Addition of data associated with Sites

I like these ideas. I had one of them in another post, but you’ve made that even better.
 

• GPS Location on Site (Auto-Select) Not planned
• 6 Votes

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.  

1. Business Area 
2. Business Region
3. County
4. Operator
5. Site Type
6. Sub Site Type 
7. Site Name(ID)

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. 

Any update on this, it would be great even to be able to add some basic details like addresses and contact/contact number.

I agree - I just spent an hour in a chat asking how can I connect a name, phone number and email address to a site.  Most of our inspections are at “third party” sites.

having the ability to have:

1.Contact information (peoples names, positions, phone and e-mail) would streamline communication between the client and the inspector.

2. Attach documents - like manuals, or external inspection reports, engineering plans, ect. to the site, but that might not be directly related to the inspection conducted.

almost a MINI CRM feature to help front end employees connect with the people at the site.

Hey ​@Jane-2192, ​@Keith J and ​@TMcG!

I’m the Product Manager working on our new site capabilities. 

Our engineers are currently doing some foundational work that will see us able to release more functionality to sites in the coming months. We’re currently in the planning stages of this and more concrete timelines to come. 

This will see us able to:

• Increase the number of site levels from 5 > 10
• Increase total number of sites available in the system
• Increase membership
   

This is paving the way for us to update the site profile and introduce fields to sites, just like we have done for users and an “archive” capability. We’re also considering what key organisation data you need to set yourselves up effectively, as well as data for managing work (assets, projects, areas within a site etc). 

If you have any more suggestions, please reach out!

​@Emily-Rose this is super exciting!! I’m particularly jazzed about the prospect of increased site membership (we often run into challenges with the 40-site per user limit), site fields (especially if the fields can then be used as a filter and analytics data points), and the ability to archive rather than always delete sites (our org changes with some regularity, with old things returning after going on a seasonal hiatus or sometimes even closing).

Hey ​@Alyssa Truman 

Nice to chat again!!

In terms of membership, we’re currently looking into what is a reasonable limit for customers on membership whilst ensuring it doesn’t impact performance.

How many members to a level could you possibly need, one as an average and perhaps worst case?

Thanks!

Hi ​@Emily-Rose! For average teams, a 50-site limit would be magnificent (most will use far fewer than that, but this would give a bit more wiggle room to naturally accommodate teams we’ve had to get creative with).

While some groups truly do need all sites at a location, for others they really only deal with a single site type (e.g., restaurant, store). But due to the number of those types of sites across the whole location, they would need between 100 and 200 depending on the location and the type.

What would be utterly delightful is if the upcoming fields could be used to distinguish the type for a location, then users could be given membership based on the higher site levels and the type (for example, all restaurants at X area or location).

Thanks, Alyssa—this makes complete sense and aligns well with our thinking. I appreciate the added context to help guide us in the right direction.

Regarding site type and location, I’d like to explore this further. Would it make more sense to filter by "site type" and "location" (your level 2 in the hierarchy) and then assign directly to the locations below that meet those criteria? If so, does that mean you could be assigning up to 200 potential locations for membership?

Alternatively, if you prefer assigning at a higher level—for example, to all sites classified as restaurants for that location area—I'd love to understand why that feels like the better approach. How would you distinguish between the different types of locations and membership at that level when looking at the profile?

 ​@Emily-Rose good question! We may need to talk offline where I can go into more detail about our specific structure, but at a general level I could see either approach working. Filtering by site type and location then giving site access individually would work well for teams who don’t need all restaurants or stores within an area. While that could mean up to 200 sites are assigned, it wouldn’t be that many for the significant majority. A “select all filtered” could be useful here to reduce clicks.

Assigning at a higher level would be useful for teams whose site needs update with some frequency (such as seasonal pop-up food locations). If access is given to the site type within the area, then new sites could be inherited upon creation.

One additional thought along these lines - this type of setup would be extraordinarily useful for template access management as well. For example, if a particular template is only for stores, then being able to lock down the location selection in the inspections to only store-type locations would be great. In fact, if we’re able to do that, then most of our teams wouldn’t be worried much about user site management below the area level since they would just have access to the locations needed for the inspection they’re performing.

Thank you Alyssa for this detail and the examples are perfect to baseline against our current designs. 

We’ll stay in touch that’s for sure, we’re currently going into more detail on the designs we showed you the other week so I’ll be keen to circle back when we have more to show! 

In the meantime, please keep it coming if you have anything else to share - you know where we are!