Dispatcher view all technicians but only edit own team?

I am configuring FieldPulse for a multi-region operations structure and require clarification on the granularity of role-based access control.

Configuration details:

  1. We have 3 regional dispatch teams (North, Central, South)
  2. Each team has 2 dispatchers
  3. Dispatchers must coordinate scheduling across regions for resource sharing
  4. Dispatchers should not modify technician assignments outside their assigned region

I have reviewed the Admin, Manager, and Dispatcher role definitions in the documentation. The Manager role permits editing of all technicians, which exceeds our requirements. The Dispatcher role does not appear to support hierarchical scoping by team or region.

Please confirm whether the following configuration is achievable:

  • View permission: All technicians (read-only visibility across organization)
  • Edit permission: Technicians assigned to the dispatcher's specific team or region only

I have confirmed that the Team field is populated for all technician records. I am operating on FieldPulse version 3.2.1.

Is this achievable through native configuration, or does it require a custom role configuration that must be escalated to FieldPulse support?

Parents
  • Another way to think about it: we implemented a hybrid approach that might bridge the gap without custom development.

    We use the Team field as a soft filter rather than a hard permission boundary. Our dispatch board has saved filters per region, and we reinforced through training that dispatchers should only modify their own team's assignments. The Audit Log (available under Admin > Account Activity) provides the oversight layer — we run weekly reports on dispatcher modifications and address exceptions through process review rather than technical restriction.

    This is not as clean as native permissions would be, but it operationalizes within 48 hours versus waiting for a custom build. For a team your size, the weekly audit review adds perhaps 15 minutes of administrative overhead.

    From an operational risk standpoint, we have found that the combination of clear SOPs plus audit visibility provides sufficient control. The number of actual cross-regional edit incidents has been minimal once the workflow was established.

  • Thank you, Nadia. I appreciate the operational context.

    I have confirmed that our compliance framework requires technical enforcement rather than procedural controls for this access pattern. The audit-log-only approach does not satisfy our internal controls documentation.

    I will escalate to Professional Services for the custom role configuration. Priya, please provide the contact details for initiating that engagement.

Reply
  • Thank you, Nadia. I appreciate the operational context.

    I have confirmed that our compliance framework requires technical enforcement rather than procedural controls for this access pattern. The audit-log-only approach does not satisfy our internal controls documentation.

    I will escalate to Professional Services for the custom role configuration. Priya, please provide the contact details for initiating that engagement.

Children
No Data