Improve the experience
Explain an issue once, understand what happens next and have a clear route to challenge an unresolved case.
Skip to domain exampleBetter tenant service.
01 02 03
1 2 3 4
ARCHITECTURE · DOMAIN REIMAGINATION
Better tenant service.
Reimagine the whole journey.
Connect tenant satisfaction to the work, capabilities and human–agent roles that can improve it.
Proposed reference design · Readiness not assessed · No operational agents activated
PRIVATE AI WORKSPACE · AHMAD ONLY
Describe a domain. Review its future.
Generate a proposed To-Be journey, capability requirements, human–agent roles and a linked BPMN workflow. Choose a governed tenant, maintenance, complaint, procurement or general service pattern. These produce proposed reference designs for human review.
Checking private access…
Sign in to your Odoo account to use your private assistant.
Your brief and clarification answers are sent to OpenAI through the private service. Drafts are proposed designs, not verified assessments or executing workflows. Opening BPMN uses temporary storage in this tab; download a copy to keep it. API usage applies when generating.
The Studio asks before replacing your current BPMN and keeps a restorable copy. Structural checks do not prove business correctness or readiness.
01 · START WITH VALUE
One domain. A shared service outcome.
Tenant Service and Resolution connects feedback, maintenance and complaints—from a reported issue to a verified outcome and learning. Procurement supports cases that need suppliers, parts or spending.
Resolve the right problem
Use asset and case history to reduce repeated work, avoid unnecessary handoffs and surface recurring causes.
Prove the value
Measure resolution time, repeat issues, tenant feedback and service cost. Establish baselines before setting targets.
Boundary: start at an issue or actionable feedback; finish with a verified outcome or an explicit unresolved, declined, withdrawn or appealed state. A closed ticket alone does not prove satisfaction. This is an illustrative design, not a verified organizational As-Is.
The connection from value to delivery
- DomainTenant Service & Resolution
- Value leversExperience · resolution time · repeat issues · cost
- SolutionsUnified case service · maintenance coordination · complaint recovery
- Use casesContext · triage · planning · coordination · verification
- FoundationsReliable data · connected systems · people · controls
02 · REIMAGINE THE SERVICE
Design the work around the tenant.
Replace disconnected handoffs with a shared case, current evidence and clear ownership. Choose a scenario to see how the proposed responsibilities change.
What changes
One connected case; less repeated entry; shared history; earlier specialist involvement; outcome verification; learning across recurring issues.
What must be designed
Who owns each decision, what evidence is needed, which actions are permitted, and how a person takes over when the service cannot proceed safely or reliably.
How this connects to our BPMN diagrams
The Process Library contains baseline references and proposed Agentic AI versions for tenant feedback, maintenance, complaint resolution and procurement. Open the library, choose the process and select “To-Be — Agentic AI”. They are component reference workflows for this wider domain, not an integrated operational system.
Explore the tested process models →03 · REWIRE RESPONSIBILITIES
People own outcomes. Agents have bounded jobs.
Propose one accountable business owner and a persistent team spanning service, maintenance, product, engineering and data. Agree a shared backlog, protected capacity, funding and escalation. Role holders and authority limits still need confirmation.
| Proposed human role | Human responsibility | Agent contribution | Decision boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domain owner | Own service outcomes, priorities, funding and cross-functional decisions. | Compare patterns and propose improvements with evidence. | Humans retain accountability and approve policy changes. |
| Case owner / service officer | Maintain the tenant relationship, manage exceptions and take over cases. | Collect missing details; prepare grounded summaries and follow-up drafts. | Hand over with evidence, action receipts, commitments and pending work. |
| Maintenance specialist / technician | Diagnose difficult faults, perform physical work and confirm safety. | Retrieve asset history and propose options within approved guidance. | No autonomous physical work or declarations of safety. |
| Procurement / finance approver | Authorize supplier selection, spending and compensation as applicable. | Prepare options and supporting records. | Actual limits and segregation of duties must be confirmed. |
| Independent complaint reviewer | Assess disputed outcomes, authorize remedies and preserve appeal. | Prepare a traceable evidence pack and identify gaps. | Agent recommendations do not replace independent judgment. |
| Product, data and platform team | Maintain data, integrations, releases, evaluations and operating support. | Detect anomalies and assist investigation. | People own access, model changes, incidents and release decisions. |
Use the right tool for each kind of work
Rules & systems
Fixed eligibility checks, permissions, confirmed state changes and approved notifications.
Analytical AI
Prediction or anomaly detection when suitable data and validated models are available.
Generative AI
Grounded summaries, explanations and drafts that distinguish evidence from assumptions.
Bounded agents
Context-dependent planning and permitted tool use with observable results and escalation.
Four levels of AI application
Individual assistance: help a person draft or understand. Task automation: complete a triggered task. Agentic workflow: coordinate an end-to-end workflow. Agentic system: coordinate trade-offs across workflows.
These levels describe scope and complexity. More agents or greater autonomy do not automatically create more value. The Studio’s model-drawing assistant does not establish an operational agentic workflow.
Autonomy should match tested capabilities, approved policy and consequences. Human approval at every step is not a universal target; routine actions can become bounded automation only after their authority and controls are demonstrated. Emergency response and physical safety remain with qualified people.
04 · BUILD THE CAPABILITIES
Make the gaps actionable.
These are capability requirements to assess—not findings that an organization lacks them. Each item shows a proposed owner, the deliverable needed and evidence of readiness.
18 requirements · readiness not assessed
C01 · Business-led roadmapDomain ownership and valueNot assessed
Proposed owner: Accountable business owner
Needed: Domain charter, boundaries, outcome tree and investment choices
Readiness evidence: Named owner accepts outcomes and decision authority
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C02 · Business-led roadmapDomain prioritizationNot assessed
Proposed owner: Business sponsor
Needed: Value/feasibility assessment with assumptions and evidence
Readiness evidence: Compare tenant service with other candidate domains before committing resources
Suggested sequence: Build and scale. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C03 · TalentBusiness and domain expertiseNot assessed
Proposed owner: Domain lead
Needed: Frontline experts with protected time and operational knowledge
Readiness evidence: Experts label cases, challenge designs and evaluate exceptions
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C04 · TalentProduct, engineering and AI skillsNot assessed
Proposed owner: Product and engineering leads
Needed: Skills map covering process, integration, data, AI evaluation and operations
Readiness evidence: Team can build, test, operate and repair the service
Suggested sequence: Build and scale. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C05 · Operating modelOutcome ownership and delivery teamNot assessed
Proposed owner: Domain owner
Needed: Persistent multidisciplinary team, shared backlog, decision rights and funding
Readiness evidence: Work can move across service/maintenance boundaries without unclear handoffs
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C06 · Operating modelHuman-agent work designNot assessed
Proposed owner: Operations lead
Needed: Role descriptions, capacity plan, escalation and compensation/authority rules
Readiness evidence: People can take over with full context; staffing and service coverage are viable
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C07 · TechnologyWorkflow and integrationNot assessed
Proposed owner: Platform lead
Needed: Approved case/work-order interfaces and authoritative state transitions
Readiness evidence: Contract tests prove correct permitted reads/writes and failure handling
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C08 · TechnologyReusable agent platformNot assessed
Proposed owner: AI engineering lead
Needed: Versioned retrieval, orchestration, model access, tools and configuration
Readiness evidence: Reusable components meet latency, reliability and cost requirements
Suggested sequence: Build and scale. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C09 · TechnologyAgent identity and action controlsNot assessed
Proposed owner: Security and system owners
Needed: Scoped identities, action policies, approvals and protected credentials
Readiness evidence: Cross-tenant access and unauthorized actions are denied in tests
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C10 · TechnologyExecution reliabilityNot assessed
Proposed owner: Engineering lead
Needed: Durable state, action receipts, duplicate prevention, reconciliation and recovery
Readiness evidence: Timeout after a possible write cannot cause an unverified duplicate action
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C11 · DataAuthoritative domain dataNot assessed
Proposed owner: Data owner
Needed: Tenant/property/asset/work-order relationships and record ownership
Readiness evidence: Representative cases link correctly; stale/missing evidence is detected
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C12 · DataKnowledge and unstructured evidenceNot assessed
Proposed owner: Knowledge owner
Needed: Approved policies, maintenance history, source provenance and update process
Readiness evidence: Retrieval finds relevant current evidence and cites its source
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C13 · DataAccess and information lifecycleNot assessed
Proposed owner: Data steward
Needed: Purpose-based access, retention and evidence handling rules
Readiness evidence: Access and deletion/retention behavior match approved policies
Suggested sequence: Build and scale. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C14 · Adoption and scalingFrontline adoption and takeoverNot assessed
Proposed owner: Service lead
Needed: Training, revised standard work, user involvement and feedback channels
Readiness evidence: Staff can handle exceptions using a case summary and action history
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C15 · Adoption and scalingBusiness performance measurementNot assessed
Proposed owner: Domain owner and finance
Needed: Baseline definitions, benefits ledger, operating cost and service measures
Readiness evidence: Measured benefits are attributable and capacity release is separated from cash savings
Suggested sequence: Build and scale. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C16 · Adoption and scalingExpansion and localizationNot assessed
Proposed owner: Product owner
Needed: Reusable rollout package and property/site-specific configuration
Readiness evidence: A second location can adopt without duplicating the platform or breaking policies
Suggested sequence: Build and scale. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C17 · Cross-cutting governanceEvaluation and observabilityNot assessed
Proposed owner: Quality lead with frontline experts
Needed: Gold-standard cases, workflow traces, quality tests and incident alerts
Readiness evidence: Business outcomes, retrieval, tool use, escalation and failure modes are assessed
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
C18 · Cross-cutting governanceAgent lifecycle and operational controlNot assessed
Proposed owner: Operations and risk owners
Needed: Release/version register, monitoring, incident response, stop and rollback process
Readiness evidence: A faulty version can be stopped and outstanding cases handed to people safely
Suggested sequence: Foundation. Priority must be confirmed against actual dependencies.
The six Rewired capabilities are business-led roadmap, talent, operating model, technology, data, and adoption and scaling. Governance spans them. Business capabilities such as case management and technical capabilities such as retrieval belong to distinct, connected views.
What every proposed agent needs
A purpose and accountable owner; permitted evidence and tools; action limits; approvals where required; workflow state and receipts; success and stop conditions; a human escalation route; evaluation cases; cost and latency limits; and version ownership.
Uncertain action completion requires reconciliation before retrying. A conversation cannot be the only record of a tenant commitment. Reuse common retrieval, evidence and monitoring components rather than building isolated agents for every task.
05 · TEST, LEARN, SCALE
Prove the service before expanding it.
Confirm & measure
Agree the domain, owner, case definitions, actual baseline and value/feasibility assessment.
Evidence: charter, source records and measurement definitions.Design & prepare
Review future work, authority boundaries, data, tool contracts, staffing and capability dependencies.
Evidence: reviewed blueprint and prioritized capability backlog.Test & pilot
Test representative cases and failures, then pilot an approved scope with monitoring and human takeover.
Evidence: outcomes, evaluation results, operating costs and stop/rollback criteria.Adopt & scale
Train the team, verify sustained value and reuse the service across sites with appropriate local policies.
Evidence: adoption, benefits and readiness at each receiving site.Two sets of measures, one service outcome
Business performance
Resolution-time distribution, first-time fix, repeat/reopened cases, unresolved work, tenant satisfaction with response coverage, cost per resolved case and control failures.
Agent & system performance
Task correctness, urgency/intent precision and recall, retrieval quality, unsupported claims, permitted tool-use success, appropriate escalation, latency and cost.
Baselines and targets are not yet established. Separate released staff capacity from actual cash savings. Include integration, review, support, model usage and training costs.
Priority pilot scenarios to test
- Missing identity, wrong property or stale evidence.
- Recurring fault, unresolved repair or disputed closure.
- Urgent safety concern reaching the designated human response.
- Rejected approval, unavailable technician or supplier exception.
- Duplicate submission and timeout after a possible system write.
- Independent complaint review, appeal and complete human handover.
A safe escalation can be a correct result. Diagram checks alone do not prove service quality, legal compliance or operational readiness.
The ArchiMate workspace currently opens the procurement reference; Azure provides a tenant architecture reference. These are separate supporting models, not a synchronized domain repository.
Framework and attribution
This original tenant-service example is informed by McKinsey’s Rewired domain and agentic-workflow concepts. It is an illustrative adaptation, not a McKinsey-authored, endorsed or certified product.
Rewired capabilities: The AI transformation manifesto ↗
Organizational implications: The agentic organization ↗
Reference design · 17 October 2026 · No measured benefit or organizational-readiness claim. The source review covered selected extracts, not the complete book. No operational integrations are enabled by this page.