← Selected work
AI Workflow Transformation Plan
LeakMetrics logo

LeakMetrics: 90-Day AI Workflow Transformation Plan

Turning fragmented leak alerts, tenant reports, maintenance handoffs, and water-loss data into a notification-first operating workflow.

Status
Current build / In development
My role
Product concept, workflow architecture, implementation planning, operating model, AI-assisted workflow planning & KPI design
Focus
Transformation planning · Responsible automation

The alert is only the beginning.

A water event creates work across residents, maintenance, vendors, property managers, and owners. An alert alone does not establish who will respond, when to escalate, or how the repair is verified.

LeakMetrics is being designed to turn sensor signals, abnormal consumption, resident reports, and unresolved incidents into clear notifications and authorized actions—with a record of every handoff.

The property manager should not have to become a water-monitoring expert or live inside another dashboard.

A 90-day path from signal to system

FIG. 01Intended implementation roadmap

DAYS 01–30

Stabilize, baseline, detect

Map the portfolio: property → unit → device → responsible contacts. Establish water-usage, plumbing-risk, and response-process baselines.

  • Start with the highest-risk 10–20% of the portfolio
  • Connect monitoring and validate contact routing
  • Define incident classes and escalation paths
  • Route offline devices and low batteries to maintenance

Target: every pilot property has known contacts, monitoring, and a defined response path.

DAYS 31–60

Turn alerts into operations

Deliver the location, duration, people notified, and next authorized action in the notification itself.

  • Notify residents and maintenance
  • Escalate unacknowledged or persistent events
  • Coordinate vendors and repair documentation
  • Define permissions for an authorized remote shutoff workflow

Target: incidents move through a repeatable, documented lifecycle.

DAYS 61–90

Prove ROI and portfolio insight

Use incident history, response times, and utility-bill baselines to evaluate progress and recurring problems.

  • Identify repeat units, fixtures, and properties
  • Reconcile water usage before and after intervention
  • Compare response performance
  • Prioritize follow-up and capital decisions

Target: measurable operating visibility and an evidence-based improvement plan.

Current build / transformation playbook. Milestones and benefits are targets to validate, not production outcomes.

Make the next action obvious.

FIG. 02Illustrative manager notification

URGENT WATER EVENT / SAMPLE

Kitchen leak · Building A, Unit 3B

Water detected for 5 minutes.
Resident and maintenance notified.

Reply ASSIGNED when a technician is dispatched. If authorized, SHUTOFF starts the confirmation process for the designated water valve.

Proposed interaction. Remote shutoff requires the applicable permissions, confirmation, and audit trail; a message is not an unrestricted device command.

A complete incident lifecycle

FIG. 03Detection → coordinated response → verified closure
  1. 01Detected
  2. 02Resident notified
  3. 03Maintenance notified
  4. 04Acknowledged
  5. 05Investigating
  6. 06Water controlled
  7. 07Repair performed
  8. 08Verified dry / normal
  9. 09Incident closed
Each transition preserves who acted and when. Unacknowledged, persistent, or high-severity incidents follow the defined escalation path.

The operating transformation

FIG. 04Before / intended after

Before: fragmented follow-up

  • Alerts, calls, emails, bills, and tenant reports live separately
  • A high bill prompts manual investigation
  • Maintenance handoffs depend on reminders
  • Documentation is inconsistent
  • Recurring fixture failures are hard to see

After: a coordinated workflow

  • An anomaly is detected; the resident verifies the issue
  • Maintenance receives a structured incident
  • The manager handles unresolved exceptions
  • The repair is documented and normal usage verified
  • Recurring patterns inform portfolio decisions
Proposed operating model: sensors monitor, residents verify, maintenance repairs, managers handle exceptions, and LeakMetrics coordinates the record.

Day-90 scorecard

Measure response quality alongside water consumption. Estimates of avoided consumption or damage need documented baselines and assumptions; they are not guaranteed savings.

01 / MEASURELeak events detected
02 / MEASUREMedian detection-to-acknowledgement time
03 / MEASUREMedian detection-to-water-control time
04 / MEASUREIncidents lasting >30 / >60 minutes
05 / MEASUREAbnormal-consumption events
06 / MEASURERepeat incidents by unit / property
07 / MEASUREEstimated water consumption avoided
08 / MEASUREEstimated losses / damage avoided

Responsible automation by design

Automate coordination

Route alerts, summarize incidents, flag missing records, suggest escalation, and draft owner updates.

Govern consequential actions

Apply approved permissions and human approval to shutoff, vendor dispatch, resident escalation, and owner communication.

Preserve operating context

Connect maintenance documentation and owner visibility with portfolio reporting and repeat-incident analysis.

Build status: LeakMetrics is in development. This is an intended implementation path and transformation playbook, not a launched service or a claim that all workflows are configured in production.

What this demonstrates

Design the response, then measure it.

The deliverable is a clear transformation plan: workflow architecture, phased implementation, escalation rules, role-based action, documentation, and a scorecard. It shows how I move from disconnected operational signals toward a coordinated, measurable system.

← All selected workNext: AppFolio RRP Automation: SaaS Workflow Implementation Case Study