How to Evaluate Field Service Management Platforms: Q&A with Adi Sankaran

Adi Sankaran, SVP of Product at Zinier, breaks down what really matters when selecting field service management software – and what's just marketing noise.

This week, I sat down with Adi to discuss factors to consider when buying FSM. When selecting field service management software, we find most buyers focus on features and demos instead of the technical foundations that determine long-term success. After decades of building FSM platforms and executing FSM implementations, Adi breaks down the 6 critical factors that actually predict whether your FSM investment will deliver value or become a costly mistake:

• AI-Ready Architecture – Can your delivery team swap from Amazon Recognition to Google Vision in 3 days without waiting for vendor roadmaps? True AI-readiness means open platform architecture where you control AI integration, not the vendor.
• True Platform Configurability – Most "platforms" aren't really platforms. Real platforms let you build anything while staying accessible to non-technical users.
• Cloud-Native Foundation – Being "on the cloud" isn't enough. Was it built for cloud infrastructure or just legacy software thrown online? Acquisition-heavy vendors often stick incompatible systems together. You need microservices architecture that evolves with technology.
• Configurable Scheduling Engine – Everyone has the same KPIs and route optimization. Your competitive advantage comes from defining your unique "alpha" – that one business variable that beats competition. Can you configure that variable into scheduling without going through vendor engineering teams?
• Friction-Free Mobile Experience – The best field service app is one technicians don't have to touch. Can you eliminate useless workflow steps based on real field feedback? Native apps that adapt to how technicians actually work, not how back-office people think they work.
• Vendor Innovation Commitment – There's less money in field service than CRM/ERP, so vendors prioritize accordingly. Do they have the majority of their engineers working on field service, or single digits? Are solution architects field service specialists, or do they solve problems across multiple domains?

These factors might sound obvious, but most buyers get them completely wrong. The difference between successful FSM implementations and $10M mistakes often comes down to asking the right technical questions upfront. Here's what those conversations should actually sound like:

Q: What distinguishes truly AI-ready FSM platforms from vendors just bolting AI onto legacy systems?

Adi: Look, "AI-native" is mostly a sales buzzword, to be honest. The real question is: is your field service product AI-ready? And what do we mean by AI-ready?

Since we have an open platform architecture, we can bring in different AI services very quickly. Perfect example: one client wanted OCR technology. We got Amazon Recognition connected to our mobile interface in a week. When that didn't work well, we moved to Amazon Textract in 3 days, then Google Vision Cloud in 2 days. We tested all the market technologies in a week and a half.

Here's the key: none of this was done by product or engineering – our delivery team did it. And customers can do it themselves because all platform elements are accessible.

Versus our competition where you can't access the models, can't change the fundamental structure. You wait for product development and roadmaps. How quickly can you swap AI providers when better technology emerges? That's your test.

AI-ready FSM platforms let you swap providers in days, not months. True AI-readiness means your team controls integration without vendor roadmaps.

Q: What configurability features should buyers demand to ensure their FSM platform adapts to their business?

Adi: Here we should be thought-provoking and challenging, right? What do you mean by a "platform"? If you're questioning "is this a platform?", the answer is probably no. We kind of break their mindset and say anything you think of as platform is probably not.

What is a platform? A platform is something you can build anything you want to. But here's the problem: if you have access to build anything, you're always stuck in heavy code or trying to make things work – it's a long-tail way of getting there.

How do we make platform accessible? By normalizing it for users while not compromising capabilities. The platform has to be deeply aware of what your users do day-to-day. You can't take a Palantir platform and put it in field service. You can't make a generic CRM platform and put it in field service.

The key is figuring out what should be open and what should be controlled in field service specifically. That's why you need a field service-centric platform.

Real FSM platforms let you build anything while staying accessible to non-technical users. Generic platforms fail in field service operations.

Q: What architectural elements must buyers verify to avoid getting stuck with outdated technology?

Adi: If your platform is not on the cloud, it's a non-starter. Don't even touch that, right? But being "on the cloud" isn't enough – was it built for cloud infrastructure or just thrown on the cloud to see if it'll stick?

If the product grew through acquisitions, be very careful. Acquisitions mean they stuck a wheel and axle together. It's not built the right way.

You have to be on the cloud because today no system exists in isolation. Every best-in-breed product is cloud-native. If you want to up your game, you'll move to a fully cloud-native world. Your field service can't be the thing holding you back.

Unlike other field service companies, we're constantly improving functionality. Some competitors don't do that – what you pay is what you get. But we're SaaS, offering new capabilities. You have to be in the cloud ecosystem to consume this. You can't get a floppy drive... I don't know if you existed in the floppy drive era, but 1.44 MB – that's the size of one PDF file today.

Cloud-native FSM beats legacy software thrown online. Acquisition-heavy vendors stick incompatible systems together - avoid the wheel-and-axle trap.

Q: What separates configurable scheduling engines from rigid, one-size-fits-all solutions?

Adi: We should challenge some basic stuff here. Everyone has built millions of KPIs and scheduling rules. So what? Every company has access to the same KPIs now. But in business, you have to outperform your competition. Everyone's seeking alpha – it's an investment term. You're seeking that edge.

You don't get alpha from market-available KPIs. You get it by uniquely defining what your alpha is. And your alpha changes – 6 months later you might have conquered your previous alpha or realized it's not working.

You can't conquer alpha if you keep asking vendors to change your solution. You can only do it if you can change your own solution.

We've had enough of generic KPIs and sliders. If you average them out, everyone has route optimization. What's the point? You have one variable in your business that could deliver better value than competition. How do you use that variable in scheduling without going through product, engineering, and roadmaps?

Your competitive advantage comes from defining your unique business "alpha" - that one variable that beats competition in FSM scheduling.

Q: What mobile capabilities are essential for technician productivity in 2025?

Adi: I was a field engineer in oil and gas, and one guy told me: the best mobile device is one you don't have to touch. Any second they spend in the app is wasted time. The job is turning the valve, not reporting that you turned it.

So how do we get in and out quickly? The app needs to be self-explanatory – no onboarding time. It should resemble Uber, fully consumer-friendly.

Here's the thing: as technicians work, they optimize jobs in their heads. They know "when I see this, the first four sections are irrelevant, I need section five." But today they still mark off those four useless sections. Can we build something where after 6 months, we remove the useless components and give them only what matters?

The entire theme should be: a field service app is good if the technician doesn't have to do anything on it. How do we get them to not do anything on it?

The best field service app is one technicians don't have to touch. Every second in the app is wasted time - optimize for speed, not features.

Q: What are the warning signs that an FSM vendor won't keep innovating after the sale?

Adi: The answer is obvious – there's less money in field service than CRM and ERP. Companies put money where they make the most.

Look at productivity tools – Monday.com, notes, Notebook LLM, dozens for office workers. Nothing for technicians. Because office people are the buyers.

What are the telltale signs your product isn't evolving? Is the company not committed, or is their architecture so poor they can't innovate? Did they grow through acquisitions where systems don't talk?

We have all of our engineers working on field service – a huge percentage of our organization. How about other platforms? Maybe single digits. Our solution architects only solve field service problems. In big platforms, architects solve all kinds of problems. Field service isn't their specialty – they're not thinking about these problems every day.

FSM vendors with ALL of their engineers on field service innovate faster than those with single digits. Check their actual resource commitment.