ARCHIVE FOR THE ‘ian-mapp’ CATEGORY

Why is it that, in a time of unprecedented innovation in phone technology, all field service mobile apps are the same? Ian Mapp, Director at Wyser Stewart throws down the gauntlet to app developers...

Not precisely the same, of course. But, essentially they all try to solve the challenges faced by mobile engineers/technicians in the same way. If you look at the websites of companies that supply such applications – and there are plenty to choose from, too many to list here – you will find the descriptions almost interchangeable.

They all claim to increase productivity by replacing the reliance on paper-based forms, reliably integrating with office-based systems, eliminating errors and speeding up processes; improving cashflow by removing delays in producing the final invoice and reducing customer disputes. Sure, there are differences in details and variations in the technology platforms that are supported, but they are almost identical in capabilities. Plus, delivering indistinguishable experiences for the user.

 

It seems that the biggest innovation right now is who supplies the device – the company or the worker! To BYOD, or not to BYOD. It’s 2014. Is that best we can do? Really?

Smartphones are becoming ubiquitous, with market penetration in the UK this year estimated somewhere between 70-80%. And each of them has amazing computing capability, and a bunch of ‘smart’ features that make them very powerful devices. The biggest challenge when rolling out mobile applications is often user resistance to changing their working practices, but we don’t exploit those capabilities or make it very attractive when all we offer our engineers is a replacement for filling out forms.

“Okay, if you’re so clever, what do you suggest?” I hear you ask. And it’s a fair question.

The design for today’s apps mostly started out as automated equivalents of paper systems, as has been mentioned. And that is true of most administrative software products. Take a manual procedure, tweak it a bit and write the resulting re-engineered process into code. Bingo! A faster version of what worked before, more reliable, more consistent and leading to more work being done.

But, what if we started from a clean sheet and made smartphone capabilities intrinsic to the design of a new model for mobile workers? What might that look like? Now, I am by no means a software developer so some of this may not be practical, but I am an enthusiastic smartphone user and this does not seem at all far-fetched. Here are some ideas for a (better) day in the life for an engineer, using M/App (our imaginary mobile app - sorry, couldn’t resist it!)

 

It’s 07:45, and Sam’s phone chimes. Sam has been checking the news headlines and is already logged into the phone – possibly using a fingerprint for security validation. M/App knows, from a calendar entry, that Sam is scheduled for a shift starting at 08:00 and offers a simple prompt, “Ready to start your shift Sam?” with Yes/No/Snooze options for a response. No logging in to an application, no menu choices to be made, just a single button press (or voice input).

The software interrogates Sam’s scheduled jobs and checks for any delays on the journey to the first one. There are none, and at 08:02 M/App gently reminds Sam that he needs to start his daily vehicle check, in order to set off in time for his first appointment. The checklist is on-screen as soon as the phone detects movement outside to the van. The vehicle check requires input from Sam, but once that is finished, the app is expecting that travel will begin to the site and will not require any further response if it detects movement at speed – indicating driving – on a reasonable route to the first destination.

The phone detects that Sam is out of the vehicle, and based on GPS signals, prompts for confirmation that Sam has arrived on-site. He may only have parked nearby and needs some time before he truly arrives, or he may have unrelated tasks to perform – like returning a call to a manager – and so a positive acknowledgement is required.

Depending on the quality of the data about the machine to be serviced, it may be possible to use the latest in-building positioning technologies to determine when Sam is ready to begin work. Irrespective of that detail, M/App will always default to a prompt about the next expected step in the process.

 

For example, asking “Are you ready to start work on the xyz machine?” with Yes/No/Snooze options is simpler than asking for a ‘Start Time’ to be input in HH:MM format. And streamlining the data input demands will also encourage Sam to record what he is doing in real-time, further improving the flow of data back to the office and the decisions to be made about new priority jobs, and dynamically rescheduling for overruns and delays.

The workflow will progress through the necessary actions to complete the job, using any sensors or features of the device than can provide knowledge that enable the app to intelligently determine what is happening and what should happen next – clock, camera, touch screen, accelerometers, GPS and Wi-Fi for positioning, other installed apps or OS facilities.

I am not suggesting that everything will flow simply from step to step without variation – that would not be realistic – but in many industries and job types there is a definite pattern to the individual activities and M/App suggests the ‘line of least resistance’ for the engineer to follow. That’s what we call best-practice, isn’t it?

M/App is always active in the background, trying to ensure that the schedule can be met. For example, Sam starts a task with a ‘standard’ time of 60 minutes. After 30 minutes, the app checks for travel delays and detects a problem, with a hold-up of 20 minutes and a late arrival predicted. The app prompts Sam for an estimated completion time, he confirms 30 minutes, and informs the central system of the upcoming problem. That allows the scheduling system to determine the best course of action. A decision is made and the change to his schedule is communicated to Sam’s device while he continues to work, meaning that he can immediately move on to the right next job – avoiding the traffic hold-up. That improves the productivity of his shift, and means more satisfied customers at the end of the day.

The application is “nudging” Sam to carry out the tasks and jobs in the order that the centralised scheduling system has determined to be optimal, by requiring the lowest level of effort to follow that plan. However, Sam may be able to override that, and carry out work in a different sequence – one of his own choosing. But, it will mean more inputs, choices and manual navigation by him to achieve those overrides.

[quote]How can we use the power of a smartphone to unobtrusively assist our engineers in their daily work, enabling them to focus on delivering service to our customers?’

The underlying design principle of M/App is not ‘how can we get our engineers to fill out the head-office mandated forms better?’, but ‘how can we use the power of a smartphone to unobtrusively assist our engineers in their daily work, enabling them to focus on delivering service to our customers?’. It’s a simple change in approach, but that switch somehow changes everything.

 

So, come on application developers, the market is ripe for some innovation. Over to you.

The field service industry continues to evolve at pace. New technologies are constantly emerging which have the potential to change the industry as we know it.

At the same time we are seeing a huge cultural shift with many seeking to realign their service division from cost centre to profit centre. To help us keep up with these changes Field Service News has put together a panel of five field service industry experts and asked them each to share their insight on the industry today. First up is Ian Mapp, Director with Wyser Stewart...

What is the biggest driver for change in field service today?

Field service has always coped with constrained resources – in terms of manpower and investment in spare parts inventory - and the recent harsh economic times have been very tough for many, both OEMs and independent maintainers. Those now poised to grow have continued to invest through the downturn, particularly in skills development, and that will now enable them to out-compete others.

With no money to waste themselves, customers are more demanding in the standards they expect and less tolerant of poor performance. This has accelerated a trend already entrenched for a number of years. Plus, bad news travels further and faster than ever via social media. Equivalent stories about exceptionally good service (they do exist!) do not travel as far or as fast. Service organisations will have to learn to live in this unbalanced environment, obsess about quality and focus on protecting and communicating hard-won reputations. It as a discriminator when customers choose suppliers.

Which technology has had the biggest impact on the field service industry in the last 5 years?

In my opinion, it is all about the mobility revolution. Specifically, the intersection of two trends. The higher adoption of mobile devices by service organisations, and the explosive growth of smartphone usage amongst customers – 72% of the UK population according to a 2013 Deloitte survey, up 14% in just 10 months. The result of near ubiquitous use means more enthusiastic acceptance by technicians and engineers of a mobile device as an integral part of their everyday work. Maybe “grudging acceptance” is still more prevalent than “enthusiastic acceptance” in some organisations and industries!

Once upon a time, and not that long ago, mobile devices – typically ruggedised – were seen as the sign of a tech-savvy, forward-thinking service provider. Today, that has been turned on its head and organisations that do not deploy mobiles – more commonly consumer-grade or BYOD – are seen as laggards.

What is the most important consideration when moving from cost centre to profit centre? 

That’s simple. Independent maintainers are, by definition, driven by profitable service provision. For OEMs, the profits on after-sales services are frequently higher than products sales, and servitization has become an obvious strategy to maintain financial performance. For some it is a matter of survival and so it is a “no brainer”. The question becomes ‘how-to’ and not ‘whether-to’. Particularly as more product categories become commoditised, and manufacturers are unable to compete simply on product quality.

This is not the same as engineers being transformed into salespeople, as is often imagined. Many OEMs do not properly credit their service departments with revenue for their work. A notional accounting transfer is made, one that does not reflect the true commercial value. This gives a misleading impression of the service operation’s financial viability. Resolving this anomaly - to give an accurate baseline – and training service managers in financial disciplines are critical transformational steps.

Who is Ian Mapp...

Ian is a veteran of customer service - both in the provision of software applications and consultancy, and in actual service delivery. He has worked with companies large and small, both in the UK and internationally over 25 years. Presently, he is providing specialised customer service and customer experience consulting services to “people-powered” organisations through his company Wyser Stewart.