• State Verified Answer
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 2 subscribers
  • Views 0 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Limiting technician view/edit permissions — how granular?

Anita Sharma

I am evaluating the FieldPulse permission model for our field service deployment. The current documentation describes three primary roles: Admin, Manager, and Technician. However, I require clarification on the following points:

  1. Can the Technician role be restricted to view-only access for work orders not assigned to that specific user?
  2. Is it possible to prevent technicians from editing customer contact information while still allowing them to add job notes?
  3. Can field-level permissions be configured to hide pricing data (labor rates, parts markup) from technician view entirely?
  4. Are there any plans to introduce custom role definitions beyond the three standard roles?

I have confirmed that we are running FieldPulse version 3.2.1 (web) and our mobile fleet is standardized on iOS 17.6 with app version 3.2.0 (build 4821). Our compliance requirements stipulate that technicians must not have visibility to customer billing history or internal cost data.

Please advise on current capabilities and recommended configuration patterns. Reference to specific documentation sections or policy templates would be appreciated.

  • 0

    Hi Anita, happy to help! Great question — you're right that the role structure is tiered, and I want to make sure you have the full picture on what's configurable today.

    Here is the current state of Technician role restrictions:

    1. Work order visibility: Yes. Under Settings → Permissions → Technician Access, enable "Restrict to assigned work orders only." This prevents technicians from seeing the full dispatch board or unassigned jobs.
    2. Customer data editing: Partially. Technicians can always add notes and photos. To prevent contact editing, disable "Edit customer details" in the same permissions section. They will retain read-only access to customer name, address, and phone for job context.
    3. Pricing visibility: This is the gap. Labor rates and parts markup currently display to technicians with the "View job details" permission enabled. There is not a granular toggle to hide pricing while showing other job data. I have noted this for our product team.
    4. Custom roles: On the roadmap for Q4 2025 per our H2 roadmap announcement, but not available today.

    For your compliance requirement on billing history: that data is already restricted — technicians never see invoice history or payment status, only the current work order scope.

    Would you like me to walk through the exact permission settings in a quick call? I can also flag your account for early access testing when custom roles enter beta.

  • 0

    Pro tip: we ran into this exact setup last year. What we do is use the Manager role for our lead techs who need broader visibility, and we trained everyone else to just... not scroll down to the pricing section. Not ideal, but it works.

    The real workaround we've found: if you create work orders from templates with $0.00 listed rates and handle all actual pricing in the back office, techs don't see real numbers. Downside is your dispatchers have to add line items after job close.

    Worth noting: Priya's answer on billing history is correct, but techs CAN see quoted prices if those are attached to the work order. Double-check your quote workflow if that's sensitive.

  • 0

    It is worth noting that the pricing visibility limitation Priya identified may have compliance implications depending on your jurisdiction and contractual obligations. From a governance perspective, I would recommend documenting this as a known control gap in your internal risk register.

    Anita, you may wish to reference Managing User Roles and Permissions for the current permission matrix, though I have confirmed the documentation does not address field-level granularity beyond what Priya outlined.

    Additionally, it is worth noting that API access (if provisioned for your account) inherits the requesting user's role permissions. If you are considering custom integrations to enforce pricing restrictions at the data layer, ensure your API keys are scoped appropriately and audit access quarterly.

  • 0

    Thank you for the responses. I have implemented the "Restrict to assigned work orders only" setting as described.

    I can confirm that technicians with this restriction enabled are unable to view unassigned jobs in both the web interface and mobile application. This satisfies requirement #1.

    However, I have identified an inconsistency: when a technician uses the search function in the mobile app, customer records from unassigned jobs appear in search results with partial address information. This occurs despite the restriction setting. I have documented this behavior with screenshots and will submit a support ticket unless this is a known configuration issue.

    Regarding the pricing visibility gap: I have logged this as a control deficiency per Fatima's recommendation. We will proceed with the $0.00 template approach as an interim compensating control, with manual dispatcher review of all closed work orders.

    Please confirm whether the search visibility behavior is expected or requires escalation.

  • 0 in reply to Anita Sharma

    Anita — thank you for that detailed follow-up. I have reproduced the search behavior you described and confirmed this is unintended. Customer records from unassigned jobs should not surface in mobile search when the restriction is enabled.

    I am escalating this to our engineering team as a bug. You should receive a ticket reference within 30 minutes. The workaround until resolved: disable search for technician role users (toggle under Mobile Permissions), though I recognize this impacts usability.

    Your documentation of this as a control deficiency is appropriate. I will update here when the fix is scheduled.