Sites use can be applied in many different ways, for our use case sites mean a location.
Our locations have a range of different information that if available to be linked to each site could either be:
- Available to users that have direct or inherited membership
- Available to the platform features to leverage
- Just keep in mind at times there could be times when both will need it
We should be able to define what fields make sense for either user, platform or both as it will be unique for each organisation.
User facing
The aim of user facing data is to allow access to information that intends to make the user’s day a little bit easier buy having all the info about their area of responsibility in one location.
There is quite a list, but some examples of this information could be:
- An address - Navigate to the location by tapping
- Phone number - Network Manager could tap the site details page and call from tapping
- What direct site members are there and what roles they have (role idea post to follow...)
Platform facing
The aim of platform facing data is the allow features to leverage the information to automate or enhance a user experience in the background and drive relevancy. (also remove the function of groups to try and achieve this)
Some examples of this information could be:
- Roles - what roles are at this location and the people associated with them
- Geolocation - when a user is near the geofence, any schedules, actions etc. that are relevant are surfaced for that individual on their mobile app
- Characteristics - Information that may be useful to allow a more targeted selection of locations for features
- Schedules - you could use a field(s) to really dial in where you need schedules to target e.g. Types of locations - When scheduling, you could define that you would like a certain schedule to be assigned to a store format type
- Actions - use a field to target actions to certain characteristics to assign actions
- Status - if the site status is Open, Closed (temp), Closed (perm) then if there are actions, schedules assigned to the sites and their members, they could be paused if moved into the temp closed status
With platform facing I think that there may be reason to connect site fields with roles for assignment purposes - e.g. assign an action to all Self Service Terminal locations to the Manager role.
Overall I would hope that improvements in this space would drive the want to keep data associated with sites up to date, and increase time within platform making it more relevant to gain information needed need for your day to day.
I like these ideas. I had one of them in another post, but you’ve made that even better.
Similarly, there was also a discussion about using Assets for a “site” and “room” situation, so we were dreaming up how sites could be improved with some details about related activity, and have one more level below the site for parts of the site (rooms).
How are people using the Assets feature outside of its original intent? | Community (safetyculture.com)
Hey Ben, thanks so much for raising this. A lot of these examples are super interesting ways in which we could improve Sites to better access controls, permission and assignment across the platform. Over the past few years we have believed that automating access based on a worker’s location is quite powerful. However what we are realising now is that using location is great for some workers, but it’s not a catch all for everyone. Perhaps we need to classify people by more than just location to best assign them work.
Do you think this sentiment holds true for you@Ben Snyders and @Corey ? Do you have examples where maybe there’s another classification to use (perhaps a Job Title, or Department etc)?
I don’t know that roles and departments have to be tied specifically to a site, unless the list is so large that you want to limit the selection capabilities.
However, I could see value in adding a global list of Departments and Roles managed by someone with User/Group permissions. Then within each user’s profile, they can set both their department(s) and role(s). That could then be used for a new way to create “groups” using dynamic options based on their site, department, and role. This would be very similar to EdApp. Now we don’t have to manage groups manually or build integrations - we just have to update their profile. For security reasons, the user should not have the ability to change this themselves, as they would then gain permissions to things they shouldn't have.
I am not sure I see a huge benefit for my company just yet, but I could see how some may benefit from “site details” such as an address, phone number, and photo.
For my company, I do see potential benefit for “activity” by site just like Assets is built - “to do” (open issues, open actions, incomplete inspections) and “all activity” (closed/complete too).
I would also like to see “rooms” as a level below the site tag, so when you select a site in an Inspection, Action, or Issue, you have the option to also select the room it is in. That can give us really powerful analytics and speed up response time on some things. An admin who can setup sites would need the ability to build the rooms associated below each site.
I would also like to add a map or a plan, either as a JPG or PDF and to list contact details for the site.
It would be great if the site filtered assets listed against a site. When raising an action or an issue if a user is allocated to a site or group they can only see assets also within their site.
At a simple level, I would find it a great benefit to have the autonomy to choose how many groups I require for my organisation structure, and then assign the names(labels) to each of those specific groups.
If there was the additional options to then attach notes the site (at the lowest level - in this example 7), where I can include the specifics such as address, and details of the management based on site etc. The details of the additional notes section are a supplementary function and could have additional benefits such as allowing sites to be identifiable on a map, however the main things is that having the ability to adjust the number of branches that are available to fit with your own organisation structure would support the one of the main aspects that I enjoy about this platform, it’s adaptability. If this small, but significant change was made available, it would also support in other features such as Analytics, Dashboards etc
I understand that this topic is ongoing, however are you able to provide an estimate of when we can expect to see any developments on the Site Groups, even to have the option to specify the number of groups I require for my my organisation?
Many thanks.