Case studies
The systems were working. That was not the question.
Temspec Inc. and Goodkey, Weedmark & Associates, a division of Englobe, both had an experienced managed service provider already in place, and systems that were running normally. What neither leadership team had was an independent answer.
The clients
Two established Canadian firms. Each already had an IT provider.
Temspec Inc.
HVAC equipment manufacturer, established 1971. Canada.
Asked for an independent assessment of overall technology risk.
Existing provider retainedRead the case studyCase study 02
Goodkey, Weedmark & Associates Limited
Mechanical and electrical engineering consulting, more than 65 years. A division of Englobe. Canada.
Asked for independent assurance that the technology was supporting the business securely.
Existing provider retainedRead the case studyTemspec Inc.
Risks the day-to-day management had not surfaced.
Systems were operating, tickets were being resolved and users were being supported. From the outside, everything appeared healthy. Leadership was explicit that what it wanted was not an assessment of the provider.
- Sector
- Manufacturing, HVAC equipment
- Established
- 1971
- Region
- Canada
- IT arrangement
- Established managed service provider
- The ask
- An independent assessment of overall technology risk
- Additional scope
- Risk management and operational maturity
- Existing provider
- Retained
What the review found
The environment was generally well maintained. The review still identified several significant risks that had not previously been identified or addressed, including gaps in security and governance that raised business risk while day-to-day operations continued normally.
None of them were the result of negligence. They are what happens when the organization that operates the technology is also the organization expected to assess its own work.
What was delivered
“The review gave us an objective perspective we simply weren’t getting anywhere else. It wasn’t about criticizing our IT provider; it was about helping us better understand our technology risks so we could make informed business decisions.”
Goodkey, Weedmark & Associates Limited
A firm whose own profession is built on independent review.
Project documentation, engineering software, building models, financial systems and client communications all run through technology, and every one of them affects whether a project is delivered on time and whether intellectual property stays protected. Leadership was not looking for another provider. It wanted independent assurance.
- Sector
- Mechanical and electrical engineering consultancy
- Established
- More than 65 years
- Part of
- Englobe
- Region
- Canada
- IT arrangement
- Experienced managed service provider
- The ask
- Independent assurance that the technology was supporting the business securely
- Additional scope
- Infrastructure resilience, documentation maturity, technology leadership
- Existing provider
- Retained
What the review found
The review identified several opportunities to strengthen the organization’s technology posture, across security, governance, operational resilience and technology management.
None of it indicated that technology was being poorly managed. It reflected the difference between operating technology and independently evaluating it.
What was delivered
“The Actually Review provided a level of strategic insight that went beyond day-to-day IT support. It gave our leadership team an independent perspective on technology risk and a clear roadmap for strengthening our environment.”
What both reviews had in common
Neither review began with a problem.
In both cases the technology was being managed, the tickets were being closed and the reporting looked fine. Neither leadership team was shopping for a new provider. Both wanted an independent view of the risk the business was carrying.
Rather than asking whether the systems were working, both reviews asked a different question: what is the business carrying if something goes wrong tomorrow?
Ground covered in both reviews
Each review also covered ground specific to that business, recorded with the engagement above.
The outcome in both cases
Neither review replaced a provider. Both changed what leadership knew.
In both engagements the recommendation was not to change providers. It was to give the existing relationship clearer expectations, and to give leadership independent information about what was actually in place. More on what independence means, and what we are not.
What we publish about an engagement.We describe engagements in general terms only. We do not publish findings, configurations, evidence, or any detail that could identify a weakness in a client’s environment. A client is named only where that client has approved the use of its name in writing, a client quotation appears only where the quotation has been approved in writing, and each mark shown here remains the property of its owner.