Where the 1,032 requests went
Oakridge maintenance triage pilot Pilot closed Oct 11, 2026 After-hours criterion has no evidence
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) | Met |
| 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 | Met |
| 3 | Every run recorded against a permission | 100 percent of runs | 1,032 of 1,032 recorded with identity, scope, time and result | Met |
| 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 | Partly met |
| 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 | No evidence yet |
How far each criterion has moved toward its target:
- 1. Completed within the rules: 81 percent against a floor of 75
- 2. Business-hours first triage: 92 percent faster than baseline, target 50
- 3. Runs recorded against a permission: 1,032 of 1,032
- 4. Days on the new tenant form: 14 of 14, counted Oct 12, result not yet reviewed
- 5. After-hours baselines agreed: 0 of 1
- Executions recorded
- 1,032 of 1,032, each against a permission with identity, scope, time and result
- Permissions approved
- Inbox read Aug 26, coordinator ticket creation Aug 28, vendor list read Sep 2, after-hours routing Sep 16
- First summary
- Rejected by the Oakridge security reviewer: it listed a shared service account as an approver
- Replacement
- Two named approvers, proposed by Sam Okoro and still waiting for Diane Foster to confirm them
- Next step
- Send the revised permission summary to the security reviewer for sign-off
Open questions
Open questions with an owner and a date
- Agree how after-hours first triage will be measured and set the baseline. Owners: Diane Foster and Sam Okoro, by Oct 20open
- Confirm the two named approvers. Owner: Diane Foster, at the Oct 13 reviewopen
- Send the revised permission summary to the security reviewer. Owner: Sam Okoro, by Oct 16open
- Review the two-week count of unmatched requests with Diane. Owner: Sam Okoro, Tuesday Oct 13open
- Take the two-week count of unmatched requests on the new tenant form. Owner: Ines Moreau, Oct 12done
- Review the vendor dispatch steps that are waiting for approval at the weekly check-in. Owner: Sam Okoro, every Tuesdayopen
- Issue the report inside a week of pilot closedone
- Decide whether the managed-service proposal goes ahead, after the checklist review on Oct 13. Owner: Diane Foster with Sam Okoro.open
- Log the unit number pattern as a design exception instead of fixing the 19 runs by hand. Owner: Sam Okoro, done.done
"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."
Diane Foster, Operations director, Oakridge Property Management
What happens next
- Kickoff, Aug 10
- Pilot run, Aug 31 to Oct 11
- Report issued and two-week count taken, Oct 12
- Checklist review, Oct 13
- Proposal decision, after Oct 13
Prepared and reviewed by
- Sam OkoroLead consultant, Fernway Automation, prepared this report
- Ines MoreauAutomation engineer, Fernway Automation, checked the run record
- Diane FosterOperations director, Oakridge Property Management, client sponsor