• Replies 13 replies
  • Subscribers 2 subscribers
  • Views 19 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Tips for managing subcontractors in FieldPulse?

Nadia Petrov

We're expanding our reach into adjacent territories and have begun partnering with certified subcontractors for overflow work and specialized services. I am curious how others are incorporating third-party technicians into their FieldPulse workflows.

Specifically, I would be interested to hear about:

  • How you structure subcontractor access — dedicated user licenses, shared dispatch accounts, or external coordination
  • Whether you require subcontractors to use the mobile app directly, or if your internal team handles documentation on their behalf
  • How you handle customer-facing elements (notifications, portal access) when work is performed by non-employees
  • Any contractual or compliance workflows you've built into checklists or documentation requirements

Another way to frame this: for those who have moved beyond simply "tracking" subcontractor jobs to truly integrating them into your operational framework, what proved to be the critical shift?

We want to ensure we're setting both our internal team and our partners up for success without creating unnecessary administrative burden or customer confusion.

Parents

  • In my experience, most subs won't touch your app if they have their own system. Waste of time trying.

    We just have our dispatcher handle all the FieldPulse side. Sub does the work, texts us photos, we upload and close it out.

    Not elegant but it works. Tried the full integration route — abandoned after two months.

  • in reply to Art Kowalczyk

    Art, this is a valuable counterpoint. Another way to think about it: perhaps the question is less about "integration" and more about where the operational burden should sit.

    For smaller subcontractor relationships, your approach may indeed be more efficient. For larger or recurring partnerships, the visibility and standardization benefits of direct system access might justify the onboarding investment.

    Did you find any particular pain points in your initial attempt that led you to abandon it? Understanding what created friction might help us evaluate where on that spectrum our current partners fall.

Reply
  • in reply to Art Kowalczyk

    Art, this is a valuable counterpoint. Another way to think about it: perhaps the question is less about "integration" and more about where the operational burden should sit.

    For smaller subcontractor relationships, your approach may indeed be more efficient. For larger or recurring partnerships, the visibility and standardization benefits of direct system access might justify the onboarding investment.

    Did you find any particular pain points in your initial attempt that led you to abandon it? Understanding what created friction might help us evaluate where on that spectrum our current partners fall.

Children
No Data