With the “lite seat” does that include unlimited inspections and actions?
Hi there! The Lite seat users are able to complete 12 inspections per year. However, they can create and complete unlimited actions, issues and view heads up.
Why is there a limit to 12 inspections per month… That's a really random choice, id love to know the background of how you decided on that figure.. Id understand no analytics etc, but i dont want to pay for a full user account for someone whos just going to complete inspections and nothing more. If lite users could complete unlimited inspections but nothing more apart from maybe actions too id have signed up immediately, Sadly this is still stopping me paying for the service.
Hey @ChrisKon!
I just wanted to say a huge thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us regarding our new Lite Seat offering. We're thrilled that you showed an interest in our product and took the time to ask us questions.
We made a few changes to increase the Lite seat user inspection count from 3 lifetime to 12 annually based on customer feedback, with the aim of meeting the needs of the majority of our Lite Seat users. Our ultimate goal is to provide more value to our customers, and we're always exploring ways to achieve that.
We totally understand that every organization is unique, and we're continuously assessing our offerings to ensure that they meet the diverse needs of our customers.
We also appreciate your feedback on wanting more flexibility in the inspection count. It really helps us to understand what our customers are looking for, and we value your input greatly. Thank you once again!
Jeremy
Oh man! I got excited for a second there. Was really hoping the ‘lite seats’ would be able to complete unlimited inspections/actions but not have access to analytics, reports, etc…
As the manager or admin, I’m the only one that needs access to the advanced features, my other 2-3 users only complete inspections. Can’t justify full account just to do a handful of inspections.
Will have to continue with free accounts for now.
I love the idea of ‘light’ users.
However, if the whole point is to get as many people conducting inspections as possible to spot issues early, limiting the number of inspections makes this useless.
Hoping that you will reconsider as I would love to see this in as many of my employees hands as possible, but with the costs of full seats for each person, that’s just not going to fly.
We’ll keep this to only higher level supervisors. I’d rather it be in the hands of every foreman and even foremen in training.
I agree that we are paying for a lot of full seats that are necessary, simply due to how many inspections they conduct. Many of those do not need other advanced permissions like managing sensors, assets, users/groups, permission sets, global response sets, data globally, etc. I think if there was a cost-effective alternative to full but different than Lite, we’d end up with a lot more seats but at the lower cost option than Full. In total, we’d still be spending a lot more than we do today.
I see a few buckets:
- Site Plant Manager
- Needs: inspection reports, issues, actions, and analytics.
- Doesn’t Need: Settings/Management features, conducting inspections, or editing templates.
- Aside from analytics, Free works for this only if they aren’t getting trained. If we use training, we’d have to bump them up to Lite; they would not use the 12 inspections.
- Site Department Manager
- Needs: inspection reports, issues, actions, and analytics. Might conduct a handful of inspections.
- Doesn’t Need: Settings/Management features or editing templates.
- Lite works for this. Probably few people per site.
- Site Department and SafetyCulture Manager:
- Needs: inspection reports, issues, actions, and analytics, as well as Settings/Management features, conducting inspections, and editing templates.
- Doesn’t Need: Platform Management
- Full works for this.
- Site Employee:
- Needs: inspection reports, issues, actions, as well as conducting inspections. Doesn’t Need: analytics, Settings/Management features, or editing templates.
- Due to the number of inspections, we have to choose Full but they are not using most features. A new license type would be idea, like “Lite Plus.”
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the Lite seat feature! Your feedback is crucial as we aim to improve our product and pricing transparency.
We understand some users desire more inspection allowances in the Lite seat. The Lite seat is designed to offer customers a more affordable way of utilising the SafetyCulture platform outside of completing inspections, mainly focusing on training, asset management and viewing analytics. As a benefit to customers who need to complete the occasional inspection we have included the ability to do so without the need for a Full seat.
Our goal is to balance core functionality with affordable pricing, making it ideal for learners, trainers, collaborators, and contractors who need essential tools to act, collaborate, learn and communicate.
You can expect to see greater functionality with the Lite seat soon as we're actively enhancing the Lite seat's capabilities, as discussed during the recent SafetyCulture Next event (if you missed it, check it out here).
Your input guides our development, and we appreciate your patience as we improve continue to optimise the Lite seat to better meet your needs.
really My biggest hurdle for more investment is that the training cannot be rolled out to free users,
the cost of a lite seat to be able to complete trainings is holding up a company wide rollout which would lead to the requirement of more full + lite seats
presently we are still looking at other platforms that do offer fixed annual fees with unlimited users
Hi,
I’m struggling to encourage the wider use of the system but limiting Lite users to 12 inspections a year is a real stumbling block, the company just wont pay for more users on the full seat yet they only do a small number of templates.
really My biggest hurdle for more investment is that the training cannot be rolled out to free users,
the cost of a lite seat to be able to complete trainings is holding up a company wide rollout which would lead to the requirement of more full + lite seats
presently we are still looking at other platforms that do offer fixed annual fees with unlimited users
i have the same problem, SC is only being used for Ops staff and if i try to use it for the whole company it gets too expensive. we are looking at other training suites too but i needed something that would manage the delivery and analytics (track completion etc.)
Hi
I am mirroring the sentiment of other users on here that, while the Lite seats are a welcome addition, the limitation of 1 inspection per month is still preventing our organisation leaders wanting to invest in the free seat option!
For example, our drivers and operatives need to complete weekly vehicle / plant inspections, unfortunately, without having to upgrade them to a Full Seat, we cannot utilise the SC functionality for operatives and drivers as currently Lite Seats only offer one per month.
I feel that there should be an increase on the amount of inspections for Lite users and for there to be the addition of 1 training course per month.
I feel this would bring far more value to the Lite Seat
Nick
I am in the same boat as most on the addition of lite seats. The restriction of 1 inspection per month really is not enough to justify the additional cost on top of and already substantial subscription to 57 full seats. I believe there needs to be some sort of business package that would allow additional features for companies that have a commitment to a certain number of full seats.
With the increase in price I can see many companies will explore other avenues. Our 57 seats currently held will be increasing from a cost of $12k to over $16
SC are missing a massive trick.
In construction 95% of the personnel on site are not users or Lite on SC.
They are however people undertaking tasks.
SC really needs to understand that these people are the ones we need to get closer to with asset and inspections linked, thuq QR codes on plant may be checked daily as part of pre-inspection.
In most cases this will be the 95% and front end trained users and not an SC user who manages…
The culture change need to be at both ends with proof at the front end where the activity takes place.
I have just read this and want to add my thoughts in.
Up until recently, we used a mixture of full and free seats for the business. We trialled and then implemented training with role specific courses across the whole company.
To achieve access for everyone, we took advantage of lite seats. All users with free seats were upgraded to lite seats and some users with full seats eg, company car drivers who only completed a monthly car inspection, were downgraded to lite seats.
We have ended up with everyone being able to access training and have found that we will pay less for our annual subscription on renewal.
Brilliant
@Andrew Gabb
I get that but in different arenas and workplaces full to lite does not work.
However I can see the benefit of the training side based upon having a separate account on Edapps.
The flaw in it for me in the UK comes down to the access and management controls when building an organisational dashboard with SC.
I want to ensure that the protocols are driven in our org but the access controls within SC drive it where required down an easy GDPR compliance route.
The reason for this is in our very busy environment we need to make sure that the personnel at the front end can inspect and maintain their equipment.
Yes managers will manage but the trained person for a Fork Lift Truck is who we want to do the checks.
We then want validation through the system with traffic light type system to prevent personnel not trained carrying out work or checks etc.
Some of this is not the management collation of data and is a coal face activity directly with the personnel that are doing the work and at risk if not done in a controlled manner.
There GDPR approach required.
Locking mechanisms required and to be understood in SC.
Then we need inspections to be applied / completed so at the moment 12 per year ain't gonna work.
It is very hard to get a one cap fits all for this but surely this has to be the goal for the next tranche of work for contractor management and competence.
The latter are our 2 main objectives for the next 12 months or so.
Not that we do not do them but having them kinked with SC with proof.
Stay Safe John
