METHOD

We collect documents, surveys, constraints, approvals, site conditions and sources. Every material fact must lead back to evidence, a check or an accountable person.

Why it matters: It distinguishes what we know from what still needs to be verified. Available documents and open questions become a shared framework.

Assumptions remain explicit. We compare scenarios by function, impact, phases, resources, indicative cost, maintenance, risk and missing data before selecting a direction.

Why it matters: It prevents a solution from being chosen too early. Options, consequences, dependencies, and missing data remain comparable.

At each step we identify the decision, who owns it, the criteria, timing and consequences. Specialist work begins only under a defined appointment.

Why it matters: It makes clear who decides, when, and on what basis. Every step remains connected to a concrete responsibility.

Initial frameworks, registers, maps, scenarios, minutes, matrices and dossiers may be produced as the mandate requires. Format and depth are agreed; no output is automatic.

Why it matters: It preserves sources, versions, and choices in a form that can be read and updated by new stakeholders as well.

We define the expected result, the scope, and the conditions that cannot be ignored.

We identify indicators, sources, and checks proportionate to the decision.

We compare scenarios while distinguishing data, assumptions, benefits, limits, and risks.

We make the responsible party, the criteria, and the operational consequences explicit.

We organize deliverables, sources, revisions, and decisions in an updatable dossier.

We assign activities and checks to the parties actually appointed.