The analytics utilities actually want — failure trends, asset history, defensible compliance reporting — are blocked by mismatched asset identities, not missing dashboards. We work with utilities on the unglamorous problem underneath everything else.
Walk any utility's systems and you meet the same physical pole four times, under four different names. The pole your GIS calls P-12345 is EL-DIST-FDR47-P0012345 in the asset management system, 12345-A in the inspection vendor's export, and something else again in the outage system. None of them is wrong. They were built by different teams, for different jobs, years apart — and nothing forces them to line up.
You can't just look up the mapping, because for most assets it was never written down. So the simplest cross-system question turns into a manual join, and the join is only as good as a crosswalk nobody has maintained.
| GIS feature | AMS func. loc. | Inspection export | Match |
|---|---|---|---|
| P-12345 | EL-DIST-FDR47-P0012345 | 12345-A | Matched |
| P-12346 | EL-DIST-FDR47-P0012346 | 12346 (no suffix) | Low conf. |
| P-12347 | EL-DIST-FDR47-P0012350 | 12347-A | Conflict |
| P-12348 | — no record — | 12348-A | No AMS record |
| P-12349 | EL-DIST-FDR47-P0012349 | — none — | No inspection |
Your asset management system models functional-location hierarchies; GIS models geographic features. There's often no one-to-one mapping to discover — it has to be constructed.
Field changes take months to reach the map. As-built diverges from as-designed, and any mapping that was correct last year is quietly drifting now.
The crosswalk that exists was stood up by a contractor years ago and has drifted ever since. Nobody owns it, so nobody trusts it.
"Every pole on this feeder with more than 3 failures in 5 years" needs heroic manual joins — or it simply can't be answered at all.
The single pane of glass demos beautifully, because demo data is clean. Every work order sits on the right pole, every inspection lines up, and the map tells a story executives love.
Then it meets real data. The joins underneath depend on asset identities that don't line up — so work orders land on the wrong poles, inspections attach to the wrong spans, and the totals in the corner stop matching what crews see in the field. Trust, which is the entire product, evaporates in the first month of pilot.
That's why we don't lead with software. A map is only as honest as the identities beneath it. Get those right and the map is worth building; get them wrong and it's a liability with good production values.
This is an engagement, not a platform. We embed with your GIS, work management, and asset management teams and do the reconciliation work directly — profiling the data, constructing the crosswalk between your asset management system and GIS, confidence-scoring the matches, and working the ambiguous cases with your experts rather than around them. Your data stays on your side of the firewall — and it's a loop, not a hand-off: the corrections we make flow back upstream, so the fix sticks.
Read your GIS features, asset management functional locations, and inspection exports as they actually are — the naming conventions, the drift, the gaps, the places two teams disagree.
Build the mapping between your asset management system and GIS that doesn't exist yet, asset by asset, using automated matching wherever the keys and geometry allow it.
Nothing is a silent guess. Every match carries a score and a reason, so you can see exactly where the mapping is solid and where it needs a second look.
Work the ambiguous poles with your experts, not around them. Their tribal knowledge becomes part of the record instead of walking out the door at retirement.
Automated matching handles the easy majority. The last stretch is careful, human work — and it's where the value is.
A reconciliation that only lives in our deliverable starts decaying the moment your next work order closes. So we don't stop at a clean crosswalk — the corrections and adjudications get written back to the systems they came from.
When a pole's identity is resolved, or a work order closes out in the field, that update flows upstream into your asset management system and GIS — not into a side table we own. The mapping stays true because the source systems finally agree, instead of drifting apart again. Fixing the integration is the start; keeping it fixed is the point.
None of this is something we ship. It's what ordinary questions turn into once identity is reconciled — three-week projects collapse into queries.
Work orders, inspections, failures, and specs — traceable across every system the pole appears in, instead of four separate lookups that never quite agree.
An answerable query across the fleet — not a three-week analyst project that ends in a caveat about the data.
Compliance and rate-case reporting assembled from reconciled data instead of a manual scramble the week before it's due.
Maintenance planning grounded in real failure history across systems, rather than tribal knowledge and the loudest voice in the room.
Our team spent 10+ years working on exactly this class of problem — messy, mismatched, high-stakes enterprise data, reconciled well enough to make real decisions on. Utility asset identity is the same problem in a domain we've gone deep on.
We're built for utility security review. We're comfortable with NDAs, on-prem or extract-based work, and keeping your data on your side of the firewall. Nothing leaves without your say-so.
We're talking with utilities about how this problem shows up on their systems — and taking on a small number of hands-on reconciliation engagements. If you've got a crosswalk that's drifted, or one you've never been able to build, we'd like to compare notes.
Start a conversation