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

Part 4 of 4: Maintenance Maturity Assessment Series

"Can't we just do a quick one?"

It's the most common question we hear when scoping a maintenance maturity assessment. And the honest answer is: sometimes yes, sometimes no. The right scope depends on what you need the assessment to do. A desktop review and a deep-dive assessment answer fundamentally different questions, and confusing the two is where organisations waste money.

A desktop assessment tells you whether processes exist. A deep-dive tells you whether they work. Both have a place. The trick is knowing which one your situation demands.

What a Desktop Review Actually Covers

A desktop assessment typically examines all nine subject groups of the GFMAM Maintenance Framework at a headline level. The assessor reviews key documents, conducts a limited number of interviews, and provides a broad maturity profile based on what the organisation can demonstrate through its documented systems.

For Subject Group 4 (Asset Maintenance Strategy Development), a desktop review might confirm that criticality analysis methodology exists, that FMEA processes are documented, and that maintenance plans are generated. It verifies the presence of these capabilities without deeply testing their quality or consistency.

This approach works well for several purposes: establishing an initial baseline when no prior assessment exists, providing a periodic pulse check between comprehensive assessments, or scoping a subsequent deep-dive by identifying which subject groups need the most attention.

A good desktop review covers all nine groups in two to three days of assessor effort, plus preparation and reporting. It produces a high-level maturity profile with indicative ratings and identifies priority areas for further investigation.

What a Deep-Dive Examines That a Desktop Can't

The GFMAM framework contains 45 individual subjects within its nine groups. A desktop review typically operates at the group level. A deep-dive examines individual subjects, and the difference in insight is significant.

Take Maintenance Work Management (Group 6). A desktop assessment confirms that work management processes exist: work identification, planning, scheduling, execution, and closeout. A deep-dive examines all five subjects individually.

For Subject 6.2 (Work Planning), a deep-dive assessor reviews actual work packages. Do they include scope definitions, procedure references, material requirements, tool lists, and estimated durations? Are standard jobs defined for repetitive work? Is the planning function adequately resourced? Does planning lead time data show that planned work is genuinely prepared in advance, or is "planned" work actually reactive work given a work order number after the fact?

For Subject 6.5 (Work Closeout and History Recording), the assessor examines completed work orders. Are failure codes populated consistently? Do the codes follow a structured taxonomy that supports analysis, or are they a free-text dumping ground? Is labour and material cost capture accurate enough to support life cycle costing? Does closeout data actually flow into reliability analysis or performance reporting?

This level of detail is where the difference between Level 2 (Developing) and Level 3 (Competent) becomes visible. At the desktop level, both might look similar because the documented processes exist. At the deep-dive level, the gap between "we have a planning process" and "our planning process produces well-prepared work packages with verified materials and accurate time estimates" becomes clear.

When You Need a Deep-Dive

Certain situations demand the precision that only a deep-dive assessment provides.

Pre-certification or compliance assessment. If your organisation is preparing for ISO 55001 certification or regulatory compliance review, the certifying body or regulator will examine specific capabilities in detail. A desktop assessment won't reveal whether your practices will withstand that scrutiny. A deep-dive examines the same subjects at the same level of detail, identifying gaps before the high-stakes audit arrives.

Post-acquisition due diligence. When an organisation acquires assets or operations from another entity, understanding the true state of maintenance capability is critical. Desktop-level information might come from the vendor's own self-assessment. A deep-dive provides an independent, evidence-based view of what you're actually inheriting, from the quality of the asset register (Subject 8.1) to the state of maintenance plans (Subject 4.4) to the competency of the maintenance workforce (Subject 5.2).

Major transformation programmes. If your organisation is investing significantly in maintenance improvement, a deep-dive assessment establishes the genuine baseline that improvement metrics will be measured against. Without this precision, you can't demonstrate whether a $2 million improvement program actually moved the needle.

Persistent performance gaps. When an organisation knows maintenance performance isn't where it should be but can't pinpoint why, a deep-dive assessment across all 45 subjects typically reveals the systemic issues. Often the root cause isn't in the subject group where symptoms appear. Poor reliability outcomes (Group 7) might trace back to inadequate strategy development (Group 4) or weak data capture (Group 8). Only a deep-dive with cross-referencing across subjects will find this.

The Practical Differences

In practice, a deep-dive assessment requires substantially more effort than a desktop review. Assessor time typically runs from five to fifteen days depending on the organisation's size and complexity, compared to two to three days for a desktop. More interviews are needed, with a wider cross-section of roles including frontline maintainers, planners, supervisors, condition monitoring specialists, and CMMS administrators. Artefact review is comprehensive rather than sampled.

The output is correspondingly more detailed. Instead of indicative maturity ratings at the group level, a deep-dive provides assessed ratings for all 45 subjects with supporting evidence, identified cross-referencing gaps between subjects, and prioritised improvement recommendations with specific, measurable targets tied to the maturity scale.

Worth noting: a deep-dive doesn't have to cover all nine groups equally. If a desktop review or previous assessment has identified that Groups 1 and 2 are relatively mature, assessment effort can be weighted toward the groups that need the most attention. This targeted approach balances rigour with efficiency.

Key Takeaways

Desktop and deep-dive assessments serve different purposes. Choose a desktop review for initial baselines, periodic pulse checks, or scoping exercises. Choose a deep-dive when the stakes require precision: pre-certification, post-acquisition, transformation programme baselines, or diagnosing persistent performance gaps. The GFMAM framework's 45-subject structure means a deep-dive provides granularity that a desktop review simply cannot match. The right assessment scope is the one that gives you the level of confidence your decisions require.

← Previous: IAM Endorsed Assessors: What the Credential Means for Your Assessment

Ready to determine the right assessment scope for your organisation? Book a scoping conversation and we'll help you decide whether a desktop review or deep-dive is the right fit.