Oakridge maintenance triage pilot report
Oakridge maintenance triage pilot report
Owner: Sam Okoro. Updated Oct 12, 2026.
Where the 1,032 requests went
What the Oakridge maintenance triage pilot actually ran, set against the success criteria agreed at kickoff: how many requests it handled, what needed a person, what it could not do and what is still open. Prepared by Sam Okoro, lead consultant at Fernway Automation, for Diane Foster, operations director at Oakridge Property Management. Every figure comes from six weeks of run records, exceptions and approvals that Diane can open and inspect herself. Issued Monday, October 12, 2026, one day after the pilot closed.
Oakridge manages 2,400 units. Between August 31 and October 11 every request that reached the maintenance request inbox was run against the same triage rules for six request types, agreed at kickoff on August 10. The six-week totals were counted after the pilot closed on October 11. They come from the run record and are rounded to the percentages above.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| Completed within the rules | 836 |
| Needed a person | 144 |
| Out of scope | 52 |
What needed a person is not one problem. The run record was logged in batches, and the exception log names the patterns behind them. The last row is the balance of the six-week totals.
| Period | Requests | Needed a person | What the exception log shows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weeks 1 and 2 (Aug 31 to Sep 13) | 214 | 43 | Runs stopped at a draft where after-hours dispatch was outside the approved scope |
| Week 3 (Sep 14 to 20) | 231 | 36 | 19 unmatched unit numbers: photos but no unit number, so no property match |
| Week 4 (Sep 21 to 27) | 248 | 31 | Business hours; the 31 are spread across steps |
| Week 4 after hours (Sep 21 to 27) | 42 | 5 | 37 routed to the on-call coordinator, 5 held as possible emergencies |
| Weeks 5 and 6 (Sep 28 to Oct 11) | 297 | 29 | Balance of the six-week totals, counted after close |
In the first fortnight 171 of the 214 requests completed within the rules. Vendor dispatch for after-hours requests was outside the approved scope, so those runs stopped at a draft until Diane approved after-hours routing to the on-call coordinator on September 16 and kept vendor dispatch as a step that waits for her approval.
Success criteria agreed at kickoff
Five criteria were agreed on August 10. The status column reports the evidence, not a verdict on the pilot: three are met, one is partly met and one has no evidence yet.
| # | Criterion | Target | Result from the run record | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Triage completed within the agreed rules | At least 75 percent of requests | 81 percent (836 of 1,032) | |
| 2 | Faster first triage in business hours | Median at least 50 percent faster than baseline | Median 18 minutes against a 3 hour 40 minute baseline taken from June and July inbox timestamps | |
| 3 | Every run recorded against a permission | 100 percent of runs | 1,032 of 1,032 recorded with identity, scope, time and result | |
| 4 | Requests matched to the right property and unit without a person | At least 95 percent | 19 runs in week three stopped at matching. The tenant form has required a unit number since Sep 28; the two-week count was taken on Oct 12 and is not yet reviewed | |
| 5 | Faster first triage after hours | Median at least 50 percent faster than the after-hours baseline | After-hours routing is running, but no after-hours baseline exists, so no comparison can be made |
How far each criterion has moved toward its target:
-
- Completed within the rules: 81 percent against a floor of 75
-
- Business-hours first triage: 92 percent faster than baseline, target 50
-
- Runs recorded against a permission: 1,032 of 1,032
-
- Days on the new tenant form: 14 of 14, counted Oct 12, result not yet reviewed
-
- After-hours baselines agreed: 0 of 1
What the pilot could not do
After-hours response time. The report cannot state a change in after-hours response, because the baseline only covered business hours. Sam Okoro reported business-hours response only and listed after-hours response as an open question. Consequence: criterion 5 stays without evidence, and a second phase cannot be scoped on after-hours claims.After-hours vendor dispatch. Dispatch outside business hours was outside the approved scope, so those runs stop at a draft and wait for Diane Foster's approval. Nothing is dispatched to a vendor without it.Requests with photos but no unit number. Nineteen runs in week three (Sep 14 to 20) failed at the same step because the tenant form does not require a unit number. Fixing them by hand would have hidden that. Sam logged the pattern as a design exception, and Diane agreed to make the unit number required on the tenant form. The change went live on Sep 28. The two-week count was taken on Oct 12 and has not yet been reviewed with Diane, so this report does not state whether unmatched requests have dropped.
Recommendation, not a finding
Fernway recommends that no second phase is scoped until an after-hours baseline is agreed and Diane has reviewed the two-week count on the new tenant form. This report does not declare the pilot a success or a failure. The criteria table is the record, and what to do with it is Diane's decision.
Open questions
I can take this into a budget conversation because I can open the same record Sam used. The after-hours gap is the thing I most want closed before anyone talks about a second phase.
What happens next
Prepared and reviewed by
Demo deal room. Fernway Automation, Oakridge Property Management, the people and every figure are fictional sample data. Built on FuseBase.