ARCHIVE FOR THE ‘globalisation’ 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

Customer requirements for field service and customer support will never be the same from one country to another, any more than they will be the same from one customer to another. However, one thing remains very clear – the requirements for service are becoming increasingly standardised, even on a global basis. Bill Pollock President of  Strategies For Growth^SM explains more...

The above is particularly true as more and more local services organisations are going regional, regional organisations are going national, and national organisations are going international in terms of their sales, marketing and global services capabilities.

Just a few years ago, only the largest services organisations had credible worldwide global service and support portfolios. However, today, mainly through the proliferation of Cloud-based technologies; Internet, tablet and social media tools; and the increasing use of strategic alliance partners, even the small and medium-sized services organisations are finding themselves empowered to support their customers on a global basis.

Still, the perceptions of what it might take to be a “world class” global services provider remain inconsistent even among some of the most sophisticated vendors. However, regardless of each individual organisation’s approach or perceptions, it can safely be said that services requirements are both every bit the same, and every bit different, in each corner of the globe.

Further, many services providers in the United States have discovered over the past several years that there is more than one language spoken in global service. This was a lesson learned years earlier by most European and Asian providers trying to break into the U.S. market, as well as by Canadian services organisations that have been dealing with bilingual support (i.e., Canadian English and Canadian French) for decades. However, the globalisation of service and support refers to much more than simply language differences – it must also focus on the cultural, economic and business differences that are manifested in varying forms all over the world.

 

As most individual businesses continue to grow larger, and larger businesses continue to acquire, merge and consolidate, there will be increasing pressure on global services providers to grow along with their customers’ needs for a broader and more sophisticated range of services – both in terms of breadth and scope (e.g., a full array of professional services in addition to traditional break/fix and help desk support, etc.) and geographic coverage (e.g., cross-border capabilities).

The conventional wisdom is that some of the services providers that presently offer very high levels of service and support, but only among the basic, or “core”, types of services, or only in a limited geographic area, may actually end up losing out to other, less high performing providers that offer a wider array of services over a larger geographic (i.e., global) area.

The general rule of thumb among customers is often, “why settle for varying or erratic levels of service and support over the whole of our enterprise by relying on the use of multiple vendors, when we can ensure a more standardised mode of delivery – all at satisfactory levels – provided across our entire system?”

While the former mode of service delivery may range from “excellent” to “average” depending on the type of service provided, or the location of the end user, the latter mode generally assures that, at least, there will be consistent levels of service provided enterprise-wide – i.e., with no geo-by-geo “surprises”.

In today’s services environment, the true measure of a provider’s ability to adapt to its marketplace is no longer answered strictly in terms of how well it can deliver different types of support to different types of customers, but in how well it can provide desired levels of service and support to each of its customers, regardless of their size, industry segment or geographical location.

As such, the word “global” should no longer simply conjure up images of field technicians trudging through the wilds of the Great Australian Outback, or cross-country skiing to a remote IT site through a harsh Canadian winter terrain (although this may also be the case from time to time), nor should it be interpreted solely as fostering a company mentality of trying to be “all things to all parties”.

Rather, “global” should be defined as “offering the full complement of desired services and support, either directly or through strategic services partnerships, to support the full enterprise-wide needs of the customer.”

It has taken the services industry the last century to get to the point to where it is today. However, it will be around this definition of “global service" and support that the future of the industry will likely be based. Where it will ultimately take us will, as always, be heavily dependent on how the services marketplace believes its providers are responding to its “global” needs.