What people ask before they call.

The language, the structure, and where it lives. Most of the systems we are handed are technically complete and functionally unreadable — written for an auditor and filed somewhere a supervisor will not go looking at 6 AM. We rewrite them around how a shift actually runs and put them where the crew already is.

We delete more than we write. That is usually the part clients find surprising.

Months, not weeks. And there is typically a stretch around month two where it annoys people — supervisors are being asked to change how they document work while still delivering production, and the new system is not yet paying them back for the effort.

We would rather tell you that now than have you find out after you have signed. Credibility comes from accurate expectations, not enthusiasm.

The integration work assumes it, and it is where the multi-site visibility and the API path for Construction Management Teams come from. If you are running something else, say so early and we will be straight with you about what carries over and what does not.

Being small is the reason the system works — you get the practitioner, not an account manager and a delivery team who have never been on your sites. Multi-site is the normal case here rather than the exception; most of our clients run crews across several projects for different owners at once.

Yes, and it is a byproduct rather than the objective. A system built so supervision can genuinely run it holds up under prequalification review, because the evidence is real rather than assembled the week before. If your only goal is a certificate there are cheaper ways to get one — they just will not change anything on site.

Scoped after we have seen the work and the existing system. A two-crew contractor and a firm running six sites for three owners are not the same engagement, and quoting before we have looked would mean padding it.

Both. Documents without the supervisory capability underneath them decay back to where they started inside a year. Building front-line capability is a named part of the work rather than an add-on at the end.

That is your call and we do not need it to be an either/or. If your current programme is getting used and your incident types are genuinely changing, keep them. We are usually called when the documents exist and nothing on site has moved.

Yes. Investigation and risk advisory is one of the four things we do. The difference is where it ends: an investigation that stops at “employee failed to follow procedure” produces a corrective action and no learning.

Talk to us. The firm is based in BC and that is where most of the work is, but the constraint is scheduling and site access rather than a line on a map.