By Artem Korsakov ·
Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario: a client purchased a boiler from a dealer. The manufacturer is located in another region. Installation and maintenance are performed by a local service company that has a partnership agreement with the manufacturer. A year later, the boiler stops heating. The client calls the dealer, who refers them to the service provider, who then asks the client to confirm warranty coverage with the manufacturer. The manufacturer requests a diagnostic report. Instead of organizing an on-site visit, participants argue over who should attend.
A multi-party scheme is common and not inherently bad. The problem arises when the rules between participants are unwritten.
Who participates in repairs
In a typical chain, there are four parties:
- The client wants the equipment to work and is not required to understand agreements between companies;
- The manufacturer is responsible for the warranty and determines whether a case qualifies as covered;
- The seller or dealer knows sales conditions and often remains the client’s first point of contact;
- The service partner visits, diagnoses, and performs repairs.
Each party holds specific information. The dealer knows the sales date; the manufacturer knows the serial number and model history; the partner sees the equipment on-site. Until this information is consolidated in one place, decisions are delayed.
Where disputes arise
Disputes repeatedly occur at the same points:
- Warranty eligibility. Does the term start from sales, commissioning, or delivery? What happens if commissioning was performed by a non-authorized partner?
- Who pays for diagnostics. If the case turns out to be non-warranty, the visit has already occurred. Does the client, manufacturer, or no one pay?
- Component replacement. Who decides whether to repair or replace, and how long until a decision is made?
- Mixed cases. One component failed under warranty, while another failed due to improper operation. How are works and payments divided?
- Work quality. Who accepts the partner’s work, and what happens in case of repeated failure?
There must be an answer to each of these questions before the first claim. Otherwise, they will be reinvented every time, and clients will wait.
What to document in network rules
Network rules are useful as concise decisions:
- Warranty eligibility is calculated based on the client’s contact date, according to the term specified in the manufacturer’s terms;
- The partner is assigned by the manufacturer or regional dispatcher based on qualification and workload;
- Diagnostic fees are defined separately: in demo cases, the manufacturer pays if at least one replacement is approved or no replacement is required; if rejected for all items, there is no separate warranty charge, and paid diagnostics are included in the estimate accepted by the client;
- Component replacements are approved by the manufacturer; paid works are separately accepted by the client;
- Works are closed upon client acceptance, and partner remuneration is paid once after acceptance.
This is the operational logic of the process. Legal contract terms are negotiated separately with legal counsel, and operational rules must not contradict them.
Where to store claims
When there are multiple participants, a claim must reside in one location accessible to all according to their permissions. Ready-made service systems offer this for claim management and field staff operations. Executors may also use a mobile application, including offline functionality, which is necessary for visits to basements and technical rooms.
An additional question arises: who sees what. The client does not need to see partner remuneration. Partners do not need to see other partners’ claims. The manufacturer needs the full history of each model. If a system does not distinguish these views, participants begin maintaining parallel spreadsheets.
Each party has a minimal claim view. The client sees status, visit date, warranty decision, and their act. The partner sees the address, equipment, maintenance history of that unit, and their earnings. The manufacturer sees claims for their models across all partners, failure reasons, and timelines. The seller sees claims from their clients and can advise them on progress. When views are defined in advance, the question of “can this be shown to a partner” is resolved once and does not resurface with every call.
Responsibility matrix for your network
Fill out the table based on the last ten repairs. Empty cells indicate where disputes will recur.
| Decision | Client | Manufacturer | Seller | Partner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accept request | ||||
| Confirm warranty | ||||
| Assign executor | ||||
| Conduct diagnostics | ||||
| Approve replacement | ||||
| Accept paid portion | ||||
| Accept work | ||||
| Settle with partner |
Each row must have exactly one checkmark indicating “decides.” If there are two, decisions will be shifted between parties. If none, no decision will occur.
Подпись: Example completion for a network where the manufacturer provides warranty. Your network’s checkmarks may differ, but each row must contain exactly one.
What next
Once the matrix is filled, it becomes clear which decisions require data exchange between companies. These points should be automated first: warranty confirmation, partner assignment, replacement approval, and calculations.
The rest can often be left as is. If clients are accustomed to calling the dealer, this is normal as long as the dealer sees claim status and can respond immediately. There is no need to force everyone to work in a single window. It is sufficient that each participant’s decision is recorded and accessible to those who depend on it.
It is also useful to agree on timelines for each decision. How much time does the manufacturer have to respond regarding a replacement, how long until the partner visits, and how long for client acceptance. Without timelines, claims may linger for weeks, with no one formally at fault.
In the demonstration scenario, you can trace the general chain: warranty check, partner assignment, diagnostics, manufacturer approval, client acceptance, and partner remuneration.
Related article: From warranty claim to partner settlement: showing the entire process.
Sources and example boundaries
Sources confirm the described features of ready-made products, not demand or return on investment for custom development. Scenarios and amounts are educational. Demonstrations use fictitious data; real integrations, AI, payments, and external publishing are not included.