ARCHIVE FOR THE ‘management-2’ CATEGORY

In the first part of this exclusive research project run in partnership with Advanced Field Service, we looked at the types of mobile devices being used in the field and why it seems that the days of pen and paper are becoming increasingly numbered. In the second of this four part series we look at whether there is a future for wearables in field service, are devices being used rugged or consumer and has BYOD worked?

Now in the third part of this series we turn our attention to the feedback our field service engineers are providing...

There is also a white paper accompanying this series, with even further insights, which you can download here

Engineers reaction to mobile devices in general

We asked our respondents “Do you think your your field engineers have appreciated a move to using a mobile device?”

The results showed that in the main there is a strong acceptance from field engineers that using a digital device as part of their role is a benefit. In fact over a third of respondents (37%) stated that they had “absolutely taken to mobile” while the largest response to this question was “we have mostly had a positive response from our mobile workers” which was stated by just under half (44%) of respondents.

Just under a fifth of companies (17%) stated they had received a mix of positive and negative feedback from their field workers, whilst less than 1% admitted they had “some success but getting widespread adoption is tough”.

 

Delving deeper into the reasons for positive feedback from the engineers we saw that the largest reason for engineers responding to the implementation of a mobile devices was that it “makes their work-flow easier” with 57% of companies stating this to be the case. The second largest reason cited was that a mobile device “enhanced their productivity” which just under a third of companies (31%) cited whilst 13% of companies reported increased first time fix rates as a result of using digital devices.

 

One respondent summarised the dual benefits of the approach for both engineers and company alike stating: “The engineers have appreciated the move from a rugged PDA to an Android device because it offers them more advantages; web, apps, email, etc. From a business perspective we got them access to industry apps (fault code analysis, parts availability, etc.) as well as improving the acceptance of the company solution”

Involving engineers in the selection process

Given the importance of quick user adoption, we wanted to see how involved field engineers were in the selecting the devices they would be using. We asked our respondents “Did you have any input from your field engineers in selecting both the devices and apps they use in the field?”

Whilst it is an approach recommended by many hardware, software and change management experts to help improve swift user adoption rates, it is not one that is adopted by the majority of companies when selecting the tools their field service engineers will be using. In fact almost two thirds (61%) of companies admitted that they don’t involve their engineers in the decision making process.

 

This is a significant finding because of those companies that did involve their field workers in the selection process the overwhelming majority (93%) felt that doing so had aided adoption of the solution they had chosen. When we consider that the aim of implementing any new solution, whether it be hardware or software, is generally to improve the efficiency of a field service unit then the sooner the new solution reaches widespread adoption the better.

 

Indeed it would seem that whilst the majority of respondents failed to take advantage of their engineers insight during the selection process, there may actually be a growing groundswell to see this happening more frequently as almost half of those who didn’t take input from their field engineers admitted that in hindsight they think this would have likely helped speed up the adoption of the new solution. “The engineers have appreciated the move from a rugged PDA to an Android device because it offers them more advantages; web, apps, email, etc.”

The decision making unit

So engineers input aside, who is involved in the decision making unit when it comes to selecting a new field service mobility solution? Having put that question to our respondents our research would certainly back the assertion that the single decision maker seems to be somewhat of a myth, or at least a very rare scenario.

The most common role to be involved within the decision making unit (DMU) is IT Director with 64% of companies stating that their IT Director would be involved in the decision making process. This was followed by MD/CEO (58%), Field Service Director (53%) and Field Service Manager (45%). Meanwhile 20% of companies have procurement involved within the DMU also. Perhaps contradictory to these statistics is how a company will approach the early selection process.

The most common approach for this initial phase of selecting a new field service solution is when the “field service director/manager identified the need for a mobile solution and made recommendations to the board.” Which was how 35% of companies began their search for a new system. The second most common means of instigating this process is when “the board decides to implement a mobile solution and tasks the IT manager & Field Service Manager together to identify the right solution” which was what was reported by exactly a quarter of companies.

Other options that were board driven were for the board to task the “Field Service Manager/ Director to identify the solution” (13%) and the board task the “IT Director to identify the right solution” (8%) whilst amongst 17% of companies it was the ‘IT Director identified the need and advised the board”

Choosing a solution

When it comes to selecting a solution the most common approach is to view three different solutions which exactly a third of companies opted to do.

However, just under a quarter (23%) of companies will leave no stone unturned and look at five or more solutions when making their decision.

 

A similar amount (22%) will look at just two solutions whilst a tenth of companies made their decision based solely on looking at one solution. In terms of the frequency of updating a field service solution the consensus is very much that every three years is the optimal time between updates with just under half (47%) of companies stating they believe this to be the case. The second most common thought is two years (30%) whilst all other options were 10% or below.

But how does compare to the reality?

Well, whilst a similar majority (42%) refresh their solutions every three years it would also seem that many companies keep their existing assets longer than they would like.

 

In fact 41% of companies state they will wait four years or more to refresh their field service solution, whilst 27% admit they will wait five years or more between system upgrades. The research would also indicate that the largest reason for companies taking longer to refresh their solution would be simply down to cost which 50% of companies stated was the biggest challenge in updating their system.

 

Compared to this ‘finding the time’ to arrange an implementation was a minor worry for most with just 12% of companies stating that this is their primary concern. What is interesting is that 34% of companies see worries around integration being their biggest challenge. Of course the irony here being that the longer you ‘sweat’ an asset the greater the chance of the technology becoming tougher to integrate with the latest emerging tech.

 

---

 

Want to know more? Download the exclusive research report now!

---

Find out more about Advanced Field Service in the Field Service News Directory

 

---

 

Please note that by downloading the above research report you agree to these fascinating terms and conditions

 

Capita plc has recently announced that it has acquired Sigma Seven Limited for an undisclosed sum.

Sigma Seven Ltd offers a specialist geospatial solution that allows users anywhere to access company files, organise their work, plan tasks and record data directly on to high-quality digital maps.

This helps organisations get the most from their data, map and enterprise systems, enabling field and office staff to work together more efficiently. Sigma Seven’s clients include UK utility companies such as Scottish Power, UK Power Networks, Wales & West Utilities and Southern Water.

Since its acquisition of AMT-SYBEX in May 2014, Capita has strengthened its presence in the utilities and transport sectors providing mobile technology and Big Data software solutions. AMT-SYBEX has also been a partner of Sigma Seven and the combined product offering will represent an enhanced and highly complementary solution set that will now be available to clients.

 

Capita chief executive, Andy Parker, said: “The acquisition of Sigma Seven will provide further scale and depth to the range of solutions that Capita can offer utilities, construction & engineering, environment and government sectors. On integration, significant synergy benefits such as complementary products, an overlap in client base and prospective clients, will more strongly position Capita in the market when providing new and improved, tailored solutions.”

Sigma Seven has 33 employees based in Edinburgh.

Echo Managed Services, the specialist provider of outsourced end-to-end customer contact services, has strengthened its collections division with the acquisition of Sheffield-based Grosvenor Services Group. Grosvenor is one of the UK’s leading debt collection agencies, specialising in field-based collections within the utilities sector.

Combining Grosvenor’s field based skills with Echo’s comprehensive multi-site contact centre resource and office based collections expertise will further strengthen Echo’s end-to-end customer contact proposition, with the company offering comprehensive customer journey support, from initial sign-up through to ongoing debt recovery where necessary. The acquisition of Grosvenor Services Group follows Echo’s 2011 purchase of London based Inter-Credit International – one of the UK’s longest established debt recovery agencies with over 40 years’ experience and speciality in office based collections.

“Acquiring Grosvenor Services Group is a great strategic move for Echo as we have complementary skills and expertise, particularly in key sectors such as utilities and the public sector that are central to Echo’s expansion plans,” commented Steve Wrench, Operations Director at Echo. “Echo already bills and collects many millions of pounds for utility and public sector clients each year, and the addition of Grosvenor’s proven debt recovery and debtor tracing solutions – backed by its strong field-based collections resource – will further strengthen our operation.”

 

Echo’s Managing Director, Nigel Baker added: “We have an on-going commitment to provide our clients with a best practice approach to collections - one that not only delivers better results for our clients but also ensures full compliance with key industry regulatory and governance requirements. With the specialist skills and expertise that the Grosvenor team brings, we look forward to further strengthening Echo’s collections capability.”

Echo’s leading edge collections strategy is based on a powerful data-driven approach that focuses on helping organisations to choose the right solution for the right customer at the right time. Echo is focused on ensuring that it consistently delivers on collections targets for its clients, while always treating their customers fairly with empathy and understanding. Following the acquisition, Grosvenor’s Sheffield-based operation becomes Echo’s seventh site.

 

Commenting on the acquisition, Lloyd Birkhead, MD of Grosvenor Services Group Ltd said: “at Grosvenor we’ve built a reputation over the last 17 years for providing our customers, particularly those in the utilities sector, with a high quality debt recovery service. I’m therefore delighted that in Echo Managed Services we move forward with a complementary business partner that will build on our success by integrating Grosvenor and our services into its end-to-end customer contact proposition.”

Assistance for the acquisition was provided by FDYL LLP and Ironmonger Curtis LLP.

 

---

 

Be social and share this story

Whilst technology can play a big part in improving the efficiency of a field service operation, nothing is as important as ensuring your field service managers are fully armed to do their job. With this in mind we have teamed up with specialist field service training organisation SGSA to bring this series that looks at some of the key concepts that make a good field service manager great. 

The topics included in this series, written by SGSA’s Senior Consultant Steve Brand, are based around the content of SGSA’s 4 and half day, university standard training course for field service managers and Field Service News readers are eligible for a discounted attendance. Further details, a discount code and links to registration are all included at the bottom of the page…

Management is the intervention of getting work done through others, so the success of the field service manager is directly linked to the performance of his team. When the team is meeting its goals, the manager receives the credit. The analogy with the manager of a football team is very apt. When the team lifts the trophy at the end of the match, the manager receives the greatest accolade even though he never set foot on the pitch.

Conversely, when the team is plummeting through the league, the chairman sacks the manager not the team. The previous concepts in this series support this analogy. Concept #1 is to Close the Knowing Doing Gap; in football, the strategy is defined in the changing room but if the tactics are not put into action on the pitch then the match will be lost. Concept #2 is to Put the Whole Team’s Brain to Work; the different talents of everyone on the team are needed for success: forwards, mid-field, defenders and goalkeeper, all working together. Concept #3 is Fair Process; the players actually play the game so their input on how they can win is crucial. Concept #4 is Build a Values System; the manager defines how the team is expected to work together. Concept #5 is People Development; training of the players is the responsibility of the manager. Concept #6 is Empowerment; the manager provides feedback during the match but doesn’t run alongside the players telling them who to pass the ball to next.

You can catch up on the early parts of this series here. Read part one here, part two here and part three here

For the last of our series of four articles, we are providing two more powerful management tips to help Field Service Managers improve working relationships with their engineers and increase productivity.

Concept #7: Manage Behaviours not Metrics

Managers need to compare and increase engineer productivity so they frequently set goals on activity metrics. Activities, for example, the number of service calls made per engineer per day, are easier to count than the results of that activity, for example, an increase in customer loyalty. Technology also allows activities to be easily and accurately reported, whereas it is still ineffective at measuring value creation.

A problem with setting goals on activities (‘input’) rather than value (‘output’) is that it is often simple for field service engineers to manipulate their activity numbers. For example, an engineer being measured on service calls could ignore rather than replace a worn part on a unit being serviced so that he is called out again. Hence, focusing on activity metrics can actually lead to unwanted behaviours being introduced into the operation. The result could be that engineers are commended for meeting their goals when the reality is that they are very busy doing the wrong things to make their numbers look good.

The alternative is for managers to focus on the behaviours that result in added value for the customer, for example, picking up service calls quickly, arriving on time for appointments, setting realistic expectations, explaining the solution, cleaning up properly after the job, etc. The challenge for managers is finding the time to make sure that all of these things actually happen rather than reply on a report alleging that they are happening.

 

An ongoing field service training program is the most effective method of ensuring that engineers know, develop and perform the best practice behaviours for field service. The program consists of two stages: first, teaching all engineers and subsequent new hires the tips and techniques that ensure customer satisfaction and high productivity; and second, providing regular feedback on how many and how well they do each best practice in the field. Ideally, but depending on the size of the team, each engineer should be assessed on his handling of service calls for half a day per month. This means being observed on the job by a manager, team leader, mentor or experienced colleague, and given a score and constructive feedback on how to improve. This isn’t a cheap program but the return on investment is substantial.

In summary, ensuring that engineers adhere to field service best practices is a key responsibility of the manager and one that generates more satisfied and loyal customers, which is obviously good for business. Setting goals on engineer activities will ensure that they are keeping busy but, by itself, can never be effective in ensuring that they are on their best behaviour. And, to continue our earlier analogy, a football manager doesn’t sit in his office waiting to be told the final score, he stands on the side line watching and assessing each player in action.

Concept #8: Eliminate Self-Interest Behaviour

It is human nature to try and make the most out of whatever situation we find ourselves in. Given the choice, most employees would prefer not having to work, but they have to if they want to put a roof over their heads. So, given that employees have the constraint of having to go to work, they will strive to make going to work as enjoyable as possible for them personally. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact, making work enjoyable should be encouraged the manager, but not if the actions or behaviours taken to make themselves happy has a negative impact on the customer, the company or their colleagues.

Self-interest behaviour, or maximizing personal happiness at the expense of others, can manifest itself in many ways; tardiness, laziness, cutting corners, poor documentation and manipulating metrics are amongst the most common. Another problem with self-interest behaviour that is not eliminated by the manager is that it can creep, both in terms of the degree of the behaviour and to other members of the team. If the manager has not said anything about me being ten minutes late every few days then perhaps I can get away with fifteen minutes? And if I see someone else isn’t completing their site reports then it must be ok for me not to do mine.

 

The key to eliminating self-interest behaviour is to let the engineer know that you have seen it as soon as you see it. State the facts casually the next time you see the engineer alone and give him a chance to respond, for example, “I notice that you’ve been late a couple of times this week. Is everything ok?”

In most cases, just letting the engineer know that you’ve seen the behaviour will be enough to stop it. If the self-interest behaviour continues then the second step is to repeat the statement and remind the engineer of the goal. Words such as “I notice that you’re still coming in late. You know that we need everyone here on time to ensure that we meet service levels. Is there anything that I should know?” There is a third and fourth step to resolving poor work behaviours before taking the official route of a Performance Improvement Plan, but 80% or more issues are resolved after the engineer has been subtly told twice that his behaviour is unacceptable.

Speed is of the essence in eliminating self-interest behaviour. Delaying the conversation until the next performance review or one-to-one meeting allows time for the behaviour to get worse and can also make the behaviour seem more serious, especially if it is included in the meeting documentation. The football manager speaks to the team about what they are doing wrong at half-time, not the end of the season.

 

---

 

Could you or your colleagues benefit from attending the next SGSA Field Service Manager Course?

The Field Service Manager program is dynamic and interactive, with students frequently working in small groups, presenting findings and working on the course case study.

The program is four and a half days of course content and university-level instruction and learning that is focused on managing a field service operation.

If you want to see more information or register for the course you can do so by clicking here

PLUS! Field Service News subscribers receive a 10% discount on the course fee when quoting reference FSN0407.

 

---

 

Be social and share this feature

With the growing reliance on digital business processes in most companies today, the IT department has more responsibility than ever. But, according to new research, businesses are disrupted within the first few minutes of an IT outage and poor communications management means finding the right person to investigate the issue can take as long as, or longer than resolving it.

Forty-five percent of IT professionals reported their business is impacted if IT is down just 15 minutes or less, and 17 percent said disruption occurs the instant an IT outage develops, according to new research from Dimensional Research. The “Business Impact of IT Incident Communications: A Global Survey of IT Professionals” report was commissioned by xMatters, inc., a leader in communication-enabled business processes.

However, 60 percent of respondents said it takes that same 15 minutes or more just to identify the right individual to respond to an issue. Nearly half of the IT professionals surveyed said it takes as long as or longer to identify the person as it does to resolve the problem.

Showing strong agreement that improved IT alerting systems benefit the business, 91 percent of those surveyed said poor incident communication increases downtime. Eighty-seven percent indicated that guaranteed alert delivery would accelerate issue resolution, and 85 percent said issue resolution would be accelerated by a response system that initiates steps with a single click on a mobile device.

[quote float="left"]Eighty percent of respondents said loss of digital data would have a more significant effect on the business than loss of buildings, vehicles or goods.

Eighty percent of respondents said loss of digital data would have a more significant effect on the business than loss of buildings, vehicles or goods. That illustrates the extreme importance of IT responsiveness to issues, yet a surprising 41 percent of the IT pros said they have ignored IT alerts and communications.

 

According to the report, part of the challenge with IT alerts and notifications is that often those notified had personal events that may compromise their responsiveness. A dynamic and automated system that could be updated based on team availability could generate better response by IT professionals, leading to better accountability and faster resolutions and minimised business impact.

In recent years, IT’s role has expanded from basic system support to enabling the business to facilitating online business, while supporting employees’ numerous devices.

The IT professionals indicated they are willing to do more. Ninety percent said IT can offer more strategic services to the business; 74 percent indicated IT expertise should be leveraged for other automated systems; and 77 percent acknowledged that the business thinks IT is too slow in resolving key issues.

The report concluded, “Businesses trust IT to keep critical systems running smoothly while securing highly valued data. But, when issues arise business stakeholders overwhelmingly feel that IT isn’t resolving them fast enough. Fast issue remediation will require that the right people be contacted efficiently based on availability and expertise.  This may indicate that the communications management alerting systems that have served IT in the past may simply not be able to support IT’s growing role and that a new solution is required.”

The survey polled over 300 IT professionals from the United States, Europe and Mexico. Participant companies came from a mix of sizes – from large enterprises with over 10,000 employees to medium-sized businesses with 1,000 employees – and from a variety of industries, including technology, financial services, manufacturing, healthcare and more.

 

---

 

Be social and share this story

Whilst technology can play a big part in improving the efficiency of a field service operation, nothing is as important as ensuring your field service managers are fully armed to do their job. With this in mind we have teamed up with specialist field service training organisation SGSA to bring this series that looks at some of the key concepts that make a good field service manager great. 

The topics included in this series, written by SGSA’s Senior Consultant Steve Brand, are based around the content of SGSA’s 4 and half day, university standard training course for field service managers and Field Service News readers are eligible for a discounted attendance. Further details, a discount code and links to registration are all included at the bottom of the page…

In the last article, we highlighted how many field service managers work their way up through the ranks and learn a management style through trial and error or from their managers and their managers’ manager.

In summary, management training is often informal.  And yet, John Maxwell, author of The 5 Levels of Leadership, identified that one of the five key reasons that employees choose to follow a leader is because the leader has helped them to progress their career.

Quite simply, managers should take a more formal approach to discussing career aspirations with field service engineers and to help them gain skills that will move them towards their personal career goals.  In return, employees show appreciation through greater loyalty to the leader and by working harder.

 

Just taking an interest and providing career guidance is a good start because it demonstrates to the engineers that we are interested in their success beyond them meeting our monthly targets.  Empowerment is also a form of career development.

Continuing our series of four articles, here are two more powerful management tips to help Field Service Managers improve working relationships with their engineers and increase productivity.

Concept #5: People Development

A key difference between training and development is who is ultimately responsible for making sure that both of these things happen.  Training is the responsibility of the field service manager.

The manager must provide training to the field service engineer so that the engineer is capable of doing the job that he is being paid for.  If the field service engineer has not been properly trained then he is unlikely to have the skills required to be able to do the job.  Without skill, there can be no performance.  On a side note, having the skills does not guarantee that the field service engineer will perform to his highest level.  For high performance, the field service manager needs to provide training and motivation.

Conversely, development is the responsibility of the field service engineer.  Only the engineer can know how he would like to see his career progress.  Hence, there is little benefit to be gained from a lengthy career discussion with a field service engineer who is content with his job and doesn’t see that it is in his interest to gain new skills.  For the rest of the team, the career development discussion gives the manager the opportunity to understand the aspirations of the field service engineer and to demonstrate his commitment to helping the engineer prepare for his next job.

 

Training and development plans are often updated and agreed by the field service manager and the engineer annually, typically in the final few minutes of the performance review meeting.  The recommendation is that the training and development discussions take place separately and within two weeks of the performance review meeting.

This gives the field service engineer time to consider the job skills that were highlighted in the review as needing improvement and what actions he thinks he could take to help him meet the required standard.

The training and development meeting should be conducted in two stages with the field service engineer clearly understanding the difference in the stages.  The first stage is the training discussion led by the manager.  The second stage is the career development discussion led by the field service engineer.  In some cases a career development discussion is inappropriate, for example, for a new hire who needs a large amount of training or an engineer who is subject to the performance improvement process.  In these cases, the manager will need to say that a discussion on career development should be delayed until the field engineer is competent in his current role or the unsatisfactory performance issues have been resolved.

Concept #6: Empowerment

Micro-management is widespread because many managers do not realise that they are micro-managing their employees.  Assigning tasks, giving directions on how things should be done and unnecessary checking of what has been done are common forms of micro-management.

With the exception of new hires and less experienced members of staff, field service managers should take the approach of setting the goals and letting the field service engineers decide for themselves on how best to achieve those goals.  Also, given that the engineers have more knowledge about the customer, machine, situation, etc., they are often in the best position to make the decisions.  The alternative is for the engineers to try and transfer their knowledge to the manager so that he can make the same decision as they would have done anyway!  The latter approach wastes time for the manager, engineer and customer.

 

It is important that managers understand the difference between delegation and empowerment and use language that reinforces a culture of empowerment.  Consider these statements: ‘Please call the customer, tell him the part is out of stock, apologise and re-schedule the appointment’, versus ‘Do what you have to do to make the customer satisfied and let me know if you need me to help’.

The first statement is an example of delegation, i.e., these are the tasks that I want you to do.  The second statement is an example of empowerment, i.e., I am giving you authority to take whatever actions you think are necessary.  Managers are often surprised as to how field service engineers rise to the occasion when they are trusted to get on with the job by themselves.

Some caution is required before empowering field services engineers and it is not necessary to give all engineers the same level of authority at the same time.  Managers need to consider the return on investment of empowerment in terms of time saved, customer satisfaction, employee motivation and so on, versus the cost of a poor decision.

A frequently made decision that if made badly once per year would cost the company £100 is worthy of empowerment.  A decision with a business cost of £10,000 in a worst case scenario is not.

A ‘top four’ factor of employee motivation is the level of responsibility that they are given and empowering field service engineers is equivalent to saying ‘I trust you’.  As mentioned in the previous article, as trust goes up, productivity increases and costs come down.  Hence, empowering employees is a win-win situation for the field service manager and the engineers in many ways.

 

---

 

Could you or your colleagues benefit from attending the next SGSA Field Service Manager Course?

The Field Service Manager program is dynamic and interactive, with students frequently working in small groups, presenting findings and working on the course case study.

The program is four and a half days of course content and university-level instruction and learning that is focused on managing a field service operation.

If you want to see more information or register for the course you can do so by clicking here

PLUS! Field Service News subscribers receive a 10% discount on the course fee when quoting reference FSN0317

 

---

 

be social and share this feature

Whilst technology can play a big part in improving the efficiency of a field service operation, nothing is as important as ensuring your field service managers are fully armed to do their job. With this in mind we have teamed up with specialist field service training organisation SGSA to bring this series that looks at some of the key concepts that make a good field service manager great. 

The topics included in this series, written by SGSA's Senior Consultant Steve Brand, are based around the content of SGSA's 4 and half day, university standard training course for field service managers and Field Service News readers are eligible for a discounted attendance. Further details, a discount code and links to registration are all included at the bottom of the page...

Field Service Managers often work their way up through the ranks and learn a management style through trial and error or from their managers and their managers’ manager.  Although ‘on-the-job’ training is useful when learning technical skills, it is a risky approach when training managers.  Managers need to be able to hit the ground running, i.e., they need to be competent managers as soon as they first have responsibility of leading other members of staff.  If not, new managers can unwittingly drive down employee productivity during the process of developing their management style.

Frederik Herzberg’s influential survey on employee motivation in 2003 found that the second greatest cause of employee dissatisfaction is how they are supervised.  Untrained managers are often oblivious to how their behaviours are driving down the motivation and commitment of good employees and can mistakenly believe that decreases in performance is an employee problem rather than a management problem.

Continuing our series of four articles, here are two more powerful management tips to help Field Service Managers improve working relationships with their engineers and increase productivity.

Concept #3: Use Fair Process

Employees want to be given the chance to speak their minds.  They need to know that their opinions are being considered and they have a degree of influence in what happens at work.

If managers want the team to be committed to the task then they have to use the three steps of fair process: the engagement of employees, the explanation of why the decision is what it is and clearly explaining what is expected from them as a result of that decision.  If employees are shown that the company’s decision making process has been considerate of their views then they are much more likely to give their full cooperation to a decision, even when they disagree with that decision.

The opposite is also true.  Without fair process, even a decision that benefits the engineers can be difficult to implement.  Fair process should be conducted at every level of the organisation; however, the reality is that managers are often asked to implement decisions that have been handed down to them without their input.

 

In such situations, and even when the rationale for such decisions is not understood, the management approach is to just pass the decision down to the engineers with the implicit command of Just Do It.  Managing staff in this way lowers trust and, as trust goes down, productivity decreases and costs increase (The Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything, Stephen Covey, 2006).

But it doesn’t have to be this way.  The best practice is to get input into decisions from the engineers as early on in the process as possible.  Managers must find time to explain the business problem or other reason behind why a change is needed and then engage the team in finding the solution.  Even if the solution has already been decided, input should be sought from the engineers on how to implement the change with the least amount of impact on them personally.  Just as important, is providing feedback on how the decision was altered as a result of employee input.

If managers do not do this then employees are unlikely to volunteer their ideas the next time that they are asked.  Fair process does not need to be an onerous task; it can be achieved in one hour or one month depending on the size of the change being proposed.

Concept #4: Build a Values System

Given the huge number of correct and incorrect ways there are to behave at work, it would be an impossible and pointless task trying to teach them all to a team of field service engineers.

There is also the grey area of an acceptable behaviour in one company being considered unacceptable in another.  For example, going home when the last scheduled service call for the day has been completed may be acceptable in Company A.  However, in Company B, the field service engineer is expected to return to base until the end of the day.

The problem then arises when a new hire goes home after his last call because that’s what he’s always done.  He isn’t aware that his behaviour is unacceptable unless another field service engineer takes the time to helpfully explain ‘how it works here’.  In most cases employees know how to behave properly so repeatedly telling them what they should be doing makes the manager appear controlling and untrusting of employees’ intentions.

 

The values system provides a framework for the kinds of behaviour that are acceptable and unacceptable and also how people are expected to behave towards each other.

When implemented correctly it forms the base on which mutual trust can be established between managers and employees and also between the employees and each other.  The first key to building an effective values system is to keep it short and simple.

This allows it to be easily remembered and referred to.  An example of a simple but powerful value systems would be these guiding principles: Work Hard; Do What’s Right; Treat Others How They Want to Be Treated.  Everything that a field engineer does at work is likely to be a good, poor or indifferent example of one or more of these principles.

If someone is cherry-picking jobs then that isn’t working hard; if someone is consistently late then that that isn’t doing what’s right.  The manager’s responsibility is to lead by example and every time he sees a correct or incorrect behaviour, to inform the engineer which of the principles has been supported or violated. By acting in this way, field service engineers quickly learn what to do more and less of in a supportive manner and go on to use their common sense before making a decision about what they should or shouldn’t be doing.

 

---

 

Could you or your colleagues benefit from attending the next SGSA Field Service Manager Course?

The Field Service Manager program is dynamic and interactive, with students frequently working in small groups, presenting findings and working on the course case study.

The program is four and a half days of course content and university-level instruction and learning that is focused on managing a field service operation.

If you want to see more information or register for the course you can do so by clicking here

PLUS! Field Service News subscribers receive a 10% discount on the course fee when quoting reference FSN0223.

Terms and conditions apply

 

---

 

be social and share this feature

Workforce optimisation specialists Leadent Solutions have recently launched a new health-check service for companies operating a mobile workforce to ensure they are getting the most out of their existing systems and processes.

To find out more about what this service entails Field Service News Editor Kris Oldland spoke exclusively with Emma Newman, Managing Consultant at Leadent Solutions and we will be bringing you this interview across the next four weeks.

In this first part of this new series the discussion focussed on perhaps the most important part of any organisation, the people.

In part two we discussed why processes are such a key ingredient in the successful mix of a field service organisation and how we can get these right and in part three we looked at assessing the systems you have in place

There is also an accompanying series of articles to this interview which add further insight into the health-check. The first of these of which is available here.  The second feature written by Mark Thompson, Managing Consultant with Leadent Solutions is available here and looks at processes, the third feature written by Kevin Anderson looks at systems is available here and finally the feature which accompanies this instalment is available here

 

---

 

If you think your company could benefit from the Healthcheck you can contact Emma and the team directly by clicking this link

 

---

 

be social and share this story

As our exclusive series looking at Leadent Solutions new Healthcheck service draws to an end we Dave Kemp, Managing consultant takes a look at what outcomes can be anticipated when companies go through the process which is designed to help them get the most out of their existing service management systems.... 

If you missed the introduction to this series you can revisit part one here and the second feature, which focussed on the processes in a field service organisation is available here and the third part which focusses on the systems in place is available here

If you think your company could benefit from the Healthcheck you can contact Dave and the team directly by clicking this link

Planning for the journey

In Parts 1,2, and 3 of this series of articles we have explained that to understand the health of field-based operations, and to identify areas for improvement, a holistic view covering People, Process and Systems is required. The initial output of Leadent Solutions Workforce Health Check detailing issues and recommended remedial actions really only represents the start of a journey. This article discusses how to take the next steps in delivering improvements.

Deciding What You Need To Do?

Put in a new scheduling system, re-engineer the mobile application, adopt a new work priority schema, upgrade the contractors’ portal, focus on office / field collaboration in planning decisions, re-train the call agents….

A review or health check will detail issues and recommend remedial actions. What now? Of course there will be budgetary limitations, and a keen expectation regards delivery timeframes, but question around ’what should be done?’, ‘in what order?’, and ‘what can be deferred?’ will remain. To make these decisions we need to understand the business value associated with each of the remedial actions, the costs, and the ease or difficulty of implementation. Other methods are available, but mapping potential changes by business value and implementation difficulty (and cost) usually works well.

This is a start point in deciding what needs to be done, and what is a priority to the business. Input from across the business, including field operations is required, early buy-in being absolutely essential.

Understanding the Bigger Picture

The health check will have focused on looking at issues and opportunities related to field operations. However, before proceeding with remedial actions, an understanding of broader considerations is required.

• Does the company plan to make any structural or organisation changes?
• What IT or change programmes are planned or ‘in flight’?
• Regarding technology, are there planned upgrades?

These questions are examples only, but it is clear that the bigger picture needs to be understood. It will impact what remedial action is done, if there are any dependencies, and when it can be done.

Staying with the car analogy adopted in this series, you may have decided to replace your old Toyota, but now know the new model is due out early next year. Do you buy now, and maybe pick up a bargain, or wait for the very latest model, one of the very few on the road?

By categorising and prioritising remedial actions, by understanding the bigger picture and dependencies, and of course working to money and time constraints, it should be possible to group actions into work packages and establish an order to those work packages.

Giving Your Project Some Shape

A project focused on making some minor, short term configuration changes to a forecasting system being delivered to a small central planning team probably needs a different approach to a transformation programme introducing a brand new mobile solution to 8,000 field engineers based across the region. It’s very much horses for courses! Focusing on the transformation end of the scale, the programme will have to consider:

• Requirements confirmation
• Detailed design (process and IT)
• Build and testing (IT)
• Stakeholder management
• Business readiness
• Communications
• Training
• Proof of concept / pilot
• Implementation and support approach
• Benefits realisation and tracking

Of course, this all needs to be underpinned by programme and project management activities, and an appropriate governance approach. Again, horse for courses!

Putting the Team Together

It’s vital that changes made impacting field -based operations involve subject matter experts from support functions and from the operational business. At Leadent Solutions, working with our clients, we have seen this work well when:

• The Project Board has full functional representation
• When team members are seconded from Business As Usual roles on to project positions
• A business network, with representatives from all appropriate functions, is used to inform or validate design or implementation decisions

Business representation on the project team in part ensures the integrity of the final solution, and, to some degree, removes the ‘not designed here’ risk.

Keeping the Business Informed: Communicate, Communicate, Communicate

In the first article we focused on ‘People’, their prime role in business performance, and the importance of change management in any improvement activities. It’s not my intention to revisit change management generally in this article, but it is worth re-iterating the importance of communication.

It’s important from the very outset that the business understands:

• What the project / programme will deliver
• How they will deliver it
• What the project expects from the business
• The anticipated timeframes
• What the feedback channels are

And that those messages are:

• Tailored to the audience (a field engineer will not want to see a detailed project plan)
• Repeated on a frequent basis

With the disparate nature of field-based operations, communications are not always straightforward. Team meetings may be infrequent, access to systems or the internet is not always assured. Some creative thinking may be required to make sure the messages are heard!

As an output of the Healthcheck, we work with clients to shape, plan and set-up remedial actions – this can range from simplistic but focused action plans to large transformation projects. This article has highlighted some key considerations in that process.

Next time, the last part of this series covers a Case Study at Anglian Water.   A Leadent Solutions Health Check on the quality of work schedules led to a number of changes in the set-up and configuration of the ClickSchedule application. These changes have driven immediate improvements in field engineer productivity.

There is also a video interview that accompanies this feature with Emma Newman, Managing Consultant Leadent Solutions which is available here

 

---

If you think your company could benefit from the Healthcheck you can contact Dave and the team directly by clicking this link

---

be social and share this story