Why Data Normalization During Pilots Will Make or Break Your Enterprise Rollout
‍

When we work with clients implementing our Mechanical Integrity platform, we always recommend starting with a pilot at one or two sites before going enterprise-wide. And there's one lesson that every single client learns during this phase—one that's so critical, it determines whether their full-scale deployment will succeed or struggle.

That lesson? Data normalization is everything.

‍

The Problem We See Time and Again

Here's a scenario we encounter at almost every facility: An engineer at Site A calls a piece of equipment a "Surge Tank." Meanwhile, an engineer at Site B calls the exact same equipment type a "Surge Drum." Neither person is wrong—they're just using different terminology for identical assets. This might seem like a minor issue, but multiply it across dozens of equipment types, hundreds of engineers, and multiple facilities, and you have a serious problem. We've seen facilities where the same inspection method is recorded five different ways across three sites. One team documents it as "Visual Inspection - External," another as "External Visual," and yet another as "VT External." When you try to run a report showing how many visual inspections were performed enterprise-wide, the system thinks you have three different inspection types instead of one—and your data becomes meaningless. The reality is that most industrial facilities have evolved over decades. They've acquired other plants, merged with other companies, or simply had different departments develop their own data management practices independently. Each of these paths leads to the same destination: data fragmentation that undermines your ability to manage assets effectively across the enterprise.

‍

The Problems Caused by Inconsistent Data

Problem: Different engineers at different facilities refer to the same assets, processes, and concepts in slightly different ways, creating data chaos across your organization.

The Impact: These inconsistencies significantly slow down critical strategic functions including:

• Strategic planning initiatives
• Issue identification and root cause analysis
• Overall data understanding across the enterprise
• Creation of meaningful KPIs and reports

Let me give you a real-world example. We worked with a client who was trying to conduct a risk assessment across all their pressure vessels. They had five facilities, each with their own naming conventions for equipment classifications. When they ran their initial report, it showed they had 847 different equipment types. After normalization, that number dropped to 94. The other 753 "types" were just variations of the same 94 categories. This wasn't just a reporting inconvenience—it meant their risk assessment was fundamentally flawed. High-risk equipment at one facility wasn't being compared to similar equipment at other facilities because the system thought they were different types of assets. Maintenance strategies developed for one site couldn't be easily applied to another, even though they had identical equipment.
‍

Problem: When you try to generate enterprise-wide reports without normalized data, the results are misleading or impossible to interpret.

The Impact: Leadership can't make informed decisions because they're looking at fragmented data that doesn't tell the complete story. Equipment inventories are inaccurate. Compliance reporting becomes a nightmare. And you can't identify patterns or trends that span multiple facilities.

Consider compliance reporting. If one facility documents a deficiency as "Corrosion - External" and another records the same issue as "External Surface Corrosion," your aggregated compliance report will show two separate deficiency categories. When regulators ask how many corrosion issues you've identified across the enterprise, you can't give them an accurate answer. Worse, you can't identify that corrosion is actually a systemic issue requiring strategic intervention because your data makes it look like isolated incidents across different deficiency types.

Problem: Rolling out a new Mechanical Integrity platform across your entire enterprise without addressing data standardization first.

The Impact: You've just multiplied your data inconsistencies across every facility, making the problem exponentially worse and more expensive to fix later.

This is the mistake we see most often. Organizations are excited about new technology and want to deploy it everywhere immediately. But without normalization, they're essentially automating chaos. They spend millions on implementation, only to discover six months later that their reports are useless, their KPIs are meaningless, and they need to do a massive data cleanup project—which now affects every facility instead of being contained to pilot sites.

‍

Why We Insist on Starting with Pilot Sites

Most of our clients don't immediately launch an enterprise-wide implementation, and for good reason. The complexity of rolling out a comprehensive Mechanical Integrity platform across multiple facilities is substantial, and we've learned that pilots are essential for success. The pilot approach isn't about being cautious—it's about being strategic. Think of it as building a prototype before mass production. You wouldn't manufacture 10,000 units of a product without first testing and refining a prototype. The same principle applies to implementing enterprise software that will affect hundreds of users across multiple locations. Here's what we've learned after managing dozens of implementations: the facilities that skip or rush through pilots inevitably face problems that cost 3-5 times more to fix than if they'd been caught during a properly executed pilot phase. We've seen organizations have to pause enterprise rollouts, retrain users, rebuild data structures, and in some cases, start over completely. Here's why we recommend starting with just one or two sites:
‍

Managing Complexity

The Problem: Enterprise-wide implementations are inherently complex, with multiple stakeholders, varied processes, and unique facility requirements.

Our Solution: We use the pilot phase to ensure the implementation process is appropriately managed on a smaller, more controllable scale. This allows us to identify challenges and develop solutions before they impact your entire organization. The complexity goes beyond just technical implementation. You're dealing with change management across different cultures, locations, and operational practices. Each facility has its own way of doing things, its own champions and resisters, and its own unique challenges. By starting with one or two sites, we can develop a playbook that accounts for these variations. During pilots, we document everything: Which departments need more training? Where do workflow bottlenecks occur? What data migrations cause the most issues? Which integration points are more complex than anticipated? This documentation becomes invaluable when planning the enterprise rollout.

Gaining Deep Understanding

The Problem: You don't know what you don't know until you start implementing.

Our Solution: Pilots give you and your team a chance to truly understand the implementation process itself—how it affects workflows, what training is needed, and where resistance might emerge. We work closely with your team during this phase to document lessons learned and refine our approach. We've had clients discover during pilots that their assumed workflow didn't match reality. What they thought was a simple three-step inspection process was actually a complex workflow involving seven different people across four departments. Without the pilot, they would have built the entire system around an incorrect understanding of their own processes. The pilot also reveals your organization's readiness for change. Some facilities embrace new technology immediately, while others need more hand-holding. Some teams have strong technical skills and can self-serve, while others need more support. Understanding these differences during the pilot allows us to customize the rollout strategy for each facility.
‍

Assessing Real-World Impact

The Problem: Theoretical planning doesn't always reflect how systems perform in actual field conditions with real users.

Our Solution: The pilot phase reveals the implementation's true impact on your workforce and facilities. We see how operators, inspectors, and engineers actually use the system, allowing us to make adjustments before rolling it out everywhere. One client discovered during their pilot that field inspectors had spotty internet connectivity in certain areas of the plant. This was never mentioned in planning meetings, but it became immediately apparent when inspectors tried to use mobile devices in the field. We were able to implement offline capabilities before enterprise rollout—a critical feature that would have caused major disruptions if not addressed during the pilot. We also see how the system impacts daily routines. Does data entry take longer than expected? Are notifications overwhelming users? Do certain reports not display correctly on mobile devices? These real-world issues surface during pilots when stakes are lower and adjustments are easier to make.
‍

Refining Critical Details

The Problem: Every organization has unique processes, terminology, and requirements that aren't apparent until you start working with real data.

Our Solution: We use the pilot to refine details before full-scale deployment. This is where data normalization becomes paramount—we work with you to identify and standardize the terminology and data categories that will be used across all facilities. This refinement process is iterative. We start with industry standards, but then we adjust based on your specific needs. Maybe you have unique equipment types because of proprietary processes. Maybe your regulatory environment requires specific documentation that isn't standard elsewhere. Maybe you've acquired facilities that use different standards (API vs. ASME, for example) and need to reconcile them. The pilot is where we figure out these details. It's where we discover that your "heat exchangers" are actually called "coolers" by everyone in the organization, or that you need a special deficiency category for issues specific to your process. These aren't things you can figure out in a conference room—they emerge when real users start working with real data.
‍

Gauging Project Management

The Problem: You need to understand resource requirements, timelines, and potential bottlenecks before committing to enterprise-wide deployment.

Our Solution: Pilots allow us to gauge implementation project management on a manageable scale, helping you plan more accurately for the full rollout.

During the pilot, we track everything: How long does data migration really take? How many support tickets do we get per user? What's the learning curve for different roles? How much time do subject matter experts need to dedicate to the project? This data becomes the foundation for enterprise planning. If the pilot took six weeks for one facility with 50 users, we now have a realistic baseline for estimating timelines and resources for rolling out to ten facilities with 500 users. We can identify which roles need to be involved, how much training time to budget, and what kind of support infrastructure you'll need.

‍

How We Normalize Your Data During Pilots

During the pilot phase, we work with you to refine what we call "Nomenclatures"—the standardized data categories that ensure consistent collection and reporting across all your facilities. This normalization process is arguably the most important lesson our clients learn, and it lays the essential groundwork for effective enterprise-wide implementation. Data normalization isn't just about picking standard terms from a dropdown menu. It's a collaborative process that requires input from multiple stakeholders, understanding of your operational context, and careful consideration of how data will be used across the organization.
‍

Understanding Nomenclatures

Nomenclatures are the building blocks of consistent data management. They're the controlled vocabularies that everyone in your organization agrees to use when describing assets, conditions, activities, and processes. Think of nomenclatures as the language of your asset management system. Just as effective communication requires everyone to speak the same language, effective data management requires everyone to use the same terminology. When someone in Texas and someone in Louisiana both need to record that they performed a visual inspection on a heat exchanger, the system needs them to describe that activity in exactly the same way.

Without standardized nomenclatures, you don't have data—you have noise.

‍

The Data Categories We Normalize

We systematically review and standardize terminology across numerous categories, including:

• Equipment Types (resolving differences like "Surge Tank" vs. "Surge Drum")
• Equipment Classifications
• Service Designations
• Lining Types
• Insulation Types
• Coating Types
• Cladding Types
• Regulatory Compliance Bodies
• Inspection Methods
• Deficiency Ranks
• Deficiency Categories
• Thickness Monitoring Location Designations
• Inspection Strategies

Let me break down why each of these matters:

Equipment Types and Classifications form the foundation of your asset registry. If you can't consistently identify what type of equipment you have, you can't track it, maintain it, or report on it effectively. We've seen organizations with "Pressure Vessel," "Vertical Vessel," "Storage Tank," and "Storage Vessel" all referring to similar equipment. Normalization creates clear, consistent categories that everyone understands. Service Designations describe what the equipment does or what it contains. This is critical for risk assessment and regulatory compliance. If one facility calls something "Crude Service" and another calls it "Hydrocarbon Service," your risk reports won't accurately reflect exposure across the enterprise.

Material Types (Lining, Insulation, Coating, Cladding) affect corrosion rates, inspection requirements, and maintenance strategies. These need to be standardized because they directly impact how you assess risk and plan interventions. If Site A documents "Stainless Steel 304L" and Site B documents "SS304L" and Site C documents "304L SS," your system can't identify that you have the same material specification across all three locations. Regulatory Compliance Bodies need standardization because you report to them. Whether it's API, ASME, OSHA, or EPA, consistent documentation of which standards apply to which equipment is essential for compliance reporting and audit preparedness. Inspection Methods must be normalized so you can track what types of inspections are being performed, identify gaps in inspection coverage, and ensure regulatory requirements are being met. The difference between "UT Thickness" and "Ultrasonic Testing - Thickness Measurement" might seem semantic, but it breaks your ability to report on inspection activities. Deficiency Categories and Ranks are critical for prioritization and trending. If you can't consistently categorize and rank the severity of problems found during inspections, you can't prioritize repairs, track trends over time, or allocate resources effectively. Thickness Monitoring Locations and Inspection Strategies ensure that you're consistently tracking asset condition over time and applying the right inspection approach based on risk and regulatory requirements.

‍

Why This Matters for Your Success

Problem: Without standardized nomenclature, you can't create meaningful enterprise-wide reports or KPIs.

Our Solution: Data type normalization ensures that when you generate reports, you're comparing apples to apples. If every facility uses different terms for the same equipment, your reports will show incorrect inventory counts, miss trends, and provide misleading insights. Here's a concrete example: A client wanted to know how many pressure vessels they had across their enterprise. Their initial query returned 1,247 pressure vessels. After normalization, the actual count was 1,089. The difference? The system was counting the same equipment multiple times because different facilities used different nomenclature. Some vessels were listed under multiple categories, while others weren't being counted at all because they were categorized under non-standard terms.

More importantly, they wanted to know the risk profile of their pressure vessel population. Without normalization, the risk report showed Site A had mostly low-risk vessels while Site B had mostly high-risk vessels. After normalization revealed the data was consistent, they discovered the actual risk distribution was similar across both sites—the apparent difference was just an artifact of inconsistent deficiency categorization and ranking.

‍

Problem: Every client has unique processes and terminology that don't align perfectly with industry standards.

Our Solution: While we draw from industry best practices, our normalization process during the pilot phase ensures your specific needs, niches, and processes are accounted for early. We're not imposing a one-size-fits-all solution—we're building a standardized framework that reflects how your organization actually operates. For example, we worked with a client in specialty chemicals who had unique equipment types not commonly found in traditional refining. The standard nomenclature didn't have appropriate categories for their reactor types. During the pilot, we worked with their engineers to create custom equipment classifications that were specific enough to be meaningful but general enough to be consistent across facilities. The key is finding the right balance. Too granular, and you end up with hundreds of categories that defeat the purpose of normalization. Too broad, and you lose the specificity needed for meaningful analysis. The pilot phase is where we find that sweet spot for your organization.

‍

The Business Impact of Proper Normalization

Let's talk about what this means in practical terms:

For Compliance: When an auditor asks to see all pressure relief device inspections performed in the last year, you can generate that report in minutes with confidence that it's complete and accurate. Without normalization, you'd be manually cross-referencing multiple reports and hoping you didn't miss any equipment because it was categorized differently.

For Risk Management: You can identify trends across the enterprise. If corrosion is becoming an issue in similar equipment across multiple facilities, normalized data lets you see that pattern and take strategic action. Without normalization, each facility looks like it has isolated issues rather than symptoms of a systemic problem.

For Maintenance Planning: You can benchmark performance across facilities. If Site A is performing twice as many inspections per piece of equipment as Site B, you need to know why. Maybe Site A is over-inspecting, or maybe Site B is under-inspecting. Without normalized data, you can't even ask that question.

For Budget Planning: You can accurately forecast inspection and maintenance costs across the enterprise. When you know exactly what equipment you have, what condition it's in, and what inspection strategies apply, you can build realistic budgets. Without normalization, you're essentially guessing.

For Asset Strategy: You can make informed decisions about where to invest in new equipment, which facilities need additional resources, and how to optimize your overall asset portfolio. This strategic view is impossible without consistent, normalized data.

‍

The Normalization Process in Action

Here's how we work with you during the pilot:

1. Initial Configuration

We set up the platform with standard nomenclatures as a starting point. These come from industry standards (API, ASME, OSHA), our experience with similar clients, and best practices we've developed over dozens of implementations. This initial configuration isn't meant to be perfect—it's meant to be a starting point that gets us 80% of the way there. We know we'll need to adjust it based on your specific context, but starting with industry standards ensures we're building on a solid foundation rather than starting from scratch.
‍

2. Real-World Testing

As your team begins using the system at pilot sites, we identify terminology discrepancies and unique requirements. This is where theory meets reality. We watch how users interact with the system. Do they hesitate when selecting equipment types because the options don't match their mental model? Do they consistently misclassify certain deficiencies because our categories don't align with how they think about problems? Do they create free-text notes to capture information that should be in standardized fields? These observations are gold. They tell us where our initial nomenclature doesn't match your operational reality, and they guide our refinement process. We also review the data that's being entered. Are we seeing patterns of inconsistency? Are certain fields being left blank frequently? Are users selecting "Other" too often? These are all signals that our nomenclature needs adjustment.
‍

3. Collaborative Refinement

We work with stakeholders from different facilities to agree on standardized terms that everyone will use going forward. This ensures buy-in across the organization. This is where the real work of normalization happens, and it requires diplomacy as much as technical expertise. Different facilities often have strong opinions about terminology, especially when they've been using their conventions for decades. We facilitate these discussions by focusing on the business outcomes rather than getting stuck in debates about semantics. The question isn't "Should we call it a surge tank or surge drum?"—the question is "What standardized term will allow us to accurately track, report on, and manage this equipment type across all our facilities?" We've found that creating a cross-functional team for this work is essential. You need representation from operations, engineering, maintenance, and compliance. You need people from different facilities who can speak to local practices. And you need executive sponsorship to make decisions stick. During these sessions, we document not just what terms we're standardizing but why. This documentation becomes part of your training materials and helps new employees understand the rationale behind your nomenclature standards.
‍

4. Validation

We ensure the normalized data set accurately captures information and generates meaningful reports. This phase confirms that all stakeholders can work with the standardized nomenclature.

Validation happens at multiple levels. First, we test the nomenclature with actual use cases. Can we generate the compliance reports you need? Do the risk assessments produce meaningful results? Can maintenance planners find the information they need quickly? Second, we validate with users. We conduct testing sessions where inspectors, engineers, and operators use the standardized nomenclature to record actual work. Do they understand the terms? Can they consistently apply them? Does the standardization slow them down or speed them up? Third, we validate the data itself. We run quality checks to ensure consistency. We look for patterns that suggest ongoing confusion or misclassification. We compare data from different facilities to ensure they're truly comparable. If we find issues during validation, we iterate. Maybe a category is too broad and needs to be subdivided. Maybe two categories are too similar and should be merged. Maybe we need to add clearer definitions or examples to help users distinguish between similar terms.
‍

5. Stakeholder Agreement

Before moving to enterprise-wide implementation, all stakeholders must agree on the refined and normalized data standards. This alignment is critical for successful rollout.

This isn't a rubber-stamp process. Stakeholders need to understand what they're agreeing to and why it matters. We typically present:

• The finalized nomenclature standards
• Examples of how they'll be applied
• Training materials that explain the standards
• Sample reports showing how normalized data enables better decision-making
• A governance plan for maintaining standards going forward

Getting agreement also means getting commitment. Stakeholders need to commit to using the standardized nomenclature, training their teams on it, and maintaining consistency over time. Without this commitment, normalization fails—not because the standards are wrong, but because they're not consistently applied. We also establish a process for handling edge cases and proposing changes. No nomenclature will be perfect forever. As your operations evolve, you may need new categories or refinements to existing ones. The governance process ensures these changes are made thoughtfully and consistently across the enterprise.
‍

6. Documentation and Training

Before enterprise rollout, we create comprehensive documentation and training materials based on the normalized standards established during the pilot. This includes:

• Data dictionaries that define every nomenclature category with examples
• Quick reference guides for field users who need fast answers
• Training modules customized for different roles
• Data entry guidelines that explain how to classify edge cases
• Quality control checklists to ensure ongoing consistency

We've learned that training is just as important as the technical implementation. You can have perfect nomenclature standards, but if users don't understand them or don't use them consistently, normalization fails. The documentation created during the pilot becomes the foundation for training at all subsequent facilities during enterprise rollout. Because it's based on real-world testing and refinement, it addresses the actual questions and challenges users will face.

‍

Common Pitfalls We Help You Avoid

Through years of experience, we've seen organizations make the same mistakes when it comes to data normalization. Here are the pitfalls we help you avoid:
‍

Pitfall 1: Skipping the Pilot

The Mistake: Organizations eager to modernize try to roll out enterprise-wide immediately, thinking they can standardize as they go.

Why It Fails: Without a pilot, you're essentially experimenting on your entire organization simultaneously. When problems arise—and they will—they affect everyone at once. You have no baseline for comparison, no lessons learned to guide you, and no proof of concept to justify continued investment.

Our Approach: We insist on pilots because we've seen the alternative fail too many times. The few months invested in a proper pilot save years of problems and rework.
‍

Pitfall 2: Normalizing in Isolation

The Mistake: The IT department or a single subject matter expert creates nomenclature standards without input from across the organization.

Why It Fails: Standards created in isolation don't reflect operational reality. They might be theoretically correct but practically unusable. More importantly, when users don't have input into standards, they don't buy into them, leading to resistance and inconsistent application.

Our Approach: We facilitate collaborative normalization sessions that include representatives from all affected groups. This ensures standards are both technically sound and operationally practical.

Pitfall 3: Over-Standardizing

The Mistake: Creating hundreds of hyper-specific categories in an attempt to capture every possible variation.

Why It Fails: Too many categories overwhelm users and defeat the purpose of standardization. When faced with 50 different equipment type options, users either select randomly or default to "Other," rendering your normalization useless.

Our Approach: We help you find the right level of granularity—specific enough to be meaningful for analysis, but broad enough to be manageable and consistently applied.

Pitfall 4: Under-Standardizing

The Mistake: Creating only a handful of broad categories to keep things simple.

Why It Fails: Overly broad categories don't provide enough specificity for meaningful analysis. If everything is a "vessel," you can't distinguish between pressure vessels that require rigorous inspection and atmospheric tanks that don't.

Our Approach: We balance simplicity with specificity, creating categories that support your business needs without creating unnecessary complexity.
‍

Pitfall 5: Ignoring Legacy Data

The Mistake: Implementing new nomenclature standards without a plan for historical data, assuming you'll start fresh.

Why It Fails: Your historical data contains valuable information about asset condition trends, maintenance history, and failure patterns. If you can't connect new data to historical data because nomenclature doesn't match, you lose this institutional knowledge.

Our Approach: We develop migration strategies that map historical data to new standards, preserving the continuity of your asset records while enabling the benefits of normalization.
‍

Pitfall 6: Treating Normalization as a One-Time Event

The Mistake: Thinking that once nomenclature is standardized, the work is done.

Why It Fails: Operations evolve. You acquire new facilities, adopt new technologies, and face new regulatory requirements. Without ongoing governance, nomenclature standards drift and inconsistency creeps back in.

Our Approach: We help you establish governance processes that maintain standards over time while allowing for thoughtful evolution as your needs change.
‍

Pitfall 7: Failing to Train Adequately

The Mistake: Assuming that once nomenclature is defined, users will naturally adopt it.

Why It Fails: People default to familiar habits. Without training and reinforcement, users will continue using their old terminology, either in free-text fields or by selecting the closest-seeming option even if it's not quite right.

Our Approach: We develop comprehensive training programs and job aids that make it easy for users to understand and apply standardized nomenclature consistently. Once we've successfully executed the pilots and all stakeholders are aligned on the normalized data standards, you're ready for the final stage: enterprise-wide implementation.

At this point, you have:

• A proven implementation methodology refined during the pilot
• Standardized nomenclatures agreed upon by all facilities
• Clear data collection parameters that ensure consistency
• Trained champions who can support deployment at other sites
• Realistic timelines and resource requirements based on pilot experience
• Confidence that the platform works in your real-world environment

Measuring Success

How do you know if your normalized data standards are working? We track several key indicators:

Data Quality Metrics:

• Percentage of records with complete, standardized data
• Frequency of "Other" or "Unknown" selections
• Rate of data corrections or rework
• Time required for data entry per record
  ‍

Reporting Effectiveness:

• Time to generate standard reports (should decrease dramatically)
• Frequency of report errors or inconsistencies
• User satisfaction with report accuracy and usefulness
• Number of ad-hoc report requests (should decrease as standard reports meet needs)
  ‍

Operational Efficiency:

• Time engineers spend searching for asset information
• Inspection planning cycle time
• Compliance report preparation time
• Cross-facility benchmarking capability
  ‍

User Adoption:

• System usage rates
• Training completion rates
• User satisfaction scores
• Support ticket volume and resolution time

Business Outcomes:

• Improved inspection targeting (finding more critical deficiencies)
• Better resource allocation across facilities
• Reduced compliance risk
• More accurate budget forecasts

These metrics tell us if normalization is delivering the promised value. If metrics don't improve, we investigate why and make adjustments.

‍

Long-Term Governance

Successful normalization doesn't end when enterprise rollout is complete. You need ongoing governance to maintain standards and evolve them as your organization changes.

Governance Structure: Establish a cross-functional governance team responsible for maintaining data standards. This team reviews proposed changes, resolves ambiguities, and ensures consistency as new requirements emerge. Change Management Process: Create a formal process for proposing and implementing changes to nomenclature. This ensures changes are thoughtful, well-documented, and consistently applied across the enterprise.

Periodic Review: Schedule annual or biannual reviews of nomenclature standards. Are there categories that are never used? Are there gaps that have emerged? Does anything need updating to reflect regulatory changes or operational evolution?

New Employee Onboarding: Ensure that data standards are part of new employee training. As your workforce turns over, maintaining knowledge of why standards exist and how to apply them is critical.
‍

Acquisition Integration: When you acquire new facilities, you need a process for integrating their data into your normalized structure. Sometimes this means migrating their historical data to your standards; sometimes it means adjusting your standards to accommodate unique aspects of the acquired facilities.

‍

‍

Ready to Start Your Journey?

If you're considering implementing a Mechanical Integrity platform across your organization, let's talk about starting with a pilot. We'll work with you to manage complexity, refine your processes, and—most importantly—normalize your data so that your enterprise-wide implementation delivers the results you need.

The pilot phase is where we turn data chaos into clarity. It's where inconsistent terminology becomes standardized nomenclature. And it's where we lay the groundwork for a system that will serve your organization for years to come.
‍

Want to learn more about our pilot process and how data normalization can set your implementation up for success? Contact us today at 832-205-8101 or visit www.visualaim.com to schedule a consultation with our team in Houston, Texas.

‍