Tenant intake worker
Collects the reported tenant, unit, location, contact and issue details, with missing or unverified facts visible for follow-up.
- Tenant request record
- Acts within policy — captures and clarifies facts
AI workforce orchestration · Use case
Help tenants reach the next service owner
Explore AI-assisted tenant requests: gather unit and issue details, propose an owner and draft status updates, with people responsible for emergencies, access, disputes and costs.
WHAT STARTS THE WORK
A tenant reports an issue and needs to know who will take it forward.
AI agents
- Tenant intake worker
- Service routing worker
- Tenant update worker
- Property manager
Workflow steps
- Identify the requestTenant intake worker
- Screen urgencyProperty manager
- ClassifyService routing worker
- Apply responsibilityService routing worker
- Propose work recordService routing worker
- Update or decideProperty manager
4 operating rules · 4 decision rules · 4 channels · records to verify
THE RESULT TO CHECK
A staff-owned request with the next action and status recorded; unconfirmed fulfillment remains visible.
On this page
The operating problem
A tenant has described the same problem to leasing and maintenance but still does not know who will respond. This example gathers the available unit and issue details, proposes an owner from the agreed responsibilities and prepares updates from the current service record. A request stays unassigned until an owner accepts it. Property teams retain emergency response, access, contractual, dispute and cost decisions.
- Tenants repeat the same unit, contact, and issue details across calls, messages, leasing teams, and maintenance teams.
- Information, maintenance, complaint, and emergency requests enter the same channel but need different owners and response paths.
- A request can be acknowledged without being owned, leaving the tenant to chase the property team for a meaningful update.
Who handles the work
Example division of work between AI workers and your team.
Service routing worker
Uses the agreed responsibility mapping to propose an owner, leaving unclear categories or unavailable teams for review.
- Owner proposal
- Suggest-only for uncertain classifications and exceptions
Tenant update worker
Prepares updates from the current approved request record and flags unknown or outdated status for the property team.
- Verified updates
- Acts within policy — read-only status communication
Property manager
Owns emergency, contractual, access, dispute, charge, and vendor-cost decisions.
- Tenant service exceptions and authority
- Full authority
How the work could flow
Use this sequence to agree the workflow and test each step before launch.
Identify the request
What verified tenant, unit, location, contact, and issue context is available?
Screen urgency
Does the wording indicate an emergency or safety issue requiring immediate human handling?
Classify
Is this information, maintenance, complaint, or an exception outside the routine path?
Apply responsibility
Which configured owner and next step apply to this request type and property?
Propose work record
Is a reviewable work-order or case proposal appropriate for the verified request?
Update or decide
What human decision, approval, or verified update is required before the tenant is informed?
Decisions your team keeps
Proposed operating requirements to configure and verify, including what happens when a system or human handoff is unavailable.
- Require identified emergency and safety requests to stop routine classification and follow the property’s response procedure; verify staff acceptance and fallback handling.
- The responsibility matrix informs routing but does not interpret a lease, contract, or legal position.
- Access permission, disputes, rent or service-charge questions, vendor costs, and contractor decisions remain human-owned.
- Tenant-facing updates are grounded in the configured case or work-management record and never promise an unverified outcome.
- No emergency assessment, legal or contractual interpretation, access permission, dispute resolution, or charge decision by the worker team.
- Work records are proposed from verified tenant and unit context and remain attributable to a human owner.
- Vendor selection and vendor-cost decisions remain with the property team.
- The tenant receives only approved status and next steps from the configured record.
Systems & channels
Systems to connect
Scope these around the selected implementation.
- Configured property or tenant-management system
- Unit and tenant record
- Responsibility matrix and service catalogue
- Work-order or case-management record
Channels to evaluate
Select and validate the required provider pathways.
- Voice
- Web chat
What to measure
Pilot measurement definitions, not claimed customer results.
Request completeness
Measures whether the tenant, unit, location, contact, and issue details needed by the receiving team are present at handoff.
Time to owner
Measure time from the first tenant contact until a named owner accepts responsibility, and keep unassigned or rejected requests visible in the results.
Repeat contacts before resolution
Shows where tenants have to chase the same issue and where a responsibility or status pathway needs improvement.
A bounded rollout
One property, one routine lane
Start with a recurring non-emergency request type and have the property team review every routed case and proposed work record.
Responsibility and status visibility
Test owner acceptance and current status from the agreed service record. Keep unassigned requests and unavailable or outdated updates visible, with a property-team fallback.
Adjacent request types
Review time to accepted ownership, repeated contacts and unresolved requests before adding another property or request type. Confirm human responsibilities for access, charges, disputes and emergencies in each setting.
Questions about this workflow
AI WORKFORCE ORCHESTRATION FOR ENTERPRISESBring one business process.
Request a demo