This service management case study walks through Solvace, a platform we built to replace paper tickets and disconnected spreadsheets with a mobile field app and a web admin panel. It is the kind of build a US engineering leader or operations VP would review when shortlisting a nearshore delivery partner, and the kind of blueprint an operator in facilities, industrial maintenance, MEP services, or equipment service should recognize.

Rather than a marketing piece, this is a structured engineering write-up: the problem Solvace was built to solve, the architecture that supports it, the one published outcome metric (a 50% reduction in ticket resolution time), and the practical takeaways for any US company planning a similar multi-site field operation build.

The problem Solvace was built to solve

Medium and large enterprises that run service operations across multiple sites tend to accumulate a familiar pile of tools. A spreadsheet for open tickets. A shared inbox for the urgent ones. A paper form for the technician to sign at the site. A separate maintenance log per facility. An ERP that holds the assets and the cost centers but nothing about the day-to-day work happening in the field.

The result is always the same: delays, rework, no audit trail, and zero real-time visibility for management. When a VP of operations asks a simple question such as "how many open work orders do we have right now at site 14, and who is assigned to them?", the answer requires three phone calls and a spreadsheet export.

Solvace was built for that exact business context. Internal tickets, work orders, and preventive maintenance across many sites, executed by field teams that are on the move, often in low-connectivity environments, and reported back to a management layer that needs to see the operation in real time.

Solution overview: one mobile app plus one web admin

Instead of replacing the ERP or bolting on another point tool, Solvace centralizes service operations into a single digital ecosystem with two complementary surfaces.

The mobile app is the field technician's daily tool. It lists the work orders assigned to them, guides them through a digital checklist, captures photos and the customer's electronic signature, and closes the ticket right there at the site. The web admin panel is the manager's workspace. It is where work orders get created, assigned, tracked, and reported on, and where leadership sees dashboards that reflect what is actually happening in the field at any given moment.

What used to take three separate tools and a clipboard is now one product with two surfaces that share the same data model.

Core functionality

Every capability in Solvace was shaped by a real field constraint. None of them are there to pad a feature list.

  • Work order creation and tracking from the field app. Technicians can open a ticket on site, attach context, and progress it through states without switching tools.
  • Automatic ticket assignment by location, specialty, and availability. The routing logic lives in the backend so that dispatchers are not the bottleneck for every urgent request.
  • Digital checklist with photos and electronic signature capture. Every step of the service is evidenced, reviewable, and auditable later.
  • Web admin panel with real-time dashboards and reports. Status, SLA risk, and backlog by site are visible without pulling an export.
  • Complete maintenance history per equipment and location. Every touch on a piece of equipment is retained so the next technician starts with context instead of a blank page.
  • Offline mode for field teams in low-connectivity sites. Technicians can complete a full service, including photo capture and signature, without a signal, and sync the result when they are back in range. This single capability is the difference between a tool that gets adopted and a tool that field teams quietly abandon.

Technical architecture

Solvace is built on a deliberately unsurprising stack. For a product that will run in customer facilities every day, boring technology is a feature.

Mobile: React Native (iOS and Android)

A single codebase reaches both platforms, which matters when field teams use whatever device policy their employer already has. React Native also keeps the iteration loop tight: a fix that comes back from a site visit can usually ship to both stores from the same branch. For a deeper look at the tradeoffs, see our comparison of native, hybrid, and cross-platform approaches and our Flutter vs React Native breakdown.

Web: React for the admin panel

The admin panel is a React single-page application focused on dashboards, user management, assignment, and reporting. The same design tokens and the same API contract are used by both surfaces so engineers working on either side of the product share a mental model.

Backend: Node.js on AWS with S3

The backend runs on Node.js, with a relational database as the system of record and Amazon S3 for binary storage (photos, signed documents, attachments). AWS also provides the predictable scaling and the region flexibility that matters when a US customer requires data residency in a specific US region.

Integration layer: REST APIs for ERP connectivity

Enterprise customers almost always have an ERP already in place, typically SAP, Oracle, or an industry-specific system, and they are not going to replace it to adopt a service management product. Solvace exposes REST APIs designed for ERP connectivity so that assets, cost centers, and closed work orders can flow between systems without a human in the middle.

Why this stack fits the problem

React Native buys fast iteration on the field app, which is the surface where requirements change the most. React keeps the admin panel predictable and component-driven. Node.js and a relational database on AWS give an enterprise-grade persistence layer with straightforward operability. S3 handles binary storage at a price that does not punish a customer for capturing a photo on every ticket. The shape of this stack is a common reference for any team building a similar multi-site product.

Delivery profile

Instead of fabricating a specific timeline for Solvace, it is more useful to describe the shape of the engagement that produces this kind of build at FWC. Our typical envelope is 30 to 120 days of scoped delivery, broken into phases that each ship something into a real production environment.

A representative team looks like a product manager, a designer, two or three engineers split across mobile, web, and backend, and a QA engineer. Releases are iterative. The first production-ready phase is usually narrower than the final product, which is intentional: it gets the field teams using something real within weeks rather than waiting a year for a single launch.

For a broader view of how these engagements are structured, our custom software development guide for US enterprises covers phase structure, acceptance criteria, and contract shape.

Outcomes

The single quantified outcome that Solvace's customer has published is a 50% reduction in ticket resolution time. That number is the headline, and it is worth unpacking what it actually means in a field operation.

Ticket resolution time is the full cycle from a ticket being opened to a ticket being closed with the work evidenced. Cutting it in half affects staffing efficiency, SLA compliance with end customers, and how quickly a critical asset is back in service. It is the metric that an operations leader cares about more than almost any other.

Beyond the headline, the qualitative outcomes have been equally meaningful:

  • Elimination of paper and spreadsheets in field processes. Evidence is captured digitally at the point of service, not transcribed days later.
  • Full operational visibility for management. The web admin dashboards answer the real-time questions that used to require three phone calls.
  • Adoption across multiple units of the customer. A tool that rolls out to additional sites after the first one is a tool that solved the problem it was supposed to solve.

What this kind of build looks like for US companies

Solvace's shape is not specific to any one industry. The same workflow applies to US facilities managers coordinating HVAC and preventive maintenance across a portfolio of buildings, industrial maintenance teams running equipment reliability programs, MEP contractors managing field crews, medical equipment service providers, and multi-site retail operations with in-house maintenance.

When a US company is evaluating whether to build something similar, three things tend to decide the outcome: whether the team understands the field constraint as well as the web one, whether the mobile app works without a signal, and whether the backend integrates cleanly with the ERP that the business already runs on.

Nearshore delivery is a natural fit for this class of build. Brazil sits in time zones that overlap US business hours by six to eight productive hours per day, which matters when field teams are active during those same hours and issues surface in real time. Our guide to nearshore app development from Brazil covers the cost and collaboration model in more depth, and our app development cost guide for US companies breaks down what a build like this tends to land at in USD.

How to evaluate a partner for a build like this

A useful filter for shortlisting a delivery partner for a multi-site field operation product:

  • Ask for a comparable delivered product, not a deck. Solvace is a reference FWC can discuss in detail. Demand the same from any partner.
  • Verify real stack experience. React Native, React, Node.js, and AWS should each have several shipped products behind them, not a single pilot.
  • Ask about ERP integration patterns. SAP, Oracle, and industry ERPs each have their quirks. A partner should be able to describe how they have handled asset sync and closed-work-order posting before.
  • Verify QA discipline. A checklist app with flaky photo capture or a broken signature flow will not survive a field pilot. Ask how the partner tests the offline path specifically.
  • Expect iterative delivery. A partner that wants twelve months to a single launch is the wrong partner for a field operation product. Each 30 to 60 day phase should ship into a real environment with real users.
  • Confirm SOC 2 readiness and enterprise data handling posture. Solvace handles operational data, photo evidence, and in some cases signed documents. Data handling, access control, and audit logs need to be table stakes, not an afterthought.

Should you build web, mobile, or both?

A service management platform is a textbook combined build. The field surface has to be mobile. The management surface has to be web. Trying to collapse one into the other produces a product field teams will not adopt or a product managers will not use. Our web vs mobile app decision framework walks through the same tradeoff for products where the answer is less obvious.

CTA

Working on a service management platform, a multi-site field operation, or a work-order product of your own? Solvace is one reference of this kind of build; there are others we can share on a scoping call.

Request a scoped proposal or get in touch with the team. A 30-minute conversation is usually enough to frame the phase-1 scope and the delivery window for a service management case study build of your own.