You do not touch the invoices. You still need to know what they say.
Asset owners who outsource facilities management do not generate their own spend and maintenance data. They receive it, filtered through whichever provider delivers the contract. Pearstop gives you an independent, classified version of that same data, structured well enough to compare providers, sites, and years on the same basis.
You get the provider's report. You do not get an independent one.
We've got all this information, but what are we using it for? No one's ever really looked at it before and gone, how good is this, and could we be improving on it.
Property investors, landlords, and public estate owners who outsource facilities management do not generate their own spend and maintenance data. They receive it, filtered through whichever provider delivers the contract. That arrangement holds up fine until someone asks the simple question underneath it: is this competitive, and how would we know if it was not.
- Cost and maintenance data arrives already filtered through the provider's own systems and naming conventions
- Equipment and manufacturer records vary site to site, so comparing one provider or site against another is not possible on the data as received
- No independent way to check whether the numbers you are given are competitive
- Reviewing a provider's own reporting after the fact is not the same as holding a comparable record of your own
From fragmented registers to a trusted asset database
Data Consolidation
Asset data from any source, whichever provider supplies it, spreadsheets, ERP systems, legacy CMMS, site surveys, ingested in any format and mapped to a unified schema.
Standardisation and Enrichment
Naming conventions standardised, duplicates resolved, field mismatches corrected, and missing values filled from reference data so the same asset looks the same everywhere.
Linked and Analysis-Ready
The cleaned register is linked to maintenance records and cost data where available, creating an asset intelligence layer that supports planned maintenance, lifecycle analysis, and provider review.
What becomes possible with clean asset data
Predictive Maintenance
Cross-Site and Cross-Provider Benchmarking
Risk Management
“We want to control the story, the narrative, from our side.”
How does poor asset data quality affect maintenance planning, FM contract performance, and asset owner assurance?
Asset data quality problems in facilities management typically start the same way: registers and cost reports built for whoever runs day to day operations, not for the owner trying to check them. Spelling variations across manufacturers, equipment crammed into single fields, and reporting formats that differ by provider or site mean the data cannot be compared, benchmarked, or verified independently. Pearstop standardises naming conventions, resolves field mismatches, and consolidates records from multiple source systems and providers, giving asset owners and FM operators alike a clean, comparable dataset that supports planned maintenance, lifecycle tracking, and an independent basis for reviewing a provider's own numbers.
Frequently asked
We do not manage the FM contract directly. Can Pearstop still help?
Yes. Pearstop works from whatever cost and asset data you already receive from your provider, structuring it into an independent, classified record rather than requiring you to run the contract yourself.
Can we benchmark one provider or site against another?
Yes. Once asset and cost data is standardised to the same format, comparing providers, sites, or portfolios on the same basis becomes possible, which it is not when each arrives in its own naming convention and structure.
Ready to hold an independent view of your own?
Talk to sales and see exactly how Pearstop turns the data you already receive into something you can verify.
