Field service and equipment maintenance automation

Inspection deadlines from contracts and regulations, such as leak checks on refrigerant systems, are recorded in a spreadsheet. Customers are reminded by phone or not at all.

The system calculates deadlines from contracts and requirements for each piece of equipment, proposes a visit date to the customer in advance and creates orders. If the customer does not respond, it goes to the dispatcher.

The dispatcher plans the day in their head: who is certified for the equipment, who is closest, who has the parts in the van. Every urgent breakdown scatters the plan.

The system suggests a technician based on certifications, location, workload and parts in the service van, and recalculates the day plan for urgent requests. The dispatcher approves changes with one click.

Customers have different response times in their contracts. The dispatcher finds out about a missed deadline when the customer calls to complain.

Every request has a timer based on the contract. An approaching breach triggers an alert for the dispatcher and manager, and every month a deadline compliance report is produced for each customer.

The technician fills in a paper report or writes notes that someone in the office retypes. The customer gets the document days later, and photos get lost in the phone's gallery.

The technician records a short voice note and takes photos. AI prepares the report with a description of the work, parts used and readings, the customer signs it on screen and receives a PDF straight away.

No one knows exactly which parts are in which van. The technician drives to the customer and then goes back for a missing part.

Parts used in the report are deducted from the van's stock. The system reserves parts needed for tomorrow's orders, suggests what to take from the warehouse and prepares an order when stock falls below the minimum.

With unfamiliar equipment, the technician searches for manuals online or calls a more experienced colleague.

The technician asks the assistant on their phone about an error code, a diagram or a procedure. The assistant answers based on manufacturer documentation and the company's repair history, and points to the source in the documentation.

Customers call to ask whether their request has arrived and when the technician will come. The dispatcher answers the phone instead of planning work.

The customer receives automatic messages: request received, visit date, technician on the way, repair completed with the report. A chatbot or voice bot answers status questions.

When a repair goes beyond the contract, the technician calls the office, the office calculates the cost and sends a quote days later. Meanwhile, the equipment stands idle.

From the technician's diagnosis, the system prepares a quote based on the labour and parts price list. The customer accepts it online, and acceptance immediately creates the order and the parts order.

Contracts expire without a conversation with the customer. The sales rep does not have the history to hand: how many requests there were, what was repaired, what the response time was.

Before the contract ends, the sales rep receives a reminder with a summary of the service provided and suggested renewal terms. The customer receives a report on inspections and repairs together with the offer.

Repair invoices are issued from reports once a week. Travel, extra hours and parts are easy to miss.

Closing an order creates an invoice with labour, parts and travel from the report and sends it to KSeF in the FA(3) structure. Contract customers receive a consolidated monthly invoice with a list of orders.

It is unclear which service contracts make money and which cost more than they bring in. The data is scattered across reports and invoices.

The system totals technician hours, parts and travel for each contract and compares them with the fee. Every quarter, management receives a list of contracts below the profitability threshold ahead of renewal talks.

The same equipment breaks down every few months, but no one puts it together. Replacement is only proposed after a serious breakdown.

The system identifies equipment with recurring faults, and when equipment or BMS systems provide readings, it spots unusual values before a breakdown. The technician and customer receive a proposal for an inspection or replacement.