FSM-Sim Whitepaper: Field Service Workflow Comparison Using FSM-Sim™ 2.5
Executive Summary
This paper compares the two workflows that matter: estimator queue versus same-visit field quoting. With identical demand and cost assumptions, the field-quoting model captured far more work because the customer got the price while urgency was still real.
84%
Acceptance rate in the streamlined workflow, compared with 57% in the traditional workflow.
6,405
Jobs completed in the streamlined workflow, compared with 1,171 in the traditional workflow.
$2.9M
Gross profit in the streamlined workflow, compared with $0.25M in the traditional workflow.
8-page PDF | Ucora Corporation | 2026
What the whitepaper covers
The paper looks at one of the most practical commercial HVAC workflow questions: what changes when quoting moves from an office estimator to the technician in the field?
Company A: Traditional workflow
- Dispatcher receives the request and sends a technician to site.
- The technician assesses the work.
- An estimator in the office prepares and reviews the quote.
- The customer sees the quote after the site visit and office handoff.
Company B: Streamlined workflow
- Dispatcher receives the request and sends a technician to site.
- The technician quotes directly in the field using automated pricing.
- The customer receives the quote while the technician is still engaged.
The estimator role is removed, which speeds up delivery but shifts more responsibility into the field workflow.
How the simulation was set up
FSM-Sim™ 2.5 held the two companies to the same baseline conditions so the workflow comparison stayed clean.
- The process ran for 261 days, the equivalent of one operating year.
- Both companies shared identical demand, cost assumptions, and service parameters.
- Each company started with four technicians, one dispatcher, and one accountant.
- The meaningful differences were workflow structure, and the presence or absence of estimators.
Key findings
23 h 24 min
Average quote turnaround in the streamlined workflow, down from 1 day 6 h in the traditional workflow.
$8.85 M
Revenue collected in the streamlined workflow, compared with $1.61 M in the traditional workflow.
~33%
Profit margin in the streamlined workflow, compared with roughly 15% in the traditional workflow.
The paper also shows the tradeoffs. The streamlined company scaled from four technicians to twenty-two, grew dispatch from one person to three, and expanded accounting from one person to four.
What commercial HVAC leaders should take from it
Faster quoting is not a convenience feature. It is a bid-capture feature. When the customer gets the price while the technician is still engaged, more of the discovered work turns into approved work.
Second, removing estimator delays does not remove operational complexity. It shifts that complexity into technician enablement, pricing logic, dispatch coordination, and billing discipline. That is why workflow design matters more than just adding features to a generic FSM stack.
- Direct in-field quoting can unlock materially higher win rates and throughput.
- Commercial HVAC companies still need strong dispatch and accounting processes as volume increases.
- Price consistency depends on training, intuitive tools, and workflow guardrails.
- The right system should support commercial HVAC execution, not just store data after the fact.
Read the full whitepaper
The full paper walks through the model assumptions, workflow structure, throughput metrics, financial outcomes, and operational implications in more detail.
If you want the full comparison, open the PDF below.
