Across the portfolio
We perform a deep operational assessment, scoped to your facility and its risk profile and benchmarked to ISO, NFPA, and SMRP. It ends in a prioritized roadmap with owners, and we stay through its implementation.
An assessment that ends at a findings document is an expense. The roadmap is the deliverable, and we stay through the implementation of it.
The assessment names everything that is wrong, ranks none of it, and assigns no owner. What arrives is a document that is simultaneously accurate and unusable, and the honest reason it goes in a drawer is that nobody could tell where to start.
A desk review reads what the site says about itself, which is exactly the thing under question. The gaps that matter sit between the document and the floor, and they are invisible from a conference room with a folder of procedures in it.
We assess the way a mission-critical plant is assessed: on the floor, against a written standard, by people who have run one. The benchmarks are what make a finding defensible. Standing in the room is what makes it true.
This is not a checklist. What this facility carries, what it cannot afford to lose, and which parts of the operating program are actually load-bearing for that.
We benchmarked for defensibility and walk for truth. A gap counts once it has been seen, and the benchmark is what makes it comparable to sites that already closed the same one.
Every gap takes a rank, an effort estimate, and a name. That sequencing is the deliverable; the findings are the working material it came out of.
We stay for the part where the roadmap turns into work. An assessor who leaves at the report has no stake in if any of it was correct.
We scope to your risk, benchmark to ISO, NFPA, and SMRP, and walk your floor. The roadmap is the thing you keep.
The output is not a score. It is a ranked list of gaps in safety, uptime, and compliance, each with an owner, an effort estimate, and a place in the sequence, plus an operator who stays while it is worked through.
Ranked
Gaps in safety, uptime, and compliance
Owned
Every item, with an effort estimate
Through
Implementation, not to the report
What gets asked before paying for an assessment, most of it shaped by a previous one.
You get a prioritized roadmap benchmarked to ISO, NFPA, and SMRP, and a partner through the implementation of it. An assessment that ends at a findings document is an expense rather than a deliverable.
Operational assessment of a single site is typically a matter of weeks from walkdown to roadmap. We scope a portfolio in waves because the point is a prioritized sequence rather than a simultaneous audit of everything you own.
We benchmark assessments against ISO, NFPA, and SMRP, plus the operating model we run across 596 facilities. External standards make the finding defensible; the operating model makes it comparable to sites that have already closed the same gap.
Yes, and that is deliberate. The roadmap is the result rather than the report, and a roadmap handed over at the door tends to be read once. We would rather be measured on what closed.
Yes. A portfolio assessment usually finds that the variation between sites is the finding: the same equipment running to different standards, which is a governance problem rather than a maintenance one.
It helps, and it is not a prerequisite. Much of what an assessment finds is the distance between what the system says and what is on the floor, so arriving without the export is sometimes the more honest starting point. We reconcile the two either way.
Then it is sequenced rather than dropped. The roadmap is prioritized by risk against effort, so a finding you cannot close this year is carried with its consequence written down and an interim control against it. A gap you have decided to live with is a different thing from one you have not found.
Not the question you have? Send it over, and one of the people who would actually run your site will answer it.
Ask an operatorAn assessment names the work. These three are usually where it lands.
The roadmap is yours either way, and it is worth acting upon whether you act upon it with us.
You get a scoped assessment on that building, on the floor, benchmarked, and ranked. You end up with a defensible picture of where it stands and a sequence you could hand to your own team tomorrow.
We assess against one operating model so the results are comparable, which is the thing a portfolio owner cannot get from separate local reviews. The gaps that repeat across sites are the ones worth funding first.