Across the portfolio
We create custom programs from onboarding through advanced troubleshooting, written for the equipment in your rooms and assessed in front of it. They are role-specific, compliance-aligned, and recorded in a matrix that stands up.
Generic facilities training does not qualify anyone for a critical environment. The gap shows up the first time somebody has to make a decision in front of live gear with nobody to ask.
Off-the-shelf facilities content covers equipment classes rather than your equipment. It teaches somebody what switchgear is and leaves them unable to say what happens at your site when that one opens, which is the only question anyone will ever actually ask them.
A completed module is evidence somebody clicked through it. It is not evidence they can isolate a board under pressure. The gap surfaces the first time a decision has to be made in front of live equipment with nobody available to ask.
Nobody is qualified on attendance. Qualification is on demonstrated performance, in front of the plant, signed by somebody accountable for the judgment. That is the model here, adapted to your rooms and your equipment.
Map what each role has to be able to do on the equipment actually installed at the level the site's compliance regime requires. That map is against what we write the curriculum.
We build LMS-ready modules for the theory and walkthroughs on your own plant for everything a desk cannot teach. Generic content is the fastest way to produce confident people who are wrong.
Walkthroughs, competency assessment tasks, and simulations run where the work happens. Somebody can either do it with the gear in front of them or they cannot, and that is the record.
A qualification with no expiration is an assertion about somebody two years ago. The matrix carries dates, and re-qualification is scheduled like any other critical task.
We build training on your equipment, assess it in your rooms, and record it in a matrix that holds. The curriculum comes from us; the people stay yours.
We do not publish a training percentage because the honest measure is per role and per site.
Demonstrated
Competence, never attendance
Fewer
Errors, and less downtime
Repeatable
Across the whole portfolio
What gets asked before putting a crew through a program somebody will later have to defend.
We build the training for you. Generic facilities training does not qualify anyone for a critical environment, and the gap shows up the first time somebody has to make a decision in front of live gear with nobody to ask. Curricula are role-specific and aligned to the compliance regime the site actually sits under.
A CAT is a structured check that somebody can perform a task on the equipment in one's own room, rather than a record that they attended a session about it.
We do both. We build LMS-ready modules, and the walkthroughs and simulations happen on the floor because the parts that matter most are not accessible from a desk.
We measure against the assessment, not the roster. A qualified technician has demonstrated the task on that equipment and the record says so. Attendance tells you the session happened; it says nothing about who can now do the work.
That is the design intent. A role-based curriculum written once is repeatable at every site, which is what lets a team move between locations without being retrained from zero.
Yes, where the vendor is working inside the critical envelope. A qualified in-house team and an unqualified contractor on the same floor is not a qualified site, and the gap tends to surface during the work nobody planned for.
By role and by risk rather than on a single annual cycle. Tasks somebody performs weekly hold; the ones that matter most are usually the ones performed rarely, and those are the ones worth re-assessing. The curriculum says which is which.
Not the question you have? Send it over, and one of the people who would actually run your site will answer it.
Ask an operatorTraining is where the standard reaches the people. These three are what it qualifies them to run.
Both routes end in a qualification matrix somebody would sign. What differs is whether we are assessing the people you have or building for the ones arriving.
We assess the current crew against the equipment in your rooms and hand back an honest matrix. It is uncomfortable reading, and it is the only place from which a real curriculum can start.
We build the curriculum and the qualification path alongside construction, so the team is qualified on the actual equipment before it carries load rather than after. Catapultâ„¢ is this run at building scale.