This will be great for vendors that may interact with the platform for other reasons or that are willing to manage their documents!

I would love to see one more user-type other than just Member and Company Manager (external persons) - we need Company Editor/Owner (internal person). These would be people at our own company who can modify the profile and settings of the company, update the documents, and receive the same notifications that the company manager (external person) will eventually receive. This person’s activity should not be tracked in the “user activity” of the company which is the issue we have today if we were to assign them as a Company Manager.  I would couple this with a new user permission which allows a user to create their own companies.  Those they create automatically assign them as a user type of Company Editor/Owner within that company, but they could optionally remove themselves if desired.

Hi Corey, 

Thanks for the feedback - this is on our roadmap and something we’re hopefully kicking off in about a month. However, for the first iteration we won’t be linking sites and companies (as per your previous feedback) due to complexity but it something we believe we should tackle down the line. 

In the meantime, please do let me know if you have any feedback on the Company Manager (external persons) release. 

Many thanks,

Giustina

Hi ​@christina.lord 

This is a great step forward. Am I right in saying we would have to assign them a seat in SC?

That’s the downside. 

Hi Andrew!

You can assign them on a free seat. We have allowed for this based on feedback that they will infrequently returning to the platform after the prequalification process has been completed. 

Many thanks,

Giustina

​@Giustina 

Can you please fully explain how this is intended to work with supply chain partners (SCP) with regards to access etc.

You said that supply chain etc could access on a free account can you give the iteration with regards to companies and their access and can this be linked unequivocally throughout the system.

The reason I want to expand this is based on our historical chat about SCP employees.

In construction this amounts to potentially 95%+.

This info about the target audience of 95% is important as any positive or negative aspect needs to be communicated or lesson learnt / training planned and given in the SCP area.

This links to the individual of that company and also for other things within the SC family such as assets.

Therefore…

Scenario.

I have assets and these belong to us but we want our SCP to use them.

We build the asset system and have QR codes etc for assets and we inspection and build the schedules.

With regards to the SCP  we then need them to not only have the ability to inspect with having a full license or an org within SC, but also as part of them being able to scan our assets to understand if we are compliant with inspection schedules.

Mobile plant and platforms are prime example of physical site works where we must apply a PDCA process but all SCP to be in the system to complete and / or check.

Is this part of the roadmap.

Also with regards to roadmap.

Where can we see or view what is in the pipeline?

​@Corey 

I would love to see one more user-type other than just Member and Company Manager (external persons) - we need Company Editor/Owner (internal person). These would be people at our own company who can modify the profile and settings of the company, update the documents, and receive the same notifications that the company manager (external person) will eventually receive. This person’s activity should not be tracked in the “user activity” of the company which is the issue we have today if we were to assign them as a Company Manager. I would couple this with a new user permission which allows a user to create their own companies. Those they create automatically assign them as a user type of Company Editor/Owner within that company, but they could optionally remove themselves if desired.

How would the above work in practise.

I am interested in the logic required.

Great believer in other we utilise doing more but the concept in practise - would this work.

My main query still comes back to the SCP (SUPPLY CHAIN PARTNER) and access rights plus the ability to be able to show the hierarchy of where they fit in your org and the scheduling of validation.

Concept is correct to minimise impact to our Orgs and have full visibility and transparency for our plan and SCPs but the editing ability must be managed by the Org -You.

As we must still manage, give and take the access privileges away as needed to support an IMS.

Look forward as always to your thoughts.

​@jonnyg a “Company Manager” would be someone at the supplier or contractor with a free user in our SC organization. They would be able to view profiles of other users (“members”) that we add to our SC organization that are linked to their company to make sure their credentials are up to date, they would be able to add/update documents in their company profile, and they would get notifications for expired documents.  A “member” can only see the company profile, see the company documents, and see activity of inspections associated to the company (if they have permission to those inspections).  This new user I’m proposing as “Company Editor” would be someone in our company who can create their own companies and be given access to existing companies so they can edit the company profile, add/update documents in that company, and get notifications for expired documents from those companies. Because they have this special role type, their activity would not be tracked in the company’s activity.

Thank you. 

Will have a play with this when I get chance. 

I have already added contractor companies but not DCMs.

Interested how this works with regards to user types as it states they will be free. 

Just not sure how this will work with regards to the restriction to carry out inspections or would they at some point be required to purchase a license. 

We would and do require more integration with our supply chain and this covers most aspects of using SC. 

So my take on this would be beyond contractors and forms but linked to assets, training, actions, inspections and so on. 

This would still be within the area of them under their own company name whilst in our SC Ord on the system. 

I’m not sure if the “company manager” role can do all the things I envision for it, but from what I understand, they can at minimum manage the documents and profile for their company even as a free user.  And because they are a user, they would have access to Issues and Actions too.  I would assume that if they wanted to conduct inspections, they would need a Lite or Full license.

Therein Corey is the logic we really need to understand for access and cost. 

Like you I have more questions than answers at the moment and the supply chain partners we have and our own org needs to understand the Long term. Plans from. SC

Hi both, 

Thanks for the additional feedback above. I can confirm that when we introduce the internal responsible admin for the company, their activity won’t show on the user activity tab. 

In regards to the pricing model, the delegated company manager (external contact for the contractor company), can be provided on a guest seat. They are able to complete 3 lifetime inspections on this seat. 

When we introduce our contractor induction/onboarding solution, we will also being introducing the option to purchase a contractor induction bundle. This will enable you to keep contractors on a guest seat while only being charged for the onboarding they complete. There will be more details to come on this closer to the release in a few months. They will still be limited to 3 lifetime inspections. Contractors/suppliers that are using the platform on a longer term basis are better suited to a lite or full seat.  

Thanks

Giustina

Thanks. 

A little confused though. 

So we have a supply chain and we are the sub-contractor for example.

Are we then expecting contractors aboce (main) and below to purchase SC.

The expansion of assets for example would unless I am mistaken would imply that for them to use and check/ inspect our audits would require them to have a full seat.

Is there a plan to have a contractor bundle where we can add the contractor and then someof their personnel can inspect assets and complete other checks via the templates part of SC. 

Having a document control function linked with other parts of SC is not just for that where we are concerned it is more about integration. 

One side would be that they register with us and we approve them and then they add info or docs and sign up to certain aspects of our orgs requirements. 

We allocate and validate via an automated and transparent dashboard via analytics where all docs and dates link to what they need and we ask for. 

The other side which is the bundle and costing to me at the moment kind of implies that we (our Org) will either have to pay for the contractors or make / push them into purchasing a form of licence on SC. 

Surely this must be on the roadmap for full integration of contractors who will be completing checks, audits, inspection etc and even further where we also build the chain and apply certain training requirements and that roles and responsibilities of the kkey employees meets our requirements with regards to trained and competent personnel with proof and evidence via certification. 

Would like your steer / feedback about my queries? 

Jonny. 

​@Giustina@Giustina. 

With regards too inductions which should be part of the Contractor System imo.

​@christina.lord

​@Andrew Gabb

​@Corey

​@Morsal

Can I have some thoughts on this as I am a little confused to what the impact of this will be for a few reasons. 

If every person inducted requires light then the added cost for any company with an high turnover of contractors could be immense based on projects they are involved in. 

This is based on your feedback of lite only and not premium.

I would like to gauge what others think of this based around a person paying who may only be on site etc for a short period. 

The base load of costings could outweigh where we want to be. 

I agree fully with all personnel being involved and linked in the system intrinsically but for me this should be via a registration process. 

Where we are not only asking for them to complete our induction process but also trigger for other info they may needs to supply based upon the work and the trade that they are. 

I want this like many others but as mentioned the downside is the cost increase to add the other 95% of personnel that work at the coalface.

Can you please feedback as I see this as pivotal when we also look at training and documentation integration. 

Jonny

hi ​@Giustina ,

something else I have thought of that would help. 

While you know my desire to have the documents feature incorporated into companies, as it stands at the moment, all company documents are stored in the one location (no folders).

It would be great if access to the types of documents could be edited as it works in documents.

As an example, the contractor we are onboarding now fills in our PQQ using the template we share to an external user. We can see it in real time on our platform. We pull the documents they have added into the PQQ which support their submission. These documents are reviewed by various stakeholders eg. HSEQ, HR, IT, ESG etc. So the perfect solution would be limit access to the stakeholders to only the types of documents they review

​@Andrew Gabb thanks this is a great idea!

​@jonnyg - when we introduce the new contractor onboarding commercial model, you’ll be able to keep contractors on guest seats when inducting them. Our onboarding solution will request workers to provide the right credentials for their role and complete training. They won’t need to be on a lite or full seat to do this. If I’m understanding you correctly, the main draw back is that you’d also like these contractors to be interacting with assets and inspections during the hours/days that they’re on site. 

​@Giustina 

That is correct.

When I say contractors I means personnel who work for someone else but are working on our site as a contractor for us. 

Having looked at this again I have a query about the users. 

Currently this so set up so that the view shows also users etc. 

Is this going to change at some point. 

Example of we have 5 contract companies or agencies and they all have 20 personnel that register then all of a sudden we have 100 more users. 

Is there a way we can link them into the Contractor area by linking them the contracting company hence we have a supply chain link. 

I want simplicity that joins up interactively. 

I see the pricing still as an issue as the Org will still take the burden and if we have lots of contractors that we may need to access other areas of the platform not just registering as a guest but signing out or working with an asset, using plant that requires inspecting etc then we need to have them as more than a guest. 

Even then we are going to be limited as this then as a cost for each. 

Compound that for the supply chain employees undertaking work on our sites and the cost will snow ball. 

IMO

​@Giustina 

Also as part of our concept for linking Contractors in our Supply Chain.
We are also looking at doing the following.

Some of our supply chain are agencies that provide us with personnel under their banner to undertake work on our site.

We somehow want to share training info from Edapps with some of our supply chain so that they can see when one of their personnel has completed training.

The link behind this is that in Edapps we send a link out to contractors to complete certain training.

We want to therefore continue this system so that a person or persons in the supply chain for this contractor can see the relevant information that shows them - who in their company has completed the training.

This may already exist but we want to streamline in both platforms for seamless transparency especially for the training completion proof.

As i have said before if we are gonna add lots of contractor companies and below that multiple personnel for that contractor company then we need to ensure we can manage, manage and include them in our supply chain.

The ability to both see and have access in SC will be invaluable but the cost potential or who shoulders the burden of this is our query.

We want a fully transparent and collaborative Supply Chain but from current information you have given this will be limited.

Any one got any ideas / understand and want to feedback then it would be appreciated?

Ta Jonny.

Hi ​@Giustina 

I wanted to add a sub-contractor in as a user for companies. 

The support article is a little light in details. From previous replies from you, I am aware that they can be added in with a free seat. I am wondering about permissions.

I tried to edit permissions so they just had access to companies but was unable to do so. Adding the user into the company as a company manager on a guest seat, would they also have the permissions allowed for a guest seat? 

Hi ​@Andrew Gabb , thank you for the feedback — you’ve raised a great point. I agree this part of the experience could be clearer. You can grant a subcontractor access to manage their own company via the Users tab in the company profile (here are step-by-step instructions).

You’re right that they’re placed on a guest seat and currently given a restricted company manager role — but this isn’t shown in the permissions UI, which can be confusing. We’re reviewing this to make it more transparent. Thanks again for highlighting it!

​@jonnyg thanks for the feedback. Just a few follow ups:

You mentioned wanting to link contractor personnel to the contractor area. Just to clarify—are you looking for a more efficient way to associate each person with the correct company? 

Your point about giving agencies more visibility into required training for their personnel is a great one, and it aligns closely with our vision. Would you say the core challenge here is ensuring agencies take a more active role in prompting their workers to complete the necessary training?

Thanks

Giustina

I am getting a little confused as your current feedback does not IMO make sense nor does it really show all the people on this thread the info relating to what the vision actually is.

That regards the use of, access of, and visibility to utilise contractors companies that include agencies and the cost schedule for this - as per what your customer really want to be part of, understand and assist with...

hi ​@Giustina,

Thanks for the reply. I have jumped straight in and set a DCM up for a contractor going through onboarding. The first thing to note is that they have access to the templates that are available to the entire business. Obviously this is not something that we want. 

Also another thought. It would be of great benefit if there was an area to keep notes. eg. When we are bringing a new contractor on, we keep notes on progress, requests for information etc. 

What is the best way to link with Contractors added - a template or pre started audit etc. related to information you require from them such as Pre Qualification related Information (PQQ or similar).

They then complete any requests required from the template with evidence.

Ta Jonny

For the above i think it really links into the Delegated Person to have the ability to access the template that we send for them to complete.

I do not mean send so that they have a version of the template, but a way that the Delegated Persons - can complete dynamic live info from a template similar to us completing and inspection?

​@jonnyg 

The easiest way is to get them to see a SC account up (free or paid). Get the users names and emails. 

Share the template to an external user. They accept the invite. Now they complete the inspection using their platform, you can see the results in real time on your platform. 

There are a couple of things to be aware of so if you need anymore detail, let me know