{"id":16163,"date":"2022-06-21T19:15:39","date_gmt":"2022-06-21T19:15:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fieldnation.com\/resources\/allocating-work\/"},"modified":"2025-02-03T04:17:35","modified_gmt":"2025-02-03T09:17:35","slug":"allocating-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fieldnation.com\/resources\/allocating-work","title":{"rendered":"A guide to allocating work in a blended workforce"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Shawn Fields<\/span><\/em>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Talent remains the number one challenge facing many organizations today. Due to changing labor trends, many companies are shifting toward a blended workforce to overcome this talent crisis and remain competitive in today\u2019s challenging economy.<\/span><\/p>\n

That said, implementing a blended workforce isn\u2019t easy. Many businesses who have spent decades leaning exclusively on full-time resources must overcome years of tradition, convention, and reward systems to give a blended workforce a fighting chance. Adopting a blended workforce requires looking at work differently \u2014 both how it is done and how it is measured.<\/span><\/p>\n

For most companies, allocating field service work has been the same for years. It probably looks something like this:<\/span><\/p>\n

\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Work comes into the field service organization, and leadership asks one simple question: \u201cDo I have the capacity in my full-time field service organization to do the work?\u201d If the answer is \u201cyes,\u201d then the work goes to full-time employees in that organization. This is because, for years, the prevailing metric of a well-run field services organization has been utilization. <\/span>But what we\u2019re proposing\u2014which will likely be seen as heresy in field services organizations\u2014is that utilization is the <\/b>wrong<\/i><\/b> success metric for measuring field services. Here\u2019s why.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/a>

The problem with utilization\u00a0<\/b><\/h2>\n

Simply put, utilization is a measurement of \u201cactivity\u201d\u2013\u2013i.e., how \u201cbusy\u201d a field service technician is in a given period of time. In other words, out of an eight-hour day, how many hours is that technician actually performing a work-related activity?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The problem with this definition is that it does not examine whether <\/span>what<\/span><\/i> the technician is doing produces enough value to cover (and hopefully exceed) the cost of that technician.<\/span><\/p>\n

For the traditional utilization model to work, all \u201cwork\u201d must be considered the same, and, as we all know, it isn\u2019t. There\u2019s a big difference between installing and configuring a self-checkout in a grocery store and using an antimicrobial wipe to clean an ATM. Should the same technician be doing both those jobs? Do you want your most experienced Level 4 technician with 30 years of experience in the field cleaning ATMs?<\/span><\/p>\n

Additionally, all time isn\u2019t equal. For most technicians that are full-time employees, \u201cwindshield time\u201d (the time it takes that technician to get to and from a work location) is considered work time. But windshield time doesn\u2019t generate revenue and, in most cases, isn\u2019t billed to the client. So when field technicians have projects that are far away, their utilization numbers might <\/span>look<\/span><\/i> great. But the truth is that only the \u201cwrench time\u201d (the time spent actually working on the equipment) generates revenue.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/a>

Why revenue\/technician\/day is a better north star metric<\/b><\/h2>\n

For that reason, we believe that success metrics should include a new measurement: revenue\/technician\/day. This metric helps you evaluate whether a given technician is doing the \u201cright kind\u201d of work.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In other words, revenue\/technician\/day encourages your organization to ask questions that uncover opportunities for streamlining labor channels and optimizing revenue. For example, how much of your technician\u2019s time is spent traveling? Can you reduce that? Are your highly valuable resources spending time on less valuable work? Can you reduce that? Does the work your team is doing provide an adequate return on your investment? Does the revenue they produce outstrip their COGS and SG&A?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/a>

The modern approach to work allocation<\/b><\/h2>\n

Going forward, we believe the way work is allocated to different groups should look like this:<\/span><\/p>\n

\"<\/a><\/p>\n

What we\u2019re proposing is that a new organization \u201ctaskifies\u201d the work. This approach breaks work down into its discrete components and assigns it to the most appropriate group: automation, full-time employees, subcontractors, or platform labor.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s think about the basic components of work using today\u2019s conventional terms:<\/span><\/p>\n

Work Composition<\/span><\/p>\n