Deep-Dive vs Desktop: When Your Organisation Needs More Than a Quick Assessment

Not all maturity assessments are created equal - and that's by design. The depth of assessment should match what you need to know and what you're going to do with the findings. Choosing between a deep-dive and a desktop assessment isn't just about budget, though budget matters. It's about matching assessment effort to decision requirements.

The core trade-off

Deep-dive assessments take more time, cost more, and produce richer findings. Desktop assessments are faster, cheaper, and lighter on organisational disruption. Neither is inherently better - they serve different purposes.

The question to start with isn't "how much assessment can we afford?" but "what decisions will this assessment inform, and what level of insight do those decisions require?"

An organisation preparing a business case for significant asset management investment needs different evidence than one checking progress against a previous assessment. A regulator requirement might be satisfied by desktop review, while a genuine transformation programme needs the depth that only comprehensive assessment provides.

What each approach actually involves

Understanding the practical differences helps match approach to need.

Desktop assessments typically involve:

• Review of key documentation (strategies, policies, plans, procedures)
• Limited interviews with key personnel (often 5-10 people)
• Assessment against a standard framework
• Duration of 2-4 weeks
• Findings based primarily on documented evidence

Deep-dive assessments typically involve:

• Comprehensive documentation review
• Extensive interviews across multiple levels and functions (often 20-40+ people)
• Evidence verification and triangulation
• Process observation where relevant
• Duration of 6-12 weeks
• Findings based on documented and observed evidence

The difference isn't just more of the same - it's qualitatively different insight. Desktop assessments tell you what's documented. Deep-dives tell you what actually happens.

When desktop assessments make sense

Desktop assessments serve well in several scenarios.

Initial baseline establishment. When an organisation has never been assessed and wants to understand roughly where they sit, a desktop review provides useful orientation. It identifies major gaps and helps prioritise where deeper investigation might be warranted.

Progress monitoring. Between comprehensive assessments, desktop reviews can validate that documented improvements have been embedded. They're particularly useful when the organisation has made targeted changes and wants confirmation they've addressed specific gaps.

Compliance verification. Some regulatory requirements can be satisfied by demonstrating documented systems exist. When the requirement is about having frameworks rather than proving their effectiveness, desktop assessment may suffice.

Resource constraints. When budget or timing genuinely prevents comprehensive assessment, desktop review provides value that delayed assessment doesn't. Something is better than nothing.

Specific focus areas. When you need to assess capability in particular domains (just data management, or just risk framework) rather than across the full maturity spectrum, targeted desktop review may provide sufficient insight.

When deep-dives are necessary

Some situations require comprehensive assessment depth.

Transformation planning. If assessment findings will drive significant organisational change, you need the depth that distinguishes real capability from documented aspiration. Shallow assessment leads to shallow diagnosis and potentially misdirected improvement effort.

Investment justification. Business cases for substantial capability investment need evidence that will withstand scrutiny. Deep-dives provide the substantiation that desktop findings can't.

Understanding why. Desktop assessments identify what's missing. Deep-dives explore why it's missing. If your improvement strategy depends on understanding root causes, you need depth.

Cultural and behavioural factors. Whether people actually use systems, trust data, follow processes - these factors only emerge through extensive engagement. They're invisible to document review.

Cross-functional dynamics. How asset management interfaces with finance, operations, technology, procurement - these integration points matter hugely but only reveal themselves through broad stakeholder engagement.

External credibility requirements. When findings will be presented to boards, regulators, investors, or other external parties, the rigour of deep-dive assessment provides defensibility that desktop review can't.

The middle ground

Some organisations find value in staged approaches.

Desktop then deep-dive. Start with desktop assessment to identify priority areas, then conduct targeted deep-dives in those areas. This focuses comprehensive effort where it matters most.

Pilot deep-dive. Conduct a comprehensive assessment of one business unit or asset class before deciding whether to extend the approach across the organisation. This reveals what deep-dive findings look like before committing to organisation-wide effort.

Deep-dive with desktop follow-up. Conduct comprehensive assessment initially, then use periodic desktop reviews to monitor progress and identify when another deep-dive might be warranted.

Making the decision

Work through these considerations:

What will findings be used for? Match assessment depth to decision significance. Minor process improvements need less evidence than transformation programmes.

Who will review findings? Internal use allows more flexibility than external scrutiny. Boards and regulators expect rigour.

How confident are you about current state? If you genuinely don't know where you stand, you probably need depth. If you have a clear hypothesis, desktop review can confirm or challenge it.

What changed since last assessment? If a lot has changed, deeper assessment reveals whether changes have taken hold. If little has changed, desktop review may suffice to confirm stability.

What's the realistic improvement capacity? There's limited value in detailed assessment findings if the organisation can't act on them. Match assessment detail to improvement capacity.

The goal isn't maximum assessment depth - it's appropriate assessment depth. Understanding the trade-offs helps organisations invest assessment resources where they'll generate the most value.

Choosing the Right Assessment Depth

The decision between deep-dive and desktop assessment connects to broader questions about what organisations want from maturity evaluation. Assessment depth should match the decisions the assessment needs to inform. Our analysis of how asset management maturity drives organisational success explores the relationship between assessment insights and improvement outcomes.

Whatever assessment depth you choose, the assessor's competence matters. The GFMAM Competency Specification for ISO 55001 Assessors establishes the knowledge requirements that underpin credible assessment - a useful reference for understanding what qualified assessment looks like, regardless of whether you opt for desktop review or comprehensive deep-dive.