IFS Service CollABorative: Exploring Key Service Trends to Win the Future

Date of Meeting: 20 May 2025 10:00 AM US Eastern Standard Time

Tom Gregory- Housekeeping and Surveys:

Tom reminded participants to complete the survey sent out to gather feedback on the sessions and mentioned upcoming CONNECT events in various regions, encouraging attendance for better interaction.

• Survey Reminder: Tom reminded everyone to complete the survey sent out to gather feedback on the sessions. He emphasized the importance of participant feedback to improve future sessions and mentioned that a reminder would be sent out later in the week.
• Upcoming Events: Tom mentioned upcoming CONNECT events in Europe, the Middle East, Benelux, North America, Japan, and France. He encouraged participants to attend these events for better interaction and face-to-face engagement with IFS staff and other customers.

Sarah Nicastro’s Announcements:

• Upcoming Events: Sarah provided details about upcoming events in The Hague, Nashville, Tokyo, Paris, Riyadh, and Brazil, and mentioned two projects she is working on related to future field service.
• Event Details: Sarah provided specific dates and locations for upcoming events: The Hague on May 27th, Nashville on June 3rd and 4th, Tokyo on June 4th, Paris on June 12th, Riyadh on September 10th, and Brazil with a TBD date. She also mentioned a future field service leaders meet-up in Nashville on June 2nd.
• Project Announcements: Sarah announced two upcoming projects: a research project with Simon and Kutcher focusing on commercial excellence in service organisations, and the Future of Field Service Standout 50 Leadership Awards, which will open for nominations on May 28th.

• Future of Field Service Leadership Awards: Sarah announced the opening of nominations for the Future of Field Service Standout 50 Leadership Awards, aimed at recognizing impactful service leaders and elevating the importance of service within businesses.
• Award Purpose: Sarah explained that the Future of Field Service Standout 50 Leadership Awards aim to recognize leaders who have a significant impact on their teams, companies, customers, and the industry, and to elevate the importance of service as a business function.
• Nomination Details: Nominations for the awards will open on May 28th and remain open throughout June and July. Sarah encouraged participants to nominate service leaders they admire, whether from their own company or others they have encountered at conferences or previous workplaces.

Sarah’s Presentation:

• One of the advantages I’ve found in my role is the opportunity to regularly speak with people across different companies and regions. This broad perspective often reveals common patterns—both in opportunities and challenges—that may not be as visible to those focused on a single organization or market.
• A recurring theme I hear is a sense of isolation—people feeling that their struggles are unique, when in fact, many are shared across the industry.
• Lately, a particularly interesting topic has emerged: the drive to maximize efficiency in field operations. While this has always been a focus, current economic pressures and rapid technological advancements—especially in industrial AI—are adding new dimensions to the conversation. We now have better visibility and more powerful tools to optimize operations than ever before.
• What’s especially compelling is how this intersects with a growing emphasis on leadership and humanity in the workplace. A new question is surfacing: as we increase efficiency, how do we ensure that employees also benefit from these gains?
• Traditionally, efficiency improvements have been seen as a way to benefit the business, with employees expected to adapt. But now, there’s a shift toward using these tools to also enhance the employee experience.
• For example, I recently presented with Mitie in the UK, who are using IFS PSO. They’ve leveraged the optimization capabilities not just to improve operations, but to give their teams more control over their schedules. Employees can choose their start and end times, and the system adjusts accordingly. This approach acknowledges that while teams are being asked to learn new tools and adapt, they should also receive something meaningful in return—something that makes them feel invested in the success of the initiative.
• I really took note of this shift in thinking—this was around mid-2023—because it was the first time I heard a perspective that went beyond simply driving efficiency for the business. It was about how we can share those gains with employees in a way that creates mutual success.
• At Field Service Palm Springs, Craig Bruns from Crown Equipment—who are currently rolling out IFS—spoke on a panel about the increasing pressure to achieve ROI faster. Where we once talked about a 3–5 year window, now it’s closer to two years. Businesses want to see results quickly.
• Craig made a compelling point: if a company is focused on efficiency but doesn’t share the benefits with employees, those gains can be undermined. People will find ways to resist or disengage. For example, after implementing IFS, their teams went from completing four jobs a day to five. Instead of simply absorbing that gain, the company gives employees two hours back each week—letting them finish early. It’s a long-term, relational approach to employee engagement, not just a transactional one.
• Abbi also did a podcast with Stewart—based in Australia—who shared a similar story. Through AI, they’ve automated a significant amount of reporting, saving their teams hours each week. And again, instead of keeping all the gains, they’re giving some of that time back to employees.
• What’s striking is that these examples come from different regions—Mitie in the UK, Crown in the US, and Stewart’s team in Australia—yet they all reflect a shared mindset: efficiency should benefit both the business and the people who make it possible.
• This perspective may be difficult to adopt in organizations where leadership is focused solely on short-term gains. But for those willing to take a broader view, it opens up powerful new ways to engage teams and drive sustainable success.

Discussion between Sasha (Tetrapak) and Sarah:

• [Sasha]: Reflecting on this, I think you’ve made a fair point. It’s not necessarily about the specific tools we’re deploying—those are always evolving—but more about the company’s overall direction and mindset. That’s what really stands out. At Tetrapak, we’ve always been strong advocates for autonomy in the field. In fact, that’s where some of the tools have struggled, including IFS in the early stages. When you give people full autonomy, it raises a valid question: what exactly is AI planning? If individuals are making their own decisions, how do we align that with centralized optimization? But you're right—people aren’t machines. These are highly skilled, well-compensated professionals, and they value autonomy. Recognizing and respecting that is key. It’s not just about driving efficiency; it’s about creating an environment where capable people can thrive and feel trusted.

• [Sarah]: That’s a great point. When we talk specifically about something like PSO, it’s important to recognize that it only works if you remove a degree of autonomy—that’s the intent. And that’s exactly why it’s critical to think through this lens: if you’re taking something away, what are you giving in return? If you can strike that balance, the conversation shifts. It’s no longer, “You’ve done it your way for years, but now you can’t—end of story.” That kind of message triggers resistance. But if the message is, “We’re asking you to do things differently, here’s why, and here’s what you’ll gain,” it becomes a much more constructive and collaborative dialogue. Sasha, you’ll see Fabio’s name in the last point, which ties directly into this. Fabio gave a keynote at Palm Springs where he spoke about Tetra Pak’s efforts to reduce turnover. He shared before-and-after figures, and honestly, even the “before” numbers would be enviable for many companies. What stood out most was his comment on purpose. He emphasized how important it is for today’s talent to feel connected to something meaningful. At Tetra Pak, that purpose is clear: protecting people, food, and the planet. As he put it, “Our purpose is to protect people, food, and the planet—not our balance sheet.” Sasha, you and I have talked before about how Tetra Pak’s family-owned structure influences its leadership mindset. Fabio wasn’t saying the balance sheet doesn’t matter or that they don’t have goals—they absolutely do. His point was that financial performance can’t come at the expense of everything else. Globally, I think we’re seeing a shift in this direction. More companies are realizing that if they treat their people well, those people will treat customers well—and that, in turn, drives the bottom line. Businesses that continue to push for output without offering anything meaningful in return—not just compensation, but purpose, flexibility, and respect—are going to struggle. Meanwhile, companies like Tetra Pak are showing what a more balanced, human-centered approach can look like.

• [Sasha]: Of course, when we treat people well, the balance sheet tends to reflect that—both in the short and long term. That said, it’s still challenging. We’ve seen this firsthand. The newer generation entering the workforce tends to adapt more quickly to change. Their acceptance of new systems and ways of working is generally much higher compared to those who’ve been with the company for 20, 25, or even 35 years. For those long-tenured employees, it takes more effort to bring them along. But that’s where autonomy really helps. When people feel trusted and empowered, they’re more open to change—even if it takes time.

• [Sarah]: That’s another great point, Sasha—thank you for highlighting how this ties directly into leadership. Leadership is woven through all of this, and for good reason. As you said, change management can no longer be purely programmatic. It has to be embedded into the culture, and that starts with leadership. We’re no longer in a world where change happens in predictable cycles—like implementing a new system and then settling into a steady state for three to five years. Now, it’s constant: boom, boom, boom. Leaders are the critical layer that helps teams absorb this pace of change without falling into fatigue, burnout, or high turnover. It’s a huge responsibility, but also a different kind of calling. That’s why I used the phrase “influence versus instruct.” It’s no longer about issuing mandates. Even in cases where command-and-control leadership was effective or well-intentioned, that style just doesn’t hold up in today’s environment. The frequency and complexity of change require leaders to shift from being the experts to being the curators—bringing together diverse, talented individuals and guiding them toward a shared goal. That means empowering teams, giving them autonomy, and aligning them with clear objectives—not just telling them what to do. It’s a more nuanced, human-centered approach to leadership. And it’s not just more effective—it’s necessary.

Sarah Continues the Presentation:

• Absolutely—and that brings up another important point from Field Service Palm Springs. Sarah (from Waters Corporation, though I can’t recall her last name) spoke about their work with Aquant on AI. Before leading their AI initiatives, she was responsible for change and transformation within the organization.

• She referenced the ADKAR model—Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement—and pointed out a common pitfall: many organizations skip the first two steps. They jump straight into training (Knowledge) and focus heavily on adoption (Ability), but often neglect Awareness and Desire at the start, and Reinforcement at the end.

• Her point was clear: we can’t afford to skip those early steps anymore. Building awareness and creating desire for change are foundational. Without them, even the best training won’t stick. And without reinforcement—through recognition, support, and follow-up—change won’t last.

• This ties directly into the next topic: service transformation vs. business transformation. The line between the two is becoming increasingly blurred.

• Take, for example, organizations that are shifting toward service as a differentiator or revenue stream. That’s not just a service transformation—it’s a business transformation. Sasha, you’ve seen this firsthand with Tetra Pak’s Advanced Services. It’s not just about improving service processes or implementing new tools. It requires cross-functional collaboration and alignment across the entire business.

• Similarly, as companies adopt more self-service and remote service capabilities, what starts as a service initiative quickly becomes a broader business issue. For instance, reducing truck rolls through remote resolution sounds like a service efficiency play. But if the business still monetizes service based on on-site visits, it immediately raises questions about the go-to-market model, pricing, and value proposition.

• I had the opportunity to present with Clinton from Tamara, who was brought in to lead service transformation. He quickly realized that storytelling and cross-functional collaboration were essential. He couldn’t achieve meaningful change in service without influencing the broader business strategy. And in many organizations, service is still siloed, which makes that integration even more challenging.

• None of this is entirely new—but the nuance is evolving. The pace of change, the interconnectedness of systems, and the expectations of both customers and employees are shifting the conversation. What used to be seen as isolated service improvements are now central to business transformation.

Discussion between Alexandre(Munters) and Sarah:

• [Alexandre]: We’re experiencing a business transformation, and because everything is so interconnected, defining the scope becomes absolutely critical. If you leave something out thinking, “We’ll handle that later,” you often realize too late that it’s essential to delivering what you originally committed to. As we shift from a more autonomous way of working to a more structured, organized approach, it becomes clear that we need all the pieces in place. And suddenly, what seemed manageable grows into a much larger, more complex challenge—like trying to eat an elephant in one bite.

• [Sarah]: That’s a great point, and it brought to mind something Genevieve mentioned earlier about generational differences in adapting to change. It’s not just about personality or openness to new ways of working—it’s also about skill sets. Many of our more tenured employees came into the role because they were great with their hands. That was the core of the job, and it’s still what they enjoy most. Over time, however, the role has expanded to include more digital and administrative tasks—things they may not be as comfortable with or interested in. Meanwhile, newer hires might be more tech-savvy but still need to develop the hands-on expertise. In some cases, we’re even hiring for different strengths altogether. This is where the distinction between service transformation and business transformation becomes critical. For example, when organizations introduce self-service or remote service capabilities, it opens the door to rethinking roles entirely. Some companies have moved their most experienced field technicians into remote support roles, where they can guide newer team members using their deep knowledge—scaling their impact across the organization. That’s just one example, but it illustrates how changes in service delivery can—and often should—lead to reimagining the structure of the workforce. Of course, that means involving HR and other departments, which reinforces the need for strong cross-functional collaboration. This was something Clinton from Tamara emphasized in our joint presentation. He was brought in to lead service transformation but quickly realized that storytelling and collaboration across the business were essential. He couldn’t achieve meaningful change in service without influencing the broader business strategy. I also had a great podcast conversation with Roy Dockery earlier this year, where we talked about how service is often seen as “special”—something you only truly understand if you’ve lived it. That’s true, but it also presents a challenge: service leaders need to become better storytellers. We need to clearly articulate what makes service unique, powerful, and essential to the company’s future—in a way that resonates with the broader business. That means tying service initiatives to company-wide goals. If the company’s mandate is X, we need to show how changing Y in service will help achieve it. It might seem obvious, but it’s something many still struggle with. And as the pace of change accelerates, getting this right is more important than ever.

Discussion between Markus(Tomra), Sarah and Tom:

• [Markus]: Yes, I’m working with Clinton at Tomra and have been involved in this transformation process even before he joined. I’m not particularly concerned about our colleagues—whether older or younger—because we’re already quite digitally capable. What we’ve realized, though, is that the key challenge isn’t just internal. It’s about tailoring the story depending on the region. I’m responsible for EMEA, and even within that, the diversity is significant. The narrative that resonates in Poland or the Baltic countries is completely different from what works in the UK or France—especially France, which has its own unique dynamics. So, it’s not just about how we communicate change internally. It’s also about how we position it to customers. Increasingly, we’re hearing from customers who are pushing back on remote service. They’re saying, “Forget this remote stuff—I want to see your people on-site. I want to see what they’re doing.” That expectation adds another layer of complexity to how we deliver and communicate service transformation.

• [Sarah]: That’s such an important point—it all comes back to leadership. Leaders play a critical role as translators of vision. It’s not enough to understand the strategy; they have to translate it in a way that resonates with different teams, regions, and even customers. The challenges and objections vary widely, so the message can’t be generic. It has to be tailored, internalized, and delivered in a way that connects with the audience—whether that’s internal teams or external stakeholders. I also want to highlight Michael Potts from Echo, who I had on the podcast recently. He made several powerful points about leadership. One that really stood out was his view that his role is to challenge the status quo. But he added something even more important: “How can I challenge the status quo if I don’t invite others to challenge me?” That mindset—welcoming pushback and encouraging participation—is essential for modern leadership. Michael also shared a story about implementing IFS. When they introduced it, a colleague warned him that 50% of their field engineers might quit due to the loss of autonomy. His response was, “Then I lose half of them.” He had done the work—gathered input, reflected, and made a confident decision. In the end, only two people left, which speaks volumes about how well the change was managed. But his point remains: sometimes, transformation means accepting that not everyone will come along for the journey. Leaders must be prepared for that. Now, on the topic of AI—last year, many field service events were saturated with AI talk. It felt like every session was about AI, while other important topics were sidelined. I understood the hype, but it was refreshing to see a shift at Palm Springs this year. AI was still present, but it was integrated into broader conversations—about operations, leadership, and strategy. That’s progress. It’s no longer the headline; it’s a lever among many that service leaders can use to achieve their goals. What I appreciated even more was the increased focus on humanity. There were real conversations about how we treat people, how leaders care for themselves, and how we navigate complexity. We even did a box breathing exercise—which, if you’ve been to these events before, you’ll know is a big shift. It was great to see that balance between technical and operational discussions and the human side of leadership. I also had a podcast conversation with Faisal Hoque, who has a book coming out on leveraging AI without losing our humanity. We talked about the “power of neutrality”—not being fearful of innovation, but also not being greedy. It’s about balance. Yes, we want efficiency, but not at the cost of people. If we push too far, we risk having to reconcile later with the damage done. I’ve just wrapped up a couple of IFS customer stories that aren’t published yet, but I’ll be happy to share them once they are. One is with Makino, a long-time IFS FSM customer, who has now layered Aquant on top to enhance knowledge management. They’re tapping into their deep FSM data archive to bring predictive capabilities to their technicians’ work—an exciting example of AI being used as a practical, value-driving layer. Another story is with Tamara North America, focusing on their involvement in the IFS Pioneer Programme and their collaboration on Co-Pilot functionality within FSM. It’s a great example of co-innovation in action. Then there’s Waters Corporation, not an IFS customer but working with Aquant. Sarah from Waters shared a fascinating approach they took when rolling out Aquant. They gamified the experience with a challenge called the Holocron Quest—inspired by Star Wars. It wasn’t just fun; it gave them real insight into how people were using the tool and allowed them to refine their approach. It’s a great example of how creativity in change management can drive both engagement and learning. These are all examples of AI in action—not as a buzzword, but as a lever for real operational improvement. What’s exciting is how leaders are now asking the right questions: How do we use AI to achieve our goals? rather than just chasing the technology itself. One of the big, still-unanswered questions—raised during our Stockholm Future of Field Service gathering—is:
• How do we upskill and reskill our teams for the AI-driven future?
  • What new skills will be needed?
  • Which existing employees can evolve into these roles?
  • What kind of training and support will be required?

• These are critical questions, and while we don’t have all the answers yet, they need to be part of the conversation now. And while I’ve spoken a lot about leadership, I truly believe you can’t overstate its importance. Leadership is the thread that ties all of this together—vision, change, innovation, and humanity.

• [Tom]: It’s quite interesting to reflect on the benefits of AI, but also the challenges companies face when adopting it. There’s a growing pressure to deliver results faster and more cost-effectively, which puts both organizations and individuals under significant strain. That urgency often forces companies to explore new technologies quickly—sometimes before they’ve had the time to fully evaluate whether those solutions are the right fit. This creates a difficult dynamic. On one hand, there’s a real need to innovate and stay competitive. On the other, meaningful transformation takes time—time to assess, implement, train, and adapt. And when the message from the top is, “You need to move now,” it can be overwhelming. I imagine, Sarah, you hear stories like this all the time—about the pressure to adopt new technologies quickly, and the human toll that can take.

• [Sarah]: It’s hard—just the idea of having less time to adapt as the pace of change accelerates can feel suffocating. Imagine being someone who’s already trying to keep up, and suddenly, there are 15 more “critical” objectives added overnight. It’s overwhelming. Rudy, you and I have talked about this before—when you're focused on delivering one key outcome, and suddenly you're expected to deliver a dozen more, it’s like, “What do you want from me?” And this is exactly why the role of leadership is so critical. We’ve had conversations about this too—how do you absorb that pressure without simply passing it down to your teams? Because if you do, you’re just pushing the stress further down the line. Leaders have to act as a buffer, not a funnel. That’s a huge responsibility, and it’s why leadership can’t be treated as just another function—it’s the foundation for navigating all of this.

Discussion between Rudy(SpencerTech) and Sarah:

• [Rudy]: Listen to this—you’ll get it. I literally closed my door for this one. So, my CEO just got back from the TSIA conference a couple of weeks ago. I didn’t attend—too much going on—but he came back with this big takeaway: “Rudy, we’re way behind on AI. I saw what other companies are doing, and we’re five years behind. If we don’t act now, we’ll never catch up. We need to implement AI immediately.” Now we’re in full scramble mode. He’s asking everyone for AI use cases. We’ve got 10 meetings a week with different AI vendors—each one specialized in a niche: resolution management, document processing, conversational AI, etc. It’s a flood of options, and the pressure is real. The expectation from leadership is sky-high, but the actual capability—what we can realistically implement and scale—is still catching up. Yes, the cost of AI has dropped significantly, and there are some cool use cases out there. But here’s the real challenge I’m wrestling with: What can we do with AI that actually reduces headcount or significantly eases workload? Sure, we can add validations, improve quality, and build helpful tools—but those are enhancements. What’s the revolutionary use case? What’s the thing we can proudly showcase on LinkedIn, that makes a real impact on the business and meaningfully reduces pressure on our teams? Conversational AI is the obvious one—knowledge sharing, resolution management, document input. I know IFS Cloud can handle a lot of that. But beyond that, what’s the next big thing? What’s the use case that’s not just cool, but transformational?

• [Sarah]: I might be overstepping here, Rudy—but we’re friends, and I know you won’t mind. I’ll send you the podcast that backs this up, and maybe even connect you with the guest, because I think it’s relevant. Here’s the thing: what it would take for Spencer to do something truly revolutionary with AI—they’re not willing to do. And it’s not even about budget. It’s about the scale of change required. The kind of transformation that would make headlines or fundamentally shift the business. That level of change just isn’t on the table right now. So, you’re being put under tremendous pressure to deliver something groundbreaking, but the environment doesn’t support it. That’s an unrealistic ask. I’m not saying you can’t get real value from AI—you absolutely can. But framing it as “change the game overnight” sets you up for frustration. It’s about being strategic. Focus on what’s achievable, what moves the needle, and what builds momentum. That’s still meaningful—and it’s sustainable.

• [Rudy]: Exactly. At that level, it’s more about looking innovative than actually being innovative. The substance often takes a back seat to the story.

• [Sarah]: Exactly. That’s the core issue the podcast touched on—people throwing around budgets for AI without a clear understanding of what they’re actually trying to achieve. It’s all about the optics, not the outcome. And unfortunately, that’s becoming more common across the board.

Other Comments:

• You really nailed it—the ageing workforce and those who aren’t as tech-savvy often struggle with new systems. Many of them are incredibly skilled with their hands, working in the field, and they see these digital tools as just “internal paperwork.” So, when the technology doesn’t feel relevant or intuitive, it creates a disconnect. That’s why ease of use, a grace period for learning, and a human-centered approach are so important. Listening, being patient, and supporting people through the transition go a long way. Technology evolves quickly, but people need time to adapt. If we don’t intentionally build in that time—ideally on a weekly basis—we risk burning people out. [Genevieve Desormeaux - Laurentide]

Next CollABoratives: 

• 28 May 2025 10:00 AM US EST / 15:00 BST / 16:00 CEST
  IFS Assets CollABorative: Think Tank - Incorporating ESG in Capital Planning Decisions

If you are an IFS Customer and you would like to join the CollABoratives, please click here to fill out the form.