Energy & Utilities
Utilities run assets that were installed long before the software tracking them, and the data comes back from the field on the field’s terms — intermittently, in volume, and rarely in a format anyone would have chosen. The engineering problem is turning that into something an operator can act on inside the window that still matters.
Where the operating picture breaks down.
The constraint is rarely a shortage of data. It is meter reads, telemetry, work orders and outage reports arriving at different cadences and disagreeing about the same asset.
Meter data at a volume nobody sized for
Interval reads turn a monthly billing file into a continuous stream, and systems built for the former fall quietly behind.
Field work planned on stale state
Crews are dispatched against yesterday’s asset condition, so the second visit is scheduled before the first one has finished.
Regulated reporting on contested numbers
Outage minutes and service metrics are reported from systems that do not agree with each other, and the difference has to be explained.
Assets older than the systems tracking them
Installs, serials and maintenance history spread across a CMMS, a GIS, spreadsheets and whoever last attended the site.
One asset record, fed by the field.
Land the data properly
Interval reads and telemetry into storage built for the volume, with late, duplicate and out-of-order records treated as normal rather than as errors.
Reconcile the asset
One record per asset assembled from the systems that each hold part of it, with conflicts made visible instead of averaged away.
Put it in front of the crew
Field applications that work offline and sync when they can, because coverage at the asset is not an assumption you get to plan around.
Report from the same source
Regulatory and internal reporting generated from the reconciled record, so the number in the return is the number operations is looking at.
Decisions made inside the window that matters.
What changes for the people doing the work, not just for the systems behind them.
- Interval meter data landed and queryable rather than archived and forgotten
- One asset record reconciled across CMMS, GIS and field systems
- Field applications that keep working where the network coverage does not
- Outage and service metrics reported from the operational record
- Maintenance scheduled on measured condition rather than on the calendar
- Integration patterns that survive the next system replacement
What we usually bring to this sector.
The things this sector asks first.
No. That separation exists for good reasons and we design to it — a one-way path out of the operational network into the analytics side, with nothing flowing back that could influence control. If a use case genuinely needs a return path, it is treated as a security change in its own right rather than smuggled in as a data project.
Usually not. The record is assembled across the systems that hold it, and the CMMS carries on doing what it does well. Replacement is worth discussing only when the system itself is what prevents the record from existing.
Yes, and the real constraint is cost rather than capability. Interval data is large but well behaved; what drives the bill is how it is stored and how often it is queried. We size that deliberately and show you the trade-off instead of defaulting to keeping everything hot.
Have an idea? Let’s forge it.
Tell us where you want to go. We’ll help you get there with the right technology, delivered by a team that ships.