Distributed assets
Maintenance teams work across facilities that may be difficult to reach and cannot be supervised through informal updates alone.
AI-generated representative scene · not a project-site photographClient case study · DPHE · GCA Project Module
From maintenance visits to a governed treatment-plant record.
DPHE's Post Project Operation and Maintenance Monitoring and Support System uses Tiger One and Skyhawk to turn field visits and maintenance supervision for community water systems into one structured, reviewable record.
Client and system ownerDepartment of Public Health Engineering (DPHE)
SolutionTiger One management platform and Skyhawk field application
FocusOperation, maintenance, supervision and support for community water systems
Tiger Oneone operational record for maintenance management
Skyhawkstructured field data collection and evidence capture
Supervisedfield work reviewed before it informs management action
Bill supportverified maintenance evidence supports contractor-bill review
The assignment
Keep community water-system maintenance visible after project delivery.
Operation and maintenance is where water-supply infrastructure proves its long-term value. Once a project moves into routine service, teams need more than a one-time handover: they need a consistent way to record system condition, document service work, follow up on reported faults and supervise maintenance across dispersed facilities. The GCA module supports this work for community-based systems, including rainwater-harvesting and pond-based ultrafiltration configurations.
DPHE owns the programme and operational dataTiger Park provides the digital platform and field workflow that support DPHE's maintenance process.
This public case study describes the system at a functional level. It does not disclose individual facilities, service records, operational findings, locations, users, budgets or internal dashboards.
Challenge
Make every maintenance visit useful to the next decision.
Fragmented service records
When field findings, repair notes and follow-up actions live in separate channels, the service history is hard to use.
Need for accountable review
Operational teams need a clear way to check reported work before it informs escalation, planning or management reporting.
Solution
A connected Tiger One and Skyhawk workflow for operations and maintenance.
Skyhawk supports consistent on-site collection while Tiger One organizes the submitted information into an operational record that can be reviewed, followed up and reported on.
Complaint and scheduled maintenance
The workflow can begin with a reported complaint or a planned preventive visit, so corrective and scheduled work follow the same governed process.
System service history
Tiger One brings visit records, observations, reported faults, service actions and follow-up status into a searchable service history.
Maintenance supervision
Supervisors can review submissions against defined checks, identify incomplete work and maintain a clear record of review decisions.
Complaint resolution tracking
Skyhawk records a complaint from receipt through assignment, field action, verification and closure, helping managers identify items that still need follow-up.
Accountable evidence
Date-stamped field submissions and attachments help connect a maintenance update to the evidence behind it.
Contractor-bill support
Verified maintenance evidence can support contractor-bill review and payment processing within DPHE's normal approval process.
Field workflow
Two entry points, one evidence-led maintenance record.
A complaint can trigger corrective maintenance, while a planned visit supports preventive maintenance. Both create a supervised record that helps DPHE verify completed work and review contractor bills.
Complaint received
A reported issue is registered for corrective follow-up.
Scheduled maintenance
A planned preventive visit is due against the service plan.
Assign and inspect
The responsible team receives the task and records system condition in Skyhawk.
Maintain and capture proof
Activities, photos and observations are attached to the maintenance record.
Verify and support the bill
Supervisors review the completed work; verified evidence supports contractor-bill review and payment processing.
The system supports operational verification and payment evidence. It does not replace DPHE's financial controls, approvals or contractor-management decisions.
Complaint status journey
Keep the complainant informed, step by step.
Like a delivery tracker, a complaint can show its current stage after submission. This gives the person who reported the issue a clear view of what has happened, what is next and whether their complaint still needs attention.
Representative complainant view
Your maintenance request is being handled.
A reference number lets the complainant return to the status view without exposing internal operational details.
Current updateMaintenance visit scheduledThe responsible team has accepted the complaint and a field visit is planned.
- 1Complaint submittedThe complainant receives confirmation that the issue has been recorded.
- 2Request registeredThe complaint receives a reference and is visible to the responsible team.
- 3Team assignedA maintenance team or contractor is assigned for follow-up.
- 4Maintenance visit scheduledThe complainant can see that the next field action is planned.
- 5Work completed and verifiedMaintenance evidence is reviewed before the complaint is marked resolved.
- 6Resolution confirmedThe complaint is closed, with a record retained for future follow-up.
Status labels, update timing and notification channels can be configured to reflect DPHE's approved service process. The public illustration contains no complainant, location or maintenance data.
Reporting and bill tracking
Complaint, maintenance and contractor-bill visibility, in one management view.
Tiger One can turn verified field work into structured reports for operational review, while keeping contractor-wise work, submitted bills and payment-processing status connected to the evidence behind each maintenance activity. This supports budget tracking and more transparent reporting of donor-funded expenditure by linking financial progress to verified maintenance work.
Complaint reports and resolution tracking
Track reported complaints from receipt through assignment, field action, verification and closure, helping managers follow up on pending items.
Maintenance activity reports
Review corrective and scheduled work by period, system type, activity status and supervisory outcome.
Contractor-wise work record
See assigned work, completed maintenance activities and supporting field evidence against each contractor's record.
Bill, budget and payment tracking
Track bill submission, technical verification, approval progress and payment-processing status without separating the bill from the service record, supporting transparent donor-fund expenditure reporting.
GCA Operations and MaintenanceRepresentative reporting view
Illustrative onlyPeriodContractorSystem typeReport status
Maintenance activityContractorEvidenceBill status
Scheduled service visitContractor recordVerifiedReady for review
Complaint follow-upContractor recordUnder reviewSupporting evidence
The advantage
Maintenance information becomes an operational asset, not a closed report.
A community water system's record can carry findings and service actions forward, helping the next team understand what happened before.
Reviewers can assess work against structured visit information and supporting evidence, rather than relying only on a narrative update.
Verified maintenance records help teams connect a contractor bill with the completed work and evidence behind it before payment processing.
Public disclosure
Designed to protect operational information.
This case study does not publish facility names, precise locations, asset inventories, service volumes, fault details, personnel information, photographs from the system, internal screens, contract terms or operational performance data.
One maintenance record, ready for the next visit.