Justine Robidas Dynamics 365 Specialist

We would like to be able to define service territories for resources not based on postal codes, but based on geolocalization functionalities that are already embedded into Field Service. This is because defining a great number of service territories and modifying them purely based on postal codes is extremely tedious, and modifying those service territories, even more so.

Ideally, we would like to be able to draw a polygon on a map to represent the service area of a ressource, and all work orders within that area (determined through longitude and latitude data already available through the geolocalization services within Field Service) would be automatically assigned to this ressource. Being able to represent service territories on a map would also help insure that no service area is left uncovered.

I've read that, by design, the new Copilot form for work orders hides the BPF. I don't understand the logic behind this; we should be the ones to decide if we want to deactivate the BPF or not. Copilot does NOT make this form redundant as my BPF for work orders has many embedded workflows and Power Automate flows that need to be triggered **manually** by service agents at specific moments in my process. Please let us decide how we want to use the functionality.

Currently, the only out-of-the-box ways to attach multiple customer assets to a work order is through work order incident--create one for each asset--or work order service task--create one maintenance task for each customer asset.

However, this method of operation is a frequent source of confusion for customers as work order incidents implicate (and technically require) a resolution, and the label "work order incident" indicates that this is a lot more than simply adding information to the work order. Work order incidents can be created automatically via agreement incidents when the work order is generated via an agreement.

In my recent experiences deploying the agreement module for customers, it was a unanimous feedback that it would be much more straightforward and simpler for the customer to create an "agreement asset" relationship table and "work order asset" relationship table. We've achieved this through customization and synced the tables via Power Automate flows, but this seems like a common enough request from my customers that I wonder if there might be enough interest to create a "multi-asset mode for work orders and agreements" functionality that would be natively available from Field Service. The relationship table would replace the OOB lookup field and integrate the OOB lookup field from cases with the work order relationship table so that we are able to use this in multiple scenarios without customization.

Regards,

Justine