• Replies 11 replies
  • Subscribers 2 subscribers
  • Views 2 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

How do you balance route efficiency with technician skill matching?

Deja Washington

Hi everyone! We've been using FieldPulse for about 6 months now and our dispatch team is running into this constant tension — we want to optimize routes to save time and fuel, but we also need to make sure the right tech with the right skills ends up on each job.

Right now we're kind of winging it, honestly. We have a spreadsheet of who is certified for what, and we cross-reference that with the schedule, but it's getting unwieldy as we grow. We went from 8 techs to 17 in just a few months!

How are y'all handling this? Are you using FieldPulse's skills/tags features? Do you prioritize proximity or expertise? And what do you do when your most skilled tech is 45 minutes away and someone closer could probably handle it but might take longer?

Would love to hear what's working for your teams! Thanks so much!

Parents

  • Deja, this is exactly the kind of problem that breaks dispatch teams if you don't get ahead of it. Here's how we solved it — and honestly wish we'd done this six months sooner.

    First, we got ruthless about skill categories. Not just "HVAC" but "HVAC - Commercial - 10+ ton systems" and "HVAC - Residential - Diagnostics." The more granular, the better your matching.

    Second, we created a tiered response system:

    • Tier 1 (Same day): Proximity wins unless the job absolutely requires a specialist cert
    • Tier 2 (24-48hr): We hold for the right tech even if it means a longer drive
    • Emergency: Closest qualified tech, period — we follow up with a specialist if needed

    We also started tracking "skill stretch" jobs — where a Tier 2 tech shadows a Tier 1 on complex work. Builds your bench and reduces the "only one person can do this" bottleneck.

    Pro tip: Use FieldPulse's custom fields to flag jobs by complexity, not just type. Makes filtering way faster when you're building the board.

  • in reply to Gwen Albright

    @gwen.albright we tried the tiered approach and it created more problems than it solved. My team couldn't keep the tiers straight and we ended up with angry customers who thought they were Tier 1 but got bumped.

    We simplified: every job gets tagged skill-required or skill-preferred. Required means we wait for the right person. Preferred means closest tech gets it and we monitor completion time. If a preferred job takes 2x the estimate, it becomes required next time.

    Much easier to execute. Your dispatchers need something they can apply in 10 seconds, not a decision tree.

Reply
  • in reply to Gwen Albright

    @gwen.albright we tried the tiered approach and it created more problems than it solved. My team couldn't keep the tiers straight and we ended up with angry customers who thought they were Tier 1 but got bumped.

    We simplified: every job gets tagged skill-required or skill-preferred. Required means we wait for the right person. Preferred means closest tech gets it and we monitor completion time. If a preferred job takes 2x the estimate, it becomes required next time.

    Much easier to execute. Your dispatchers need something they can apply in 10 seconds, not a decision tree.

Children
  • in reply to Brandon Okafor

    Brandon, fair point on execution speed — but I think this depends on team size. At 17 techs you might get away with binary tags. We're at 34 and growing, and the binary approach started creating quality issues. Customers could tell when they got the "B team."

    Maybe the real answer is: start simple, add complexity as you scale, and train your dispatchers like they're making high-stakes calls because they are.