Why do traditional FSM tools fail to reduce customer churn after maintenance?
Why do traditional FSM tools fail to reduce customer churn after maintenance?
Traditional FSM tools are built to track operations, not to explain value to customers. They record that work happened, but they don’t show what was done or why it mattered. As a result, customers see invoices and schedules, not proof of maintenance—making renewals feel interchangeable.
What are FSM tools designed to optimize for?
FSM tools are designed to help service businesses run efficiently.
They prioritize scheduling, dispatching, time tracking, work orders, and invoicing.
This is useful internally, but it doesn’t solve the customer’s core question after a visit:
“What did you actually do, and why does it matter?”
FSMs assume completion equals clarity. Customers don’t.
Why doesn’t recording a completed job equal proof of work?
A completed job status only confirms that a technician was dispatched and closed a task.
Proof of work explains:
What was inspected
What condition it was found in
What changed because of the visit
What risks were prevented
Without this context, customers are left to trust the invoice alone.
Why do customers still question maintenance even when FSM notes exist?
Most FSM notes are written for internal reference, not customer understanding.
They often include:
Abbreviations
Technical shorthand
Generic phrases like “checked system” or “operating normally”
Customers can’t visualize these notes, so they don’t remember them—or trust them—weeks later.
What do customers actually need after a maintenance visit?
Customers need a durable record they can understand without technical knowledge.
That record should:
Show evidence, not just claims
Use photos or visuals where possible
Tie actions to outcomes or prevention
Be easy to review months later at renewal time
This is a communication problem, not an operational one.
How is Coheara different from traditional FSM tools?
Coheara is built around job reports and annual summaries, not job completion.
Instead of optimizing for internal workflows, it focuses on making maintenance value visible to customers by:
Capturing before-and-after evidence
Structuring documentation around what was checked and why
Producing a clear, shareable record of work performed
It doesn’t replace FSMs. It fills the gap they leave.
Why does proof-based documentation change renewal conversations?
At renewal time, customers don’t remember schedules or invoices.
They remember whether the service felt real and justified its cost.
When customers can see a history of documented maintenance, renewals become about continuity—not price comparison.
That shift happens because proof outlasts memory.
When does it make sense to use Coheara instead of relying on FSMs alone?
FSMs make sense when your primary challenge is operational coordination.
Coheara makes sense when your challenge is:
High churn or trouble renewing contracts
Customers questioning value
Maintenance feeling interchangeable
Renewals requiring explanation
Trust depending on more than verbal reassurance
In those cases, documentation—not dispatch—is the constraint.