point in our conversation did the word servitization come up.

Then there is Air France KNB.

When Field Service News interviewed him at last year’s Aston Spring Servitization Conference, Harman Lanser of AirFrance KNB admitted that he hadn’t come across the concept until he saw Prof. Tim Baines give a presentation at the Aftermarket Conference in Amsterdam, whereby he immediately identified with the concept as exactly the process he was trying to take the MRO unit of the world’s 2nd largest airline through.

So is there this disconnect between the theoretical world of academia and the world of industry, especially when the evidence would seem to point out that they are indeed both heading in a similar direction?

 

What hasn’t helped is that academics in the past have used a number of interchangeable phrases like ‘life-cycle through services’, ‘advanced services’, ‘outcome based solutions’ and ‘servitization’ when discussing the topic - which has weakened the focus somewhat. Add to this that the research community has tended to focus very much around isolated individual companies in many instances, and the type of benchmarking that makes industry sit up and listen more attentively has been somewhat lacking as a result.

This sentiment sat very much at the heart of the opening keynote presentation of this year’s conference given by Prof. Rogelio Oliva, of Mays Business School, Texas A&M University.

“We’ve basically got stuck in a research mode,”began Oliva

“We like to go out and work with companies, do a case study, write it up and then we’re very happy with it.”

“The problem with doing that is that it is very difficult to aggregate and come up with a theory  that is realisable across several industries or even across several companies.”

“What you end up with is a whole bunch of anecdotes. ‘Company A did this and Company B did that and it’s very difficult to make progress under theoretical developments.”

“I think we as academics, have fallen short of delivering a set of theories, a set of concepts and a set of principals that managers could actually use.”

 

“Of course they [the theories and concepts] are going to need to be modified to a particular  situation, but overall there ought to be some overarching principals to navigate this and we have failed to do that.”

A similar sentiment was also offered by Prof. Tim Baines, Aston Centre for Servitization, Aston University when he gave us his reflections at the end of what was a busy two days.

“I think what we have to accept that the lens that we are using to look at the different adoptions of services throughout the world is imperfect,” admitted Baines.

“It’s useful to reflect on services gaining traction, but as yet we haven’t got the techniques to say with certainty economy A is competing more on the basis of servitization whilst economy B is competing more on the basis of productization.”

However, that is not to say that the move to servitization is floundering, in fact the opposite is very much true. It is now in a stage of evolution where it is beginning to move from the fringe slowly towards the mainstream.

That said, there is still a long way to go towards more widespread understanding. Currently there is a very specific type of company that is suited to servitization, especially when it comes to doing so hand in hand with the academics.

“There are three types of companies,” explains Baines.

 

“Firstly there are those companies that are doing incredibly well selling products and they don’t want to talk about servitization at all. Then there are the companies that are struggling financially and they are prepared to look at servitization because they are prepared to look at anything that can help them get out of the mess that they‘re in and then there is the third set, which are companies that are competing but are getting some kind of feeling that the world that they operate in is changing.”

“It is the companies that are seeing new business models emerge, those who’ve still got stability but who know they’ve got to evolve the way in which they capture value, these are the businesses that we want to work with because if we can help those, we can learn an awful lot about this transformation process and we can position these companies to compete better in future years.”

However, Baines believes that there is definitely a synergy growing between academia and industry.

“This is the fifth time we’ve done this conference” he begins.

“The first year we did the conference we created an event where we had practitioners and we had academics and actually there was a huge gulf between them which was really quite hard to reconcile. We didn’t have a language to describe what was actually going on.”

“I think what has happened is that the academics have accelerated in that they now have a better understanding of industrial practice so they can talk more coherently with practitioners and conversely the practitioners are starting to understand the language of servitization.”

“Through conversations around base, intermediate and advanced services they are beginning to be able to converse with the academics. There are still differences and there always will be - we’ve got different sets of priorities when we are both doing our jobs, but there is a definite sense of it coming together.”

 

“We have now established the language of servitization the notion of these base, intermediary and advanced services is becoming well established, most of the presenters are using those terms and those languages now. We really don’t want any other papers coming along offering different frameworks for this topic because we have moved beyond it,” he continues.

So how can the academics move forward to support their counterparts in industry?

“I would say the first thing we need to do to move forward is to leverage what we have done,” Oliva explains.

“We have been out there writing case studies, interacting with firms, learning from them. Let’s step back and spend a bit more time with those cases, do the hard work of thinking about what it means as opposed to just documenting the story.”

“Then we need to look at the phenomena that we are researching. “We are looking at servitization, which is a transformation that is hard for companies and there is a very long tradition in research that says if you as an academic get involved in the change journey, you can learn from this process - this is something that we call ‘actual research’.”

“So the next strategy is engaging in that process, the research will take longer because we are going to walk with that company, but that is what it takes to get the work done.”

“The final strategy I propose is a push for being relevant,” Oliva continues.

“If we put relevance at the front of our research goals: how we design research questions, how we design research hypothesis, how we design and develop research implications, if we do that with a manager at hand and thinking about the manager and about being relevant, I think that will also help us shape our own work.”

One thing is certainly clear after the two days of exhaustive presentations and debate, servitization has begun to move forward both as an industrial movement and as a topic for academic research.

The key questions are moving from what and why to how. As Baines commented in summing up the conference in the final session:

“Really, now the conversation needs to be about how do we get traction within an organisation, how do we advance this concept.”

“That’s where the real challenges are.”

 

---

 

Be social and share this feature

At the inaugural Field Service Summit held in Oxford last month Field Service News and Greenroad co-hosted a series of five 30 minute roundtables on Fleet Management. With Chatham house rules in place to allow the participants to speak freely about both positive and negative experiences of fleet management, these sessions provided fascinating insight for all of those who took part.

Here we share with you three of the key points of discussion from across the day.

Who is responsible for fleet management?

One of the most crucial factors for understanding how field service companies manage their fleet operations is to understand where fleet management fits within the organisational structure of a company.

During the day there were a number of different alternatives brought up as to who is responsible for fleet management.

Perhaps unsurprisingly it was amongst larger organisations that we saw the role of a dedicated fleet manager, however, even when a fleet manager is in place, their role doesn’t necessarily involve the implementation of telematics or routing and tracking solutions. Often these more strategic elements ,that are designed to yield business improvement, sat within the field service division. Whilst the fleet manager role is more logistical, responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the fleet.

Interestingly, for a number of companies fleet management as a discipline sat alongside the health and safety department, which seemed to be a general starting point for many companies when it comes to rolling out an initial telematics solution.

As one participant commented: “For us it’s more about managing the health and safety side, health and safety in the UK is now getting to a point where it is actually tying us up to a certain degree.

We are dedicating a significant amount of time to dealing with health and safety legislation in work.”

Another option that was utilised by some companies was to completely outsource their fleet management requirements as part of the lease arrangement for their vehicles. In fact as telematics becomes more and more embedded by vehicle manufacturers in the not too distant future it may be that such arrangements become more common.

Meanwhile, for those smaller companies with more manageable fleets, the responsibility for fleet management sat firmly with the field service management team.

What was clear however, was if companies are to get the most out of their telematics solution, which currently many companies admit they are not doing, then the field service management team must have some input and control over the decisions made around fleet management and telematics.

It is also clear that the use of telematics is now becoming far more encompassing than simple vehicle tracking.

As another participant commented “We introduced telematics about two/three years ago now and for the same reason – health and safety and that really was the driver, but there are so many other benefits that can be driven from it."

Other comments around the ownership of fleet management and the drivers behind implementing a telematics solution included:

“The ownership of managing the vehicles is all down to our fleet department in terms of health and safety. Telematics and fuel consumption is in our [field service] space.”

“Through risk assessment we make sure our service engineers are doing everything correctly, and we send them on advanced driving training courses, to ensure we comply with health and safety regulations and procedures.”

This last point is something that Ryan Davison, Enterprise Sales Manager, Greenroad, believes is becoming more and more prevalent. He explained:

“We are starting to get approached a lot more now about the health and safety and environmental factors of fleet management.”

“Whereas traditionally telematics has always been logistical and operational, we are starting to see a lot more around a duty of care compliance side of things.”

“Companies are coming to us now and saying effectively we’ve got our telematics system running on the operational side but we are looking for something independent of that, that will take care of our R.O.I. that will look into duty of care that will make sure our drivers are behaving responsibly on the roads.”

“What we are looking at now is finding the synergy between fleet management and performance and health and safety and where you can transfer that data. Data is abundant at the moment and any telematics system can produce an enormous amount of data, but it’s how you interpret and manage that internally that is the key. Handing somebody 20/30 spread sheets in their inbox is not going to create any value for your organisation.”

Data, Data Everywhere:

Indeed, one of the common themes of the day was how to harness the amount of data that a telematics system could produce and how to effectively utilise that data.

The consensus was that it was important to be able to access that data in an easy to manage visual manner, with configurable dashboards being high on the wish list for most companies.

In general most companies now see the value of data available to them.However, there is also a clear fear of drowning in data if it is not possible to access it in a meaningful fashion.

Also as more and more providers are developing APIs for open integration the flow of data is becoming increasingly seamless.

What was also interesting was that there seemed to be a dual use for data, highlighted throughout the day’s conversations.

Firstly, it became apparent telematics data is used as a day-to-day management tool, but it is also used secondly as a strategic tool to help push a business forward.

This concept was neatly summed up by one particular participant who said:

“There are two main elements. There is the data that provides the behavioural stuff and we are a fortunate position where there are sixteen area managers and they are directly responsible for the field engineers and their behaviour and being able to send data around whether their engineers are driving too fast, or braking too hard etc. is something that they can use as a tool to deal with these issues as line management.”

“But from an organisational perspective the big win is the data that outlines the utilisation of our equipment.”

“We have a big fleet and before, whilst this information was there it was in paper format so wasn’t easy to access. But now it is easier to access and it can inform our decisions on whether to buy or rent new assets, whether we can move things around the country and so on.”

Driver behaviour and fleet management

It is however, the first of these uses, feeding data back to the field engineers that was discussed the most across the day’s sessions. And gamification played a significant role in how a number of companies utilised their telematics data to improve their engineers driving standards.

As one participant commented” Nobody wants to be the worst driver in the fleet, whether it is a fleet of 5 or a fleet or 500.”

And gamification tools can actively encourage improvements . Indeed, there was almost universal acceptance that gamification could be used as a tool to improve driver behaviour across  an entire mobile workforce.

However, the first battle, which is quite a common one it seems, is getting the field engineers to accept a telematics solution in the first place.

All too often we heard similar stories from the delegates – namely that of push-back from unions and engineers. “Definitely there is a kind of resentment.” Commented one participant.

“It comes down to trust, they believe that you just don’t trust them and then it becomes an issue. The mind-set is ‘if your putting something in it’s because you don’t trust how I do something.’ And then you get the push-back against it.” another delegate commented.

“It can then become a vicious circle where the company says if your not doing anything wrong there is nothing to be concerned about, whilst the engineers say if I’m not doing anything wrong why do you need to track me.”

However, it does seem to be a problem that often heals itself over time following implementation.

“Eventually they saw it wasn’t being used as they expected it to be and now it is accepted” another delegate replied before adding “some of the guys are even asking for print outs from the system so they can see their own performance.”

Yet getting that initial acceptance can still be a tricky balancing act as Davison explained further.

“The two sides of the scale are encouragement and enforcement.”

“To begin with you can take the approach of explaining this is for your own benefit and what those benefits are, but with those who are persistently driving badly then it is a case of falling back on policy and saying to that engineer ‘we need to take you off the road and explore training before we can get you back on.’”

In terms of driver behaviour, data can also play a crucial role in streamlining training strategies as Davison added “Whereas traditionally people might have used programs such as AA drive tech, Institute of Advanced Motoring or VOSPA for generic training what we are seeing now is people are using the data more cleverly.”

“Applied driving techniques is a good example, what they will do is work with us in partnership and use our data to avoid taking a scatter gun approach, but rather focus the training on areas  that it is needed.”

“So each individual driver will have their own risk profile and therefore we can assess how effective is that training been in improving them and reducing the risk they pose on the road."

 

---

Be social and share this feature