Asset data and development delivery for a UK gas distribution network
Signed data definitions, reversible remediation and knowledge transfer through the operator’s existing governance.
Engagement summary
Download client brief (PDF)- Situation
- A regulated gas network needed dependable asset data for regulatory and operational returns. Its internal platform team was at capacity, and business-as-usual work took priority over a dedicated change window.
- MaxIron responsibility
- MaxIron held a defined asset-data and Maximo development workstream. The operator retained programme ownership, regulatory accountability, change control and the architecture board.
- Delivery
- A data lead and developer worked inside the operator’s ceremonies. They baselined classification and hierarchy differences, agreed written standards with asset management and released class-by-class remediation as reversible changes.
- Outcome
- The multi-year workstream produced owned standards, platform enhancements and greater confidence in reporting fields. Pairing and knowledge transfer left the internal team able to maintain and extend the platform.
Anonymised client engagement. Reference conversations require client permission and an NDA where applicable.
Start here: what we would do differently
Three set-up decisions we would insist on in the first fortnight
This engagement has run for years and the capability transfer worked. These framing decisions are made in week one or not at all.
Name the internal data owner on day one
The standard was written first and internal ownership settled later, leaving a period where the most authoritative view sat with the MaxIron data lead. Naming that internal role is now a condition of starting.
Sequence remediation by reporting obligation
It is natural to start where the data looks worst. It is more useful to start with the asset classes that feed the regulatory return. We would now let the obligation set the order and treat the quality score as a tie-break.
Write down what done looks like for knowledge transfer
Pairing worked, but knowledge transfer was a practice rather than a specification. We would now write the unaided capability test at mobilisation and review it quarterly.
Two purchases that look identical on a purchase order
What the operator kept, and what MaxIron held
The operator's programme continued. MaxIron was responsible for the asset-data and development part of it.
The operator's programme
Governance, change control, architecture board, and the rest of the delivery.
The part MaxIron held
The data standard, remediation against it, and the development that went with that data.
What is being bought
The wider programme: priorities, gates and the work outside the data and development scope.
A documented data standard, remediation against it, and the development required to hold it.
Where the work sits
The operator's standups, change control and architecture board.
The same forums. MaxIron brought its workstream through them.
Route to production
The operator's existing approval path.
The same path. Changes from the MaxIron workstream used the operator's change control.
The test at the end
The programme continues, with an internal owner for the data standard.
The operator can maintain and extend that part of the platform.
The constraint that shaped everything
A regulated network where business as usual wins, and no programme window exists.
Every change competes with operational activity for the same approval gates. Asset data sits close to the safety case and the regulatory return, so remediation had to be incremental, reversible and traceable through the client’s own change control.
The working method
Six practices, and what each one rules out
Data remediation and development follow six practices within the operator’s existing governance.
| Ref | Practice | What it means in the week | What it rules out |
|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | Join their ceremonies | Both roles work inside the client’s standups, change control and architecture board. | A parallel supplier workstream that creates a second change queue. |
| M2 | Baseline before proposing | Wrote where classifications diverged, hierarchies drifted and criticality had never been revisited. | Arguing about data quality in the abstract. |
| M3 | Write the standard first | Definitions for classification, hierarchy and criticality, signed by asset management. | Remediation without a standard, which has to be redone when the next view arrives. |
| M4 | Small, reversible, through their gates | Remediation and enhancements as individually reversible changes through existing change control, class by class. | An estate-wide reclassification. |
| M5 | Pair on everything significant | Data lead with asset data owners; developer with internal developers. | Becoming indispensable. |
| M6 | Hand the standard to a person | Named internal role owns the standard; MaxIron advises. | A document without an owner, which erodes over about a year. |
The same reporting request, two ways
What changed when a regulatory question arrived
A regulatory question traces from the asset-data definition to the work record and its accountable owner.
Before
Extract, reconcile, apply judgement
- 1
The request
A reporting obligation requires asset data across a class of the network.
- 2
The work
Extract, then reconcile inconsistent classifications by hand.
- 3
The judgement
An analyst makes a defensible call from knowledge that is not written anywhere.
- 4
The exposure
Explaining why the answer is right depends on the analyst still being there.
After
A defined field and a documented definition
- 1
The request
Unchanged. Obligations do not get easier.
- 2
The work
Classification is consistent across the class, so extraction is extraction.
- 3
The judgement
The definition is written down and owned by asset management.
- 4
The exposure
The answer can be explained from the standard, including to an auditor.
Data quality work is hard to show in a demonstration. This is where a regulated buyer feels it.
Where the two roles sit
Where the workstream sits
No new tooling. The operator already had change control, a service toolchain and an architecture board. MaxIron's data and development work ran through those gates, feeding regulatory reporting and asset data quality.
01 · Operator programme
- Asset managementOwns regulatory obligations and signs classification, hierarchy and criticality definitions.
- Internal platform teamRetains programme, service toolchain and architecture board.
02 · MaxIron workstream
- Data lead + developerBaseline, remediate, configure and integrate; pair with internal owners.
- Controlled deliverySmall individually reversible changes, class by class.
03 · Operator acceptance
- Existing change gatesApprove changes at a cadence production can absorb.
- Retained capabilityA named internal standards owner and developers maintain the estate.
What the diagram shows
- Client Maximo team
- BAU operations, change control and architecture board remain the gates every change passes.
- MaxIron delivery
- Data lead on standards, classifications, criticality and hierarchies; developer on enhancements and integrations. That workstream was MaxIron's to deliver.
- Outputs
- Ofgem-aligned regulatory feeds and auditable asset data quality across remediated classes.
What the engagement left behind
Deliverables and outcomes, as the operator holds them
What the two roles produced
- Data standard
- Written definitions for classification, hierarchy and criticality, owned by asset management
- Governance
- Baseline of self-contradiction, then class-by-class remediation against the standard
- Development
- Enhancements, configuration, troubleshooting and enterprise integrations
- Migration support
- Extraction, mapping and loading with integrity checks for regulatory data
What improved
- Definitions
- Owned documents rather than shared understanding among whoever is in post
- Capacity
- Faster platform improvements at a cadence production can absorb
- Reporting
- Greater confidence in fields that feed regulatory and operational returns
- Capability
- Internal team able to maintain and extend the platform without us
Anonymised. Client-identifying systems and naming removed. Platform upgrade deliberately out of scope.
The arrangement, in facts
- Sector
- Gas distribution & utilities
- Region
- United Kingdom
- Duration
- Multi-year delivery on a live programme
- Scope
- Data governance, development, integration
- Versions
- IBM Maximo
What buyers ask about this delivery
- Why is the network operator not named?
- Anonymised at the client's request. In a regulated utility, published detail about asset data quality and regulatory reporting is sensitive. Reference conversations can be arranged under an NDA.
- Which decisions matter at mobilisation?
- The operator and MaxIron agree standards ownership, the baseline and the knowledge-transfer requirement before remediation starts. These decisions give the data lead and developer a shared basis for the multi-year workstream.
- What did MaxIron hold on this programme?
- A defined part of the operator's ongoing delivery: the asset data standard, remediation against it, and the Maximo development that went with that data. The work ran inside the operator's governance and change control, across several years. See specialist augmentation.
- Why not fix the data first and write the standard afterwards?
- Because you would then have a cleaner version of the same disagreement, and no way to stop it recurring. In a regulated environment the written definition is part of what makes a report defensible.
- Does this need a programme window?
- No. There was no dedicated window and business as usual always took priority, so remediation went out as small reversible changes through the client's own change control. It is slower per change and it is the only cadence a regulated distribution network will sustain.
- What stays hard?
- Agreeing definitions across functions that have each been right about their own part of the estate for years, and keeping the standard in place after the workstream is handed over. MaxIron Assist helps with classification volume. The agreement stays with the operator.
If your asset data is nearly good enough for the regulator, the gap is a definition problem before it is a data problem.
A short engagement that baselines where your asset data disagrees with itself, drafts the definitions your asset management function would be willing to sign, and proposes a remediation order set by your reporting obligations. The assessment defines the specialist workstream and the responsibilities retained by the internal team.
Bring this and we can baseline quickly
- Your current classification scheme and hierarchy convention, written down or not.
- The regulatory returns that depend on asset data, and which fields feed them.
- Your change control gates and the realistic cadence they allow.
- The internal role you would want to own the data standard afterwards.
- The last data quality assessment you did, however uncomfortable it reads.