The Reliability Assessment · Phase 1 · Methodology
How we diagnose a reliability function.
Most reviews score your maturity and hand you a grade. We read your data, test your strategy against how your assets fail, and put a dollar figure on the gap. This is the method, step by step, and what it measures.
Evidence first, recommendations second · Quantified in dollars, not a maturity grade · Framework-agnostic · Decades of assessments across the leadership team
What we examine
Seven areas, set to the depth your site needs
The depth in each area is set during scoping. The seven hold across every engagement.
Maintenance strategy and tactics
Whether each tactic targets a credible failure mode, and where time-based tasks survive on assets that fail on condition or do not degrade at all.
PM content and load
Whether each task earns its place against a failure mode, and how much labour goes to parts that were never going to fail in the interval.
Asset criticality
Whether criticality has been done and scored, and whether spares, attention and PM coverage follow it.
Work management and planning
The work-order flow end to end: planning quality, scheduling discipline, backlog behaviour, and the planned-to-reactive split.
CMMS and master data
Whether the system can be trusted to report. Hierarchy, failure coding and data integrity cap what every other improvement can deliver.
People, roles and culture
How the function runs in practice, and where the system on paper diverges from the system in use.
Frameworks, plans and procedures
Whether your governing documents connect from the top down to the work on the floor, and whether the floor follows them. We trace the line of sight from the Asset Management and Maintenance frameworks, through the SAMP and asset plans, to the procedures and the practice. Where it breaks tells us what to fix: a break between framework and plan is an architecture problem, between plan and procedure a translation problem, between procedure and practice an adoption problem.
On frameworks and standards
We test against your intended approach, not an external grade
We assess your governing documents against your own intended approach, not against a standard you have chosen not to adopt. Where you align to ISO 55000, we test against that line of sight. Where you run a corporate standard, a proprietary model, or a deliberate informal approach, we test against that. The measure is internal coherence and execution, not conformance. Where no framework is articulated at all, that absence is the finding, and the roadmap addresses whether one is warranted for your asset base and risk.
The diagnosis turns on where the line of sight breaks. A break between framework and plan is an architecture problem. A break between plan and procedure is a translation problem. A break between procedure and practice is an adoption problem. Each routes to a different part of the roadmap.
How we score
Scoring serves the dollar number, not the other way round
We do not reduce your function to a single grade. Every finding is classified and tied to a reference in your own data.
Findings, classified
A strength to protect, an improvement priority with material cost, or a high-risk gap exposing safety, production or compliance loss. Each tied to evidence.
Assets, tiered
Scored Critical to Low against consequence to production, safety, quality and single-point-of-failure exposure. The tier sets where the roadmap concentrates first.
PM, dispositioned
Each task given a disposition against the failure mode it controls: keep, modify or delete. This is where recoverable labour hours surface.
Documents, line-of-sight
Governing documents scored on existence and currency, line of sight against your stated framework, and adoption on the floor. We score the links, not just the artefacts.
The gap, quantified
The headline output is a dollar figure: reactive-repair cost, lost production, and PM labour spent without return, against what the same function costs once the failure modes are under control.
The Reliability Margin
The difference between the two is the margin made visible. Where a figure cannot be backed by your data, we state the mechanism rather than invent a percentage.
How we build the roadmap
Built to be run, not filed
Actions are sequenced by the cost or risk they remove, weighted by how fast they can be done within existing systems. Every action carries a named accountable role, a timeframe and a success metric. The roles are existing ones: the roadmap reallocates accountability, it does not add headcount.
P1 · Immediate
Inside current systems
Corrections deliverable now: criticality fixes, deletion of PM that earns nothing, planning and scheduling discipline, enforcing procedures that already work.
P2 · Process and capability
Process change and training
PM redesign against failure modes, work-package rebuilds, QA framework, root-cause discipline, rewriting procedures the plans no longer match.
P3 · Structural
Medium-term moves
CMMS and master-data remediation, framework and plan rebuilds where the architecture is broken, strategy rebuilds across asset classes, embedded reliability capability.
Each P2 and P3 item is scoped and costed enough to act on. IP transfers to you. You decide whether we deliver the next phase or your team does.
Where it leads
The first phase of the engagement
The Assessment opens the path and quantifies the case. Each later phase is scoped only on what it found, and only if you choose to continue.
Phase 1
Assessment
Diagnose and quantify the gap on one site. You are here.
Phase 2
Blueprint
Scope the packages of work the Assessment found.
Phase 3
Pilot
Prove the approach on a defined asset class.
Phase 4
Embedding
Build the function and the discipline into the site.
Phase 5
Value Assurance
Hold the gains and report the margin over time.
See it on your own site
Book a reliability assessment and we will scope it to your assets and confirm the fee within one business day.