From PowerPoint to Pit Lane: What Future-Proof Field Service Really Requires

That gap between strategic ambition and operational reality is where competitive advantage is being won or lost. At Field Service Forum 2026 – Power of 50, panelists Kris Meuleman, Lorenzo Salusti, Maik Hoppe, and Lisa Hellqvist discussed how execution is constrained by legacy processes, human behaviour, and customer expectations that do not always align with the PowerPoint story.

Ambition Outruns the Backbone

Most organisations now have credible service strategies on paper. The problem is not the vision; it is the foundations.

Across sectors, a recurring gap sits in the backbone of service operations: clean data, stable processes, and usable tools. Businesses are investing in AI, mobile apps, and predictive algorithms, but still rely on inconsistent databases and fragmented workflows. Instead of removing friction, digital initiatives can actually create confusion in the field.

Oil and gas operations highlight another dimension of this backbone issue: harsh, remote environments and poor connectivity make tool usability critical. Solutions that work flawlessly in a headquarters demo often fail in the desert or on an offshore platform, where technicians have limited time, pressure from the customer, and little tolerance for unstable systems. Without proven reliability and simplicity, adoption stalls.

Even when the technology functions, strategy often breaks at the point of behavioural change. Senior teams may align around a new service model, only to see it diluted as it meets operational excellence constraints and entrenched habits.

This is not just a training issue. Behavioural change takes months to embed. If technicians revert to old methods in the workshop, the return on investment evaporates. For leaders, that means:

• Treating the backbone—data quality, process design, and tool usability—as a primary investment, not a secondary IT concern.
• Designing change programs that explicitly address habits and incentives, not only skills.
• Measuring adoption and behavioural outcomes, not just system rollouts.

Predictive Maintenance: Useful Internally, Hard to Sell Externally

Predictive and preventive maintenance feature in almost every service strategy, but their role and value differ sharply by industry.

In asset-intensive sectors like oil and gas, predictive models are central to resource optimisation. Anticipating failures and maintenance needs allows better allocation of scarce, specialised engineers and more efficient planning of site interventions. However, even the most refined model does not remove the need for fast execution. Predictivity helps plan; reactivity still defines service credibility.

In commercial vehicles, predictive data is used less as a commercial product and more as an internal planning tool. By analysing fleet behaviour, manufacturers can ensure dealers have the right parts, capacity, and skills in place ahead of emerging issues. The benefit to the customer is higher uptime, but the “predictive” element is largely invisible—and hard to monetise directly.

The sanitary systems business illustrates another constraint: for many end-users, predictive maintenance is simply not an appealing proposition. Hotel groups may care about hygienic flushing schedules and regulatory compliance, but individual consumers want working showers, not analytics. Where risk and downtime are perceived as manageable, buyers often prefer to take their chances rather than pay for a promise that nothing will happen.

The real commercial product is not predictive maintenance itself but risk and continuity management. Customers care about uptime, safety, compliance, and total cost over the asset life cycle, not whether a model is predictive or preventive. The most advanced algo­rithm is commercially irrelevant if framed as a technology feature rather than a business outcome.

Second, selling “nothing happening” is structurally difficult. A service organisation is often judged as successful when it is invisible. That makes recurring revenue models and premium contracts a hard sell unless the value is translated into concrete, customer-specific metrics such as avoided downtime, reduced site visits, or lower regulatory exposure.

Some organisations are moving away from lists of maintenance tasks and hours, toward framing equipment as a money machine. The service provider is not selling interventions; it is preserving the customer’s ability to generate revenue. Where possible, this is quantified in terms the customer recognises—for example, the cost of three hours of truck standstill or the penalties associated with non-compliant water systems.

If predictive capabilities are to support growth rather than remain an internal planning tool, service leaders will need to:

• Anchor propositions in outcomes (uptime, compliance, lifecycle profit), not techniques.
• Be selective about where predictive models make sense; not every product category justifies the complexity.
• Use internal predictive insights to sharpen reactivity and planning, even when customers are unwilling to pay explicitly for predictive maintenance.

Technicians as Strategic Assets, Not Problem Recipients

Every company claims that technicians are its most valuable service asset. Organisational reality often contradicts that claim.

Field engineers and mechanics are still largely treated as executors: called in when something breaks, expected to fix the issue, and then disappear. They hear only bad news and see the same recurring problems without evidence that their feedback leads to change. Over time, that erodes motivation and undermines any message about technicians being the face of the brand.

Some organisations are starting to redesign this relationship.

One approach is to formalise autonomy and decision rights in the field. By defining clear levels of authority linked to experience and expertise, companies allow senior technicians to make on-site decisions without constant escalation. This reinforces their role as professionals rather than task followers and signals trust, both internally and in front of customers.

Another is to build structured feedback loops from field to headquarters. Regular product performance calls, where technicians share recurring issues and dedicated specialists capture actions, can turn field frustration into a form of early warning system. Closing the loop—explicitly informing technicians when a design change has been implemented—shows that their input is not disappearing into a void.

There is also a cultural dimension. When service organisations move from being seen as repair shops to being integrated into strategic discussions alongside sales, logistics, and finance, technicians gain visibility and career prospects. But this raises a hard question: if service is genuinely core to the business, why are so few CEOs or managing directors drawn from service backgrounds? The absence of clear career paths from service roles into senior leadership weakens the case for ambitious young technicians to see the field as a long-term route, rather than a dead-end function.

The panelists suggest several practical levers:

• Position service not as a cost centre, but as a strategic pillar with a voice in product, pricing, and customer strategy.
• Give technicians meaningful autonomy, with governance that reflects their expertise.
• Establish visible, reliable mechanisms for field feedback to drive design and process changes.
• Create career paths that allow movement from service into broader leadership roles.

Talent Attraction: A Structural Constraint, Not a Passing Problem

Every sector represented recognises the same structural challenge: an ageing workforce, slow inflow of new technicians, and a persistent failure to tap the full talent pool, including women. For many young people, particularly in automotive and industrial fields, the perception of technician roles is still linked to heavy manual labour, low status, and limited progression.

In reality, the work is increasingly digital and complex. Trucks, for example, are sophisticated systems that demand diagnostic capability as much as mechanical skill. Yet that shift has not fully translated into how companies present their technician roles to schools, training institutions, or potential recruits.

Addressing this includes:

• Opening workshops and service environments to schools and vocational programs to demystify the work and showcase modern tools and technologies.
• Investing heavily in onboarding and technical academies, including training facilities with identical units to those in the field, to build confidence before first customer exposure.
• Expanding soft skills training so technicians can handle difficult conversations, present confidently to customers, and manage situations where things do not go as planned.

These efforts aim to make the role both more attractive at entry and more sustainable over time. Still, leaders acknowledge that without broader changes—such as competitive recognition, visibility inside the organisation, and genuine advancement possibilities—the sector will continue to struggle to attract and retain the next generation.

Preparing for the Next Five Years: Simplify, Combine, and Stay Flexible

Looking ahead, complexity must be reduced rather than added. Field technicians and customers alike are overwhelmed by tools and options. The risk is that service leaders chase every new AI capability on the market without a clear understanding of the underlying problem. If a team cannot clearly name the problem within minutes, it is probably not a priority for automation.

Success will depend less on having the latest technology and more on how well technology, people, and processes are combined. A sophisticated solution deployed into an unprepared organisation will not be adopted. Conversely, a simpler tool that fits existing workflows and capabilities can often deliver more impact. That implies a conscious decision to slow down adoption to the pace at which field teams can absorb and use new capabilities.

Agility and flexibility will be essential. No two customers have identical needs or appetites for service contracts, remote support, or predictive propositions. Trying to push all customers into the same template ignores the reality that some still want a technician on-site, face-to-face, while others value speed and remote resolution above all else. Service organisations that can listen carefully, configure modular offerings, and pivot quickly between models will be better placed than those locked into rigid productised service portfolios.