Oakridge pilot exception review, week 5
Oakridge pilot exception review, week 5
Owner: Sam Okoro. Updated Oct 1, 2026.
Coverage through week 4
The weekly review of everything the Oakridge maintenance triage pilot could not complete on its own: what failed, what it changes in the design or the estimate, and the decision each exception needs. Prepared by Sam Okoro, lead consultant at Fernway Automation, with Ines Moreau, automation engineer, for Diane Foster, operations director at Oakridge Property Management. Review of October 1, 2026.
The pilot is in week 5 of 6 and closes on Oct 11, so these are to-date figures: the 735 requests are the weekly batches logged through week 4, and the six-week totals follow in the pilot report after Oct 11. Weeks 1 and 2 handled 214 requests, with 171 completed within the agreed rules and 43 waiting for a person. Week 3 handled 231 and 36 needed a person, 19 of them because no unit number could be matched. Week 4 handled 248 and 31 needed a person. The after-hours batch for week 4 handled 42 requests, routed 37 to the on-call coordinator under the approved rule and held 5 as possible emergencies.
Every logged exception has a status. Exception open means no fix is agreed yet, Assigned means an owner is working on it, Resolved means the fix is confirmed, and Out of scope means you agreed the pilot will not do it. Seven exceptions are logged for Oakridge.
Decision options for each exception
Every exception gets one of four decisions, recorded on its card with an owner. Nothing is patched by hand without a record.
Fix
Choose when the failure comes from wrong reference data or a slip in a rule, and the design is sound.
Example: Vendor outside approved list (Ravi Menon, Resolved). Eight plumbing requests were matched to vendors that are not on the approved list because the vendor list export held an old vendor name. The list was refreshed and a coordinator rerouted the eight requests.
Test. The next weekly batch shows no match to a vendor outside the list, and the card states what was changed.
Redesign
Choose when the same failure will return because something around the pilot is the cause.
Example: Unmatched unit numbers (Ines Moreau, Assigned). Nineteen runs could not match a property because requests arrived with photos but no unit number. Fixing them by hand would have hidden that the tenant request form does not require one, so Diane agreed to make it required. The change has been live since Sep 28.
Example: Leak near electrical fittings (Ravi Menon, Assigned). Four requests mentioning water near light fittings or sockets were routed as normal plumbing. Ravi is adding an electrical hazard check to the rules for Diane to review. Until she approves it, such requests can still be classified as plumbing at normal priority.
Exclude
Choose when doing the work would widen the pilot beyond what the sponsor agreed.
Example: Tenant message drafts (Sam Okoro, Out of scope). The pilot drafted replies to tenants for 12 requests. Tenant messaging is outside the agreed scope, so the drafts were discarded and the rule removed.
Example: Rent payment questions (Sam Okoro, Out of scope). Nine messages in week two were rent payment questions, which are not one of the six agreed request types. The pilot left them untouched and the front desk now forwards them to accounts.
Re-estimate
Choose when an exception means phase two costs more or takes longer than the pilot suggested. These are caught before pricing, not after.
Example: Duplicate leak reports (Ravi Menon, Exception open). Three tenants in one building reported the same leak within an hour and three tickets were created for one issue. Duplicate detection is not in the agreed rules.
Example: Large photo attachments (Ines Moreau, Exception open). Photos above the inbox attachment size limit could not be opened, so 14 requests were classified from the text alone and routed with a note that images were not reviewed. This is blocked until the mail administrator raises the limit, requested Sep 24 and not yet done.
Exception patterns for Oakridge
Seven exceptions are logged for Oakridge and they touched 69 requests in total. Grouped by what caused them, they read as follows.
| Pattern | Record | Requests affected | Design impact | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No unit number on the request | Unmatched unit numbers | 19 | Ines Moreau | Assigned | |
| Hazard wording read as routine plumbing | Leak near electrical fittings | 4 | Ravi Menon | Assigned | |
| One issue reported several times | Duplicate leak reports | 3 | Ravi Menon | Exception open | |
| Photos the inbox cannot open | Large photo attachments | 14 | Ines Moreau | Exception open | |
| Old reference data | Vendor outside approved list | 8 | Ravi Menon | Resolved | |
| Requests outside the six types | Tenant message drafts (12) and Rent payment questions (9) | 21 | Sam Okoro | Out of scope |
Design impact tells the sponsor what a pattern costs: means the rules or the form change, means phase two is priced differently, means the pilot will not do it, and means the fix needed no design change. A third item that changes the estimate, the vendor visit spend limit, sits in the approval log rather than on this board.
- Oakridge exceptions closed out: 3 of 7 (1 resolved, 2 out of scope)
- Oakridge exceptions logged with input, step and result: 7 of 7
I would rather see what the pilot cannot do now than find out in month two. Seeing the exceptions beside the decisions I owe makes the next conversation about phase two a lot simpler.
Decisions for Diane
The next weekly check-in is Tuesday, Oct 6. After two weeks of the new tenant form, Sam Okoro reviews the conversion checklist with Diane in the week of Oct 12 and checks whether unmatched requests have dropped.
Who is on this review
Demo deal room. Fernway Automation, Oakridge Property Management, the people and every figure are fictional sample data. Built on FuseBase.