Most integrity programs don't fail for lack of data — they struggle because the data is scattered. Readings in one spreadsheet, reports in a folder, history in someone's inbox. The cost shows up exactly when you can least afford it.
When inspection data lives in disconnected files, three things happen. Retrieval gets slow — finding the last three readings for a single location can take an afternoon. Calculations get manual — and manual means error-prone. And visibility disappears — no one can answer "what's the condition of the whole fleet?" without a heroic effort.
None of this is anyone's fault. It's the natural result of tools that were never designed to model an integrity program.
A single source of truth starts with a clear hierarchy: client, plant, area, asset, condition monitoring location (CML), inspection, and measurement. Every reading belongs somewhere specific and traceable.
The point of consolidating data isn't tidiness — it's confidence. When an engineer justifies an inspection interval, or an owner signs off on continued service, they're staking a decision on the numbers. Those numbers should be traceable to a measurement, an inspection and a date, not to a spreadsheet whose last editor is unknown.
The practical worry is always the same: "we have years of history in spreadsheets." Good migration maps that history into the structured model rather than discarding it — preserving trends so corrosion rates remain meaningful from day one. Whether your team does it or it's handled as a managed service, the existing record becomes an asset, not a liability.
General information only. Your integrity decisions remain the responsibility of qualified personnel.