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.
Asset-data standard, remediation, configuration, enhancements, troubleshooting, integration and migration support
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.
Asset management signed definitions for classification, hierarchy and criticality. The MaxIron data lead paired with asset-data owners and the developer paired with internal developers. Significant changes passed through existing gates with individually reversible remediation.
Platform and connections
IBM Maximo within the operator’s existing service toolchain and architecture controls
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.
Scope and decisions
MaxIron carried the defined data and development workstream; the operator kept the rest of the programme and regulatory decisions. Delivery followed production’s permitted cadence across several years. The case publishes qualitative outcomes and gives no measured financial saving.
Delivery lessons
Name the internal standards owner at mobilisation, agree the written definitions before remediation and make knowledge transfer a delivery responsibility from the first fortnight.
Next conversation
Bring the reporting obligations, classification rules, asset-data ownership, current change gates and internal development capacity to a specialist-workstream assessment.
Evidence basis
This brief summarises the published anonymised engagement. Client-identifying names, sites and records are withheld. Reference discussions are subject to client permission and NDA where required. Published durations and outcomes relate to this estate; another programme requires assessment of its scope and operating constraints.