Assets and systems
Asset management provides a single source of truth for the asset register, verified on the floor rather than exported from a spreadsheet, and a lifecycle strategy that runs from acquisition through decommissioning.
You cannot maintain what you cannot name. Most registers we inherit are a spreadsheet that was accurate on the day it was exported, and the gap between it and the floor is where unplanned failure lives.
Two vendors and one refresh later, the register lists equipment that has gone and misses equipment that arrived. Nobody decided to let that happen. There was simply no process requiring the register to change when the building did.
Without age and condition against each asset, the replacement argument is anecdotal, so it loses to whatever is better evidenced. The equipment then runs to failure, and an unplanned replacement costs more than the planned one would have in a worse week.
The equipment list is verified rather than believed, and the verification is itself audited. We walk every register we build on the floor. There is no other way to make one true.
Asset by asset, in the room, against the register. This is the slow part, and it is the only step that makes everything after it worth doing.
Each asset takes a criticality off what it carries and a condition off what it is. Those two fields are what turn a list of equipment into a maintenance and capital strategy.
Acquisition through decommissioning, with BOMs and a spares strategy that follows criticality rather than whatever the stores happen to hold.
A change to the building becomes a change to the register, with an owner. Without that step the whole thing is accurate once and drifting from the day after.
The register, the criticality, and the lifecycle strategy come from us. The equipment and the people who touch it stay yours.
The figure below is the verified accuracy we hold at L5 commissioning, asset by asset, against the equipment actually installed. It is a measurement taken on the floor rather than a target set in a document.
95%verified asset accuracy
at or above, at L5 commissioning, verified in the room rather than from a document
25%
Asset life extension
Fewer
Unplanned failures, sharper forecasting
These questions come up once somebody has admitted out loud that the register is wrong.
We start on the floor. You cannot maintain what you cannot name, and most registers we inherit were accurate on the day they were exported. The gap between that file and the equipment in the room is where unplanned failure lives, so the first priority is a verified register rather than a tidier spreadsheet.
We perform a physical walkdown against the record, asset by asset, correcting tagging and hierarchy in place. It is unglamorous, and it is the only method that produces a number you can plan against.
L5 is the final commissioning level, where systems are proven under integrated load. Arriving there with better than 95% of the register verified means the maintenance program starts against real data on day one instead of being rebuilt during the first year of operation.
Yes, we physically tag assets as part of the walkdown, so the label in the field and the identifier in the system are the same string. A register that does not match the tag on the unit sends a technician to the wrong asset, which is worse than having no register at all.
Lifecycle strategy runs from acquisition through decommissioning, so replacement timing comes off asset condition and age rather than off whatever failed most recently. That is what turns a capital request into a forecast and the source of the 25% asset life extension.
Not the question you have? Send it over, and one of the people who would actually run your site will answer it.
Ask an operatorA register is only worth what runs off it. These three are what consume it.
Both routes end with a register the building agrees with. What differs is whether we are correcting one or building the first.
We sample it against the floor first, which gives you a defensible number for how wrong it is. That number is usually what wins the budget for the full verification.
Tagging during installation is the cheapest verification there is, because the asset is in front of you with its nameplate exposed. After handover the same work costs several times as much for a worse result.