BLOG / RESEARCH · FIELD OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

QUALITY IN FIELD OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Quality operational management is the product or result of good work preparation, good deployment planning and the most precise possible implementation of these. If you become more precise and look more closely, a series of further questions arise step by step. In relation to the process step of planning deployments, the first thing to clarify is:

1. What does 'good' mean in the context of operations planning?
Good or optimal planning can be said to be carried out when the planning results reflect, as far as possible, the general operational planning objectives that are to be defined in advance. The three main objectives from Netze BW's perspective are:

• Shortest possible route or short travel times
• Order deadlines are met
• Best possible technician utilisation

These goals compete with each other and must be prioritised against each other. A fundamental decision must be made because the parameterisation of FLS VISITOUR is essentially derived from this.

A possible prioritisation would be, for example:

1. Order deadlines are met
2. Best possible technician utilisation (e.g. around 100%)
3. Shortest possible route or short travel times

Important: All other expectations, specifications and premises that must be implemented as part of the operational planning, such as:

• Regulations and laws, such as framework working hours
• Skills/qualifications, training, etc.
• Availability of work tools, parts, etc.

...rank ahead of the planning goals and further limit the attainability of these. This not only has consequences for operational planning, but also offers a great deal of scope for assessing and perceiving the quality of these!

2. How are the planning results evaluated?
Planning results and routes are perceived subjectively by the individual participants. Different criteria are quickly used for the evaluation and individual expectations and priorities play a role! This subjective component in the perception of a plan should not be underestimated and it is of course very problematic in terms of an objective discussion and assessment of the quality of planning results if mainly individually prioritised criteria and subjective expectations are used as a benchmark! The question is therefore:

3. Is there an objective, irrefutably best option for operation planning, or how can you find and recognise it?
A look at the mathematics shows us that common planning factors very quickly lead - purely mathematically - to unimaginably large sets of solutions.

For example: A vehicle is to visit 10 customers in one day. There are =10! = 10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1 = 3.6 million possibilities. If several vehicles are to be planned at the same time, e.g. 85 customers and 10 mechanics/vehicles, there are already 10^85 possibilities! A 10 with 85 zeros!

Such tasks can no longer be calculated in a closed form! The PowerOpt Algorithm developed for this purpose help to find good solutions in a reasonable amount of time, but: The one, objectively irrefutable best solution will generally not be known in such planning scenarios - which generally exclude trivial, obvious optimal solutions!

If - as is the case with Netze BW - there are no or insufficient objective indicators/key figures available for the clear assessment/measurement of the quality of a plan in a very demanding, complex planning environment, there is hardly any possibility of determining this quality quickly and objectively.

This means that individual planning results can be questioned! It is therefore very important to make key figures and metrics available that are as meaningful as possible and to continuously expand and refine these systems.

4. What elements affect the planning of field operations?
However, planning results can also be rightly called into question. Even in the planning process, there are plenty of sources of error and disruption that lead to (more or less) obviously suboptimal results in operational planning. We learned the following success factors, among others, have a direct impact on the quality of planning:

• Framework and organisation
• Conceptual weaknesses
• Planning concepts
• Goal and role conflicts
• System structure
• Dispatching tool (parameters and functions)
• System usage
• Understanding and approaches
• Goal, role and process loyalty

As an example, the topics of system structure and system usage are examined in more detail here:

Focus: System structure Dispatching Tool
A dispatching tool must have the necessary functions. All data must be correctly maintained (e.g. working hours, addresses, geo-data, skills, etc.). Parameterization/settings must be made in accordance with the planning objectives, e.g. weighting of deadlines, kilometers driven and working hours, use of priorities, etc. Depending on the number of setting options, it can quickly become very complex.

Focus: System Usage
The prerequisites for the creation of good and efficient planning are: Work planners/dispatchers must be very familiar with how to operate the systems. The tool functions and the functionality of the planning automation must be understood. The dispatcher must have a strong planning mindset and goal-oriented methodology and understand the planning context (e.g.: use degrees of freedom). The dispatcher's willingness to plan must go so far that not only does every technician have enough to do, but that the planned assignments are also combined into the most efficient routes possible. The key: Human and machine must therefore work together as well as possible - i.e. 'smartly' - and be coordinated with one another.

5. What elements affect the implementation of the plan?
Good operational planning is no guarantee for a good end result. Even in the implementation of the planning result, i.e. the execution of the operations, there are elements that can have a negative impact on the implementation of 'good' planning.

The following factors, among others, have a direct impact on the quality of implementation:

External influences:

• Disturbances at the planning level (unplanned disruption)
• Disturbances to the process from outside

Internal influences:

• Faulty/inadequate AV or planning
• Lack of implementation fidelity

Here, too, we take a closer look at examples of external disruptions to the process and a lack of implementation fidelity:

Focus: Disturbances to the process - from outside

• Customer not found
• Unplanned setup trip necessary, e.g. materials missing
• Atmospheric influence (rain, fog, darkness)
• Timing deviates (plan-actual deviation of deployment duration)

This is where escalation management is needed. Close communication between technicians and dispatchers is necessary. Lesson learned: It is definitely helpful to define behaviours for each scenario in advance. In addition, these 'disturbances' or their causes - as far as they can be influenced - must be remedied at organisation level.

Focus: Lack of 'implementation fidelity'
An example of this is: Technicians deviate from the schedule during processing without there being any external disturbance.

Reasons for this may be:

• Roles and competencies are not clearly defined and demarcated
• Roles and competencies are not understood and/or accepted

The aim here is to promote understanding and acceptance among the technicians. Learning: Clear rules and guidelines are helpful and sustainable communication is essential.

QUALITY MEASURES TO TAKE INTO YOUR PROJECT

The following measures minimise the influence of disturbances and support sustainable quality management at Netze BW:

• Develop planning concepts (case-related) and demonstrate planning contexts and promote planning understanding among those involved
• Change management to introduce and maintain WFM-compliant behavior and working practices
• Training courses tailored to needs and users (content and methods)
• Key performance indicator system to make planning quality, implementation quality, etc. visible/measurable
• Organisational measures (e.g. clearly defining processes, defining roles, agreeing on binding SLAs, etc.)
• Constant expectation management and leadership