Big Brother… or Lynchpin of Field Service Effectiveness?
Location-Based Services Move to the Next Level
Service Business Review spoke with Aberdeen Group Analyst, Mark Vigoroso, to learn more about a recent Benchmark Report examining the growing importance of first-class field service and the necessary steps corporations are taking to provide it.
Which technologies hold the most promise for improving the performance of field service operations? That question was the focus of a recent Benchmark Report by technology research organization Aberdeen Group, which examined the growing importance of first-class field service and the necessary steps corporations are taking to provide it. Of the companies they studied, Aberdeen Group reported that 83 percent of best-in-class organizations were utilizing location-based services tools as a key component of their service excellence strategies.
To learn more about the study and its implications, Service Business Review talked to Mark Vigoroso, Aberdeen Group’s chief research officer and service director for service chain management research. In his role, Mr. Vigoroso focuses on technology-driven business value in the service chain, analyzing how service executives utilize field service management, mobile service, service parts planning and distribution, service force optimization and other technology solutions to automate and streamline post-sales service and support processes.
The entire Aberdeen Group Benchmark Report, titled “Location. Location. Location. Does it Matter in Field Service?” is included in this issue of Service Business Review.
Service Business Review: What field service trends led you to do this research?
Mark Vigoroso: In the three and a half years that Aberdeen Research has been surveying and interviewing field service organizations, mobile field service and field service automation solutions have consistently been at the top of the “intend to purchase” or “intend to upgrade” lists.
We did this study because we’ve seen the tremendous impact of field service on corporate financial performance. We wanted to understand whether location-based services provide incremental value above and beyond the main transactional systems that govern field service.
SBR: In the report, you highlight a huge gap between the perceived importance of field service and actual satisfaction with field service operations. What’s being done to bridge that gap?
MV: There’s a lot of subtext behind that finding. In the C-level suites of most product companies, there is skepticism and even resistance toward focusing resources, effort, time and budget on the services side of the business, versus on the product side of the business. It’s up to service executives and other champions of the service business to evangelize these C-level officers by demonstrating the quantifiable returns of investing in field service.
In fact, I think the only action that can be taken to bridge the gap is to build a bulletproof business case using core metrics like customer retention, first-call resolution rates, fuel-cost savings, mean time to repair, over-time pay reduction and service revenue increase. Some of the information in this Aberdeen Group report can assist in the effort, as well
SBR: The report focuses on location-based services as one of the key technologies to improve field service performance. Based on your research, what are some of the most important drivers for location-based services?
MV: There were two key drivers on our list. The first was an increasing level of expectation from the customer base for more responsive service and more reliable product uptime or service delivery. Sixty percent of the companies we interviewed cited this as the reason they first started to evaluate location-based services.
“The second driver, for 54 percent of the companies we interviewed, was an existing inefficient approach to field service scheduling and routing. Location-based services allow these organizations to capture where a particular technician is, where they’re going to be, and, based on that, where they should be most efficiently dispatched, based on where they are. This is all in conjunction with their skill sets, the parts they have, and a number of other parameters.
SBR: Do you see a pattern of differences between various industries, in terms of how they use location-based services?
MV: Some of the more labor-intensive service organizations are more prone to adopt field service technology in general, and location-based services as a part of that. These are organizations that have a critical mass of technicians deployed over a significant geographic region, maybe even global. There’s a fair amount of unpredictability in the service demand flow – a lot of break/fix, as well as unexpected emergency work orders. The amount of dynamism within that service flow often builds an immediate, compelling business case for investment in mobile field service, scheduling and routing, as well as in location-based services.
Industries like utilities, facilities management and building infrastructure have a tremendous need for it. We also see significant need in areas where there are high-value, potentially complex fixed assets, such as medical device, industrial manufacturing and high tech manufacturing, where there can be tremendous premiums placed on asset availability and uptime.
SBR: Can organizations realize additional value if they combine location-based services with automated scheduling?
MV: I would agree with that. The study showed us that 61 percent of companies currently leveraging some sort of location intelligence are using that data as input parameters for scheduling and routing applications. Is it is the number one use for location intelligence right now. Location data, by itself, basically gives a static “bread-crumbing” effect, showing present and past. Real value also preemptively looks at future tense – where are technicians likely to be, and where should they be to maximize work time during any given shift?
SBR: Where does the concept of “Big Brother” fit in regards to location-based services?
MV: This is one of the most surprising findings to come out of the study. Our hypothesis was that the primary usage of location information was for that very purpose – to keep track of compliance among field workers, and to monitor whether they were really where they said they were. And while 54 percent of the companies we interviewed said they use location information to identify underperforming or non-compliant technicians, the real value was input into routing and scheduling. The best organizations used location information to make technicians more effective.
SBR: Could the Big Brother approach potentially lead to productivity reductions?
A, I think that using location information only for the purpose of routing out underperformers is not likely to engender a feeling of empowerment, or grow morale. In fact, it might have the opposite effect. In instances where technicians know they’re being monitored to catch underperformance or non-compliance, they’ve been known to go to great lengths to circumvent or undermine the system. When it comes to GPS-enabled handhelds, for instance, it’s easy to turn them off, or leave them in the truck.
SBR: The report states that 69 percent of firms plan to purchase or upgrade technology to automate portions of their field service operations, while 63 percent state they currently use location-based services. Does this mean that location-based services were used as a starting point for an expanding field service solution, or are companies looking to upgrade or replace their current location-based services solutions?
MV: I think it’s a combination of both. While location-based services are one of the most important enablers, we’re also looking at more robust computing and integration with back office systems. Part of that 69 percent of companies looking to purchase or upgrade may be looking at integration with inventory systems, contract management and warranty management systems. They may be looking at integrating asset history, asset performance, product history information and parts catalogs. In other words, they’re interested in providing more of what we call asset-centric functionality to the technician in the field.
SBR: On the vendor side, location-based services are offered by a wide variety of companies. How do you think the landscape will evolve?
MV: Right now, it’s fairly fragmented. There are independent software vendors, with traditional mobile field service or scheduling or routing applications, who want to incorporate location-based functionality. Cellular carriers are coming to market, and device manufacturers are releasing products with tracking, GPS and, in some cases, in-vehicle mounted tracking capabilities. The way we’ve seen it begin to evolve is to coalesce around bringing together two or three of those key components – software, carriers and device providers –as a single, bundled offering.
Longer term, I think we’ll see major players like Microsoft, SAP and Oracle increasingly focused on service as it rises on the priority ladder. As it becomes more apparent that service within product companies is becoming more of a strategic contributor to the business, they are actually building and partnering and, in many cases, acquiring the capabilities that they need to address those new requirements.
SBR: In closing, what are some of the key things a company should focus on as they consider a move to location-based services?
MV: What’s important to do first is to consider the human factor – the makeup of your field force – and really understand the propensity for these particular employees to adopt the solution. Technicians need to perceive the location-based system as something that will allow them to do more in less time, and to achieve their targets without necessarily viewing it as a weight on their shoulders.
Another key issue is to look at integration. There is a great deal of concern around integrating location intelligence with not only service workflows, but also with related workflows that have to do with other customer service processes, warranty adjudication processes and financial reconciliation processes. Companies need to examine the touchpoints with other business units, and look at how location information can be used as a critical integration point.
Third, look at senior-level management as a critical gating factor. The CFO needs to be convinced not just once, but over time why it’s important to continue to dedicate resources and budget to the service organization. The challenge for the service executive is to become a close confidant and a close communicator with C-level executives, particularly the CFO, and to demonstrate the business case based upon those metrics that matter most to the organization.
Lastly, it’s important to think about the requirements for the security of customer data. Often, onsite technicians are capturing information about product performance and asset histories, and some of that is of concern to asset operators. It’s important to make sure that technicians are versed on communicating to the customer that data is treated with a high degree of security.
Download Free White Paper: Location. Location. Location.
Does it Matter in Mobile Field Service?
Aberdeen Group
