The operating problem
A facilities team translates service requests into asset context and investigates energy anomalies using building records and operational schedules. The workflow is not simply a question-answering task: it requires a reliable relationship between business entities, current evidence, and the review responsibilities of staff.
A maintenance request may use a room name rather than an asset identifier, while energy comparisons depend on occupancy and operating schedules. A useful initial scope therefore focuses on assembling the right context and making missing information visible. It avoids treating a generated answer as an approved business decision.
The proposed data foundation
Potential inputs include building manuals, asset registers, service tickets, energy readings. Establish a source inventory before choosing connectors. For each input, record its owner, approved use, identifier conventions, update cadence, and retention requirements.
Resolve building and asset hierarchy, standardize meter units and intervals, and retain occupancy and schedule assumptions. The curated domain model centers on Building, Asset, Service request, Meter reading. Keep raw source evidence separate from validated records and from the outputs prepared for a reviewer. This separation makes reconciliation and incident investigation more manageable.
AI and agent responsibilities
Classify requests and draft service work orders using asset context. A permission-aware retrieval layer can assemble the relevant approved context. Extraction or generation should return structured drafts, source references, and unresolved questions; it should not silently supply facts that are absent from the records.
Summarize usage anomalies and propose investigation priorities. A second bounded responsibility can handle a related task while retaining the same identity and governance boundary. Multi-agent coordination is optional: use it only when separated responsibilities improve traceability or control.
Human review and exception paths
Building controls, contractor commitments, and safety actions require operator approval. Missing documents, conflicting records, unavailable tools, and low-quality retrieval should lead to a visible exception. Define who can resolve each exception and what evidence must be retained with the decision.
How the scenario would be evaluated
Proposed evaluation areas: asset resolution accuracy, request completeness, anomaly review usefulness, and approved work-order quality. Build a representative set containing normal cases, incomplete cases, outdated information, access restrictions, and tool failures. Compare the assisted workflow with the current process using the same acceptance criteria.
No percentage improvement, cost saving, or production result is asserted here. Any future benefit estimate should follow a measured baseline and a reviewed pilot, including the effort required to correct outputs and handle exceptions.
A focused next step
Agree one workflow, one accountable owner, a limited source set, and a review protocol. Use the first prototype to identify data gaps and operational changes, then decide whether additional integrations are justified.