The Site Systems Diagnostic is a fixed-fee engagement with a defined output: a written report your board can act on. Below is a redacted, illustrative extract of that report — the format, the depth and the kind of findings it contains. Nobody should buy a document sight-unseen; here is what yours will look like.
The extract below is illustrative. It reflects the structure and analytical depth of a real deliverable using a hypothetical project; client-identifying detail in delivered reports is confidential to the client. Your report is yours to keep, whatever you decide afterwards.
The site-services scope is currently structured as 18 packages across 14 suppliers, producing 41 supplier-to-supplier interfaces of which 9 are unowned — no contract allocates responsibility for the hand-off. Three of the nine sit on the mobilisation critical path. The temporary power strategy is sized from the construction load only; the welfare and accommodation load added later exceeds the planned generator capacity in winter operation. The village opening date trails first workforce arrival by 11 working days under the current supplier programmes. Left as structured, the project carries a material risk of late mobilisation and contested prelims escalation that no individual supplier can be held accountable for.
| Ref | Interface | Between | Owner today | Exposure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IF-07 | Generator sizing vs. welfare & village electrical load | Temporary power ↔ modular supplier | Unowned | Winter overload; unplanned hire costs; village heating failure |
| IF-12 | Cabin bases & drainage falls vs. module tolerances | Enabling civils ↔ modular supplier | Unowned | Rework at install; occupation delay |
| IF-19 | Access-control integration with client turnstiles | Security ↔ client systems | Split | Day-one workforce queuing; induction bottleneck |
| IF-23 | Village opening vs. first workforce arrival date | Modular ↔ catering ↔ transport | Unowned | 11-day gap; hotel costs; productivity loss |
| IF-31 | Waste licensing across three producing suppliers | Waste ↔ civils ↔ FM | Owned | Compliant as structured; consolidation saving available |
Each of the 41 interfaces carries the same fields in the full register, plus the recommended owner, the contract clause that should carry it, and the gate at which it must be evidenced.
| Gate | Opens when — evidence, not assurance | Guards against |
|---|---|---|
| G2 · Power-ready | Combined load calculation signed; generators on site, commissioned and load-tested against the winter profile | IF-07 — village without heat or light |
| G4 · Village-ready | Block handover certificates; fire systems commissioned; catering hygiene sign-off; transport routes proven | IF-23 — workforce arriving before beds exist |
| G5 · Occupation | Access control live-tested at forecast peak arrival rate; welfare capacities verified against week-1 headcount | IF-19 — day-one queuing and induction collapse |
Delivered as a one-page gate plan your project director can put on the wall — with owners, dates and the evidence list per gate.
Requirements & demand review · full package and interface map · commercial and delivery-risk register · procurement and mobilisation roadmap · delivery-model recommendation · executive action list. Typically 25–40 pages, issued within ten working days of site access and information handover, presented to your leadership in person or by call. Every report closes with a document reconciliation ledger: which of your own documents disagree with which, both sources named, line by line.
Fixed fee, defined deliverable, yours to keep. If we never speak again, you still own the clearest picture of your site's operating requirement you've ever had.
