One Acre Fields
Portfolio · Major projects · Field service · Appliances · 03 of 17

One work order, seen the same way by the retailer, the coordinator and the technician.

ClientResidentia Group
ProductResidentia Service
Where and whenAustralia · 2024 to 2025
PlatformWeb + mobile
The screen, annotated by hand · scroll
Admin dashboard: ticket KPIs and the work-order table
  1. the counts are the queueevery state a ticket can sit in, counted, before any table
  2. status reads as colour firsteach state has its own chip: scan the column, not the rows
  3. close it from the rowforce-solve or archive a stuck ticket without opening it

The story, in the order I work

Given · why

What was there

Residentia distributes appliance brands across Australia and handles their warranty service. Claims arrived by phone and email and were re-keyed several times. The platform gives every role its own view of a single ticket: retail partners register products and raise tickets, the admin dashboard tracks new tickets, bookings, parts orders and warranty replacements, and service agents accept, schedule, order parts and close from a timeline. A companion mobile app covers technicians in the field.

Planted · what I owned

What I took on

  • Role model: RG admin, service agent, retail partner, customer
  • Ticket state machine from new through parts ordered to close
  • KPI dashboard and filter design for coordinators
  • Technician mobile app, including what still works offline
  • Web and mobile in one design system
  • Led a team of five to six, two or three of them on design, for the length of the engagement
Shipped

What went out

Released through 2025 on web and mobile.

Admin dashboard Ticket journey Scheduling Parts orders Warranty replacement Organisations & users Technician mobile Offline mode

Yields

↑Customer ratings, from transparency and timely updates
4Roles, one ticket
1Timeline from new ticket to close
What I'd do differently

The honest paragraph.

The hard part was not the design. It was keeping the scope where we had agreed it: every stakeholder who saw a screen wanted one more thing on it, and each request was reasonable. The result came from two unglamorous things, transparency and timely updates, and customer ratings rose because of those and nothing else. If I did it again I would protect the agreed scope the way I protected the timeline.

Transparency and timely updates moved the ratings. Nothing else did.
field note