Case study (anonymised)
Reducing Inspection Scope Through Targeted Campaigns
Inspection planning relied on conservative assumptions due to fragmented historical data. Internal findings, external surveys, and rectification records were difficult to correlate spatially, leading to unnecessarily broad inspection scopes and costly offshore activity.
- Evidence packs designed for review forums
- Assumptions and thresholds recorded
- Outputs versioned for handover
Challenge
Inspection planning relied on conservative assumptions due to fragmented historical data. Internal findings, external surveys, and rectification records were difficult to correlate spatially, leading to unnecessarily broad inspection scopes and costly offshore activity.
Common failure mode
Decisions get made on screenshots and ad-hoc spreadsheets, with limited traceability back to source.
What “good” looks like
A pack you can rerun: inputs, checks, assumptions, change log, and publishable outputs.
Inputs and context
Representative sources used during delivery.
Approach
Typical delivery steps, designed to be repeatable and reviewable.
01Internal ILI anomalies and external survey data aligned to a common KP reference
02Historical inspection data consolidated into a single, lifecycle-aware integrity record
03Automated integrity checks enabled rapid reassessment with consistent rules
Outcomes
Observable outcomes, without over-claiming.
~30% reduction in inspection scope through targeted historical analysis
Same-day reassessment when new inspection data introduced
Fewer offshore survey and inspection days required
Next step
Bring one asset, one decision, and one delivery deadline. We’ll show what an evidence pack looks like.
Request a consultationBrowse modulesWant a similar outcome?
Share your current sources and constraints. We’ll suggest a conservative first step focused on traceability and output quality.