From the Citizen Engagement & Services edition of October 31, 2026
Boston 311 logs 266,778 requests through Oct. 29, up 10.5%, as the city moves cases from Lagan to a new Creatio system; 64.6% on time
City of Boston 311 and Boston Digital Service (analysis by The Boston Report from Analyze Boston open data) · 311 and constituent service requests · Boston, Massachusetts, United States
- Publisher
- The Boston Report
- Original publication
- 2026-10-31
- Source retrieved
- 2026-11-01
What happened
Combining the city's legacy and new-system open datasets, The Boston Report counts 266,778 Boston 311 requests from Jan. 1 to Oct. 29, 2026, about 10.5% more than the same period of 2025. The city is replacing the Lagan platform adopted in 2008 with Creatio, a cloud case management system linked to Cartegraph asset tracking, and expects to finish by the end of 2026; by October about three of every four new cases went to the new system. City staff opened about 42% of requests, the BOS:311 app 41% and phone 17%. 64.6% were marked on time, 74.2% in the new system and 60.8% in the legacy system, though the systems handle different request types.
Why it matters
A large city's 311 platform migration in progress, with open data showing channel mix and on-time rates. It shows why baselines get messy during a migration, which matters for any agency planning AI or chatbot layers on top of 311.
Evidence and measured results
Secondary analysis of city open data by an outlet whose byline identifies an AI reporter; figures are the outlet's calculations and were not independently recomputed here. The outlet itself warns that the new and legacy on-time rates are not a direct measure of the new software.
Limitations and uncertainty
Outlet calculations from open data; AI-assisted reporting; category changes distort year-over-year comparisons; no causal claim about the new system.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-11-01; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- Cities replacing aging 311 platforms struggle to keep performance comparable and residents served during the move.
- Stakeholders
- 311 director
- Digital service or IT lead
- Public works and asset management
- Open data team
- Discovery questions
- How will categories map from the old system to the new one?
- Which channels do residents and staff use most?
- How will on-time performance be compared across systems?
- Value hypothesis
- A clean migration and consistent open data make later AI or chatbot layers easier to measure; no gains are shown here.
- Potential engagement
- A 311 performance baseline and category mapping review during the migration.
- Unsupported claims
- That the new system caused the higher on-time rate
- That AI is part of Boston's migration
- Any resident satisfaction change
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Fits cities moving 311 to cloud case management linked to asset systems.
- Architecture and integration
- Case management integrated with Cartegraph-style asset tracking, with both datasets published until cutover.
- Prerequisites
- Category mapping table
- Open data pipeline for both systems
- Staff training plan
- Constraints
- Different category names across systems
- Dual datasets during migration
- Security
- Keep personal details out of published request data, including free-text fields.
- Proof of value
- Recompute on-time rate by request type in both systems
- Check that mapped categories match field work orders
Delivery
Role takeaway
- Work
- Complete the 311 cutover and keep performance reporting consistent.
- Dependencies
- Vendor configuration
- Department adoption
- Open data publishing
- Ownership
- 311 and the digital service team, with departments owning closure of their requests.
- Skills and adoption
- Call takers and city staff need training on new categories and workflows.
- Governance checkpoints
- Category mapping sign-off
- Monthly on-time report by type
- Post-cutover data quality review
- Acceptance criteria
- Proposed: all request types migrated by the planned end date
- Proposed: on-time rate reported by matched request type
- Risks
- Broken year-over-year comparisons
- Requests lost between systems
- Staff confusion over categories
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
During migration, data sits in two datasets with different category names; analytics and any AI routing must reconcile both.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
Publishing both datasets openly lets outsiders check performance; agencies should document category mappings during migrations.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Open 311 data includes locations; publishing should keep stripping personal details.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
Staff-generated requests are a large share, so 311 is also an internal work-order channel, not only a resident front door.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Platform replacement plus asset-system integration is a multi-year effort; buyers should plan dual-running and data publishing.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
On-time targets and category definitions need to be carried across systems so performance stays comparable.
Publication history
Read preserved resource versions (JSON)Stable resource ID: boston-311-2026-volume-platform-migration-20261031