• Replies 13 replies
  • Subscribers 2 subscribers
  • Views 30 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Do you let technicians self-schedule, or is everything dispatcher-controlled?

Deja Washington

Hi everyone! Hope you're all having a great week so far!

So our team has been growing (we're up to 14 techs now!) and I'm wondering if we should start letting our senior technicians do some of their own scheduling. Right now I control everything from the dispatch board — who's going where, what order, the whole thing. It's worked fine but honestly it's getting to be a lot, especially when I'm out sick or on vacation and someone else has to cover.

I've heard some teams let techs claim open jobs or move things around within their own routes, and I'm curious how that works in practice. Does it actually save time or does it just create chaos? What about when customers request specific techs — do you let the tech handle that directly?

Really appreciate any insights! We're trying to figure out what "good" looks like as we scale up. Thanks so much in advance!

Parents

  • Pro tip: if you go this route, invest in training your techs to actually read the job details before they start moving things around.

    I've seen techs rearrange their whole day because "the address looked closer" only to find out the job required a second tech or special equipment that wasn't available at their new preferred time. Dispatcher would've caught that. Tech staring at a mobile screen at 6am? Not always.

    Not saying don't do it — just say your checklists and job requirements need to be bulletproof before you decentralize. The info the dispatcher holds in their head needs to live somewhere visible.

  • in reply to Josh Mercer

    The strategic question isn't really about scheduling mechanics — it's about where you want organizational knowledge to live.

    Centralized dispatch creates a single point of expertise, which is efficient until that person leaves. Distributed scheduling builds redundancy and resilience, but requires investment in systems and culture that most organizations underestimate.

    We've maintained dispatcher control at scale (40+ technicians) because the complexity of our customer agreements and service level requirements exceeds what we can reasonably encode in software rules. The cost of a misrouted technician is higher than the cost of a dispatcher.

    Your mileage will vary based on your customer profile and margin structure.

Reply
  • in reply to Josh Mercer

    The strategic question isn't really about scheduling mechanics — it's about where you want organizational knowledge to live.

    Centralized dispatch creates a single point of expertise, which is efficient until that person leaves. Distributed scheduling builds redundancy and resilience, but requires investment in systems and culture that most organizations underestimate.

    We've maintained dispatcher control at scale (40+ technicians) because the complexity of our customer agreements and service level requirements exceeds what we can reasonably encode in software rules. The cost of a misrouted technician is higher than the cost of a dispatcher.

    Your mileage will vary based on your customer profile and margin structure.

Children
  • in reply to Keiko Tanaka

    Thanks so much everyone! This is giving me a lot to think about.

    Keiko, your point about where knowledge lives really resonates — I'm basically the only one who knows all the customer quirks and tech specialties right now, and that's not sustainable.

    I think we're going to try a limited pilot with maybe two of our most reliable senior techs, with clear guardrails like Gwen suggested. Baby steps!

    Really appreciate all the perspectives!