Multi-site portfolios

One Operating View Across Every Building

Running forty buildings is not running one building forty times. It requires comparison, and comparison requires that everyone records the same things the same way.

Request a Demo See Dashboard & Analytics

The business problem

Every site reports differently, so nothing is comparable

Each building has its own spreadsheets, its own priority conventions and its own provider. Central management receives incompatible monthly reports, cannot say which site is worst, and finds that improvement in one building never transfers to the others.

Incompatible reporting formats between sitesPriority and SLA conventions varying locallyNo reliable basis for ranking site performanceLocal improvements never propagated

The IntelliGrid approach

Common definitions, local execution, central comparison

One hierarchy and one set of definitions apply across the portfolio, while local teams retain the operational autonomy they need. Central management then compares sites on a genuine like-for-like basis and can see where standards diverge.

Portfolio, region, site, building, floor and asset hierarchyCommon work types, priorities and SLA definitionsLocal operational autonomy within shared standardsLike-for-like benchmarking across sites

AI use cases

Portfolio risk ranking

Sites ordered by aggregate asset risk to direct engineering attention.

Outlier detection

Buildings consuming or failing well outside the portfolio norm.

Provider comparison

Contractor performance across multiple sites from one dataset.

Sustainability opportunities

Intensity benchmarking

Consumption per square metre and per occupant across the portfolio.

Retrofit prioritisation

Capital directed at buildings with measured worst performance.

Portfolio disclosure

Consolidated energy, water and emissions reporting.

Challenges

What makes this environment demanding

Benchmarking

Comparing buildings of different size, age and use fairly.

Central control

Consistent standards without removing local judgement.

Local teams

Site teams and providers with different practices and systems.

SLA comparison

Performance measured identically across sites and providers.

Asset exposure

Replacement and risk demand aggregated across the portfolio.

Energy

Consumption compared on a normalised intensity basis.

Risk concentration

Where the portfolio’s operational risk actually sits.

Contractor performance

Providers compared across the sites they serve.

Workflow

Portfolio management cycle

Standardise Operate locally Compare Target Improve Re-measure

Portfolio KPIs

Metrics reported by the platform. Values depend on your operation.

SLA by site

Comparable performance ranking

Risk concentration

High-risk assets by building

Energy intensity

Normalised consumption by building

Backlog by site

Open and overdue work

Business benefits

Genuine like-for-like comparison between buildings Risk and replacement exposure visible portfolio-wide Improvements in one site transferable to others Provider performance compared across sites Consolidated reporting without manual assembly