Each solution addresses a specific failure mode in how industrial organizations manage asset risk today — from inspection scheduling gaps to lifecycle cost blind spots.
Industrial organizations are drowning in asset data that does not connect. Inspection results sit in one system. Risk assessments live in spreadsheets maintained by individual engineers. Maintenance history is locked inside a CMMS that tracks work orders but has no concept of risk decisions. Compliance evidence is scattered across shared drives, email threads, and filing cabinets. When a regulator asks why a specific inspection interval was chosen for a specific piece of equipment, the answer requires hours of manual reconstruction — if it can be reconstructed at all.
The root cause is not a lack of data. It is a lack of governance. Most organizations have more inspection data than they can act on, but no system that connects a risk assessment to the inspection it triggered, to the finding that resulted, to the corrective action that closed the gap, to the evidence that proves it was done. CMMS systems were designed to manage work execution, not risk decisions. Spreadsheet-based risk matrices capture a snapshot in time but become stale within weeks. Calendar-based inspection schedules treat every asset the same regardless of its actual condition, wasting resources on low-risk equipment while high-risk assets degrade undetected between fixed intervals.
Reliatic exists to close this governance gap. The platform provides a single, auditable system where risk scoring drives inspection scheduling, inspection results update risk scores, and every decision along the way is recorded with full traceability. It is not a replacement for your CMMS or your document management system. It is the governed decision layer that sits between them — ensuring that the right equipment gets inspected at the right time, that every risk acceptance is documented and justified, and that compliance evidence is generated as a byproduct of doing the work rather than as a separate exercise conducted under audit pressure.
For integrity managers, inspection coordinators, and plant reliability engineers responsible for maintaining asset health under regulatory scrutiny.
API 580/581 risk assessment with quantitative PoF x CoF scoring. Calculate optimal inspection intervals by damage mechanism instead of relying on calendar-based schedules. The platform ranks every asset in your register by failure probability and consequence severity, then generates risk-driven inspection windows that satisfy regulatory requirements. For reliability engineers managing hundreds of pressure vessels, this means inspecting the right equipment at the right time — reducing unnecessary inspections on low-risk assets while ensuring high-risk equipment gets the attention it needs before degradation reaches a critical threshold.
Reliatic ingests your asset register and applies quantitative risk scoring based on API 580/581 methodology. Each asset is evaluated against its active damage mechanisms — corrosion under insulation, high-temperature hydrogen attack, stress corrosion cracking, and others — to calculate a probability of failure score from 1 to 5. Consequence is scored independently across safety, environmental, and production dimensions. The resulting risk matrix ranks your entire fleet, and the platform generates inspection windows calibrated to each asset's actual degradation trajectory rather than a fixed calendar interval. When new inspection data arrives, risk scores recalculate automatically, and assets that cross threshold boundaries trigger governance events requiring documented decisions.
For plant managers, integrity program leads, and operations directors who report on program health to regulators, insurers, and executive leadership.
Single view of your entire integrity program: overdue inspections, breached risk thresholds, expiring waivers, and open governance events across every facility. The dashboard surfaces program health KPIs — percentage of assets with current risk scores, average time to close findings, and overdue action rates — so management can identify systemic gaps before they become audit findings. Built for integrity managers who need to present program status to leadership without spending days compiling data from multiple systems. Every metric is traceable to its source records.
The dashboard aggregates data from every module in the platform — RBI assessments, inspection records, failure mode analyses, management-of-change decisions, and corrective actions — into a unified program health view. KPIs are calculated in real time from the underlying records, not from cached summaries or manual inputs. When an inspection is overdue, the dashboard does not just flag it — it shows which risk score is affected, which regulatory requirement is at stake, and who is responsible for closing the gap. Every chart, metric, and status indicator links directly to its source data, so when a regulator asks how you arrived at a number, the answer is one click away.
For asset owners, operations engineers, turnaround planners, and compliance officers managing physical assets under safety-critical regulations.
Full lifecycle governance from commissioning to decommission. Track every inspection, risk assessment, failure mode, and management-of-change decision with an immutable audit trail. The platform manages the complete asset lifecycle — from initial registration and baseline risk assessment through operational monitoring, turnaround planning, and eventual decommissioning. For operations teams at refineries and chemical plants, this eliminates the gap between your CMMS (which tracks what was done) and your regulatory obligation (which requires you to prove the right decisions were made by the right people).
Every asset enters the platform with a baseline profile: design data, operating conditions, material specifications, and applicable damage mechanisms. From that baseline, the system tracks every event that changes the asset's risk posture — inspections that confirm or update condition, failure mode analyses that identify new degradation pathways, management-of-change requests that alter operating parameters, and corrective actions that address identified gaps. Each event is recorded in an immutable audit log with cryptographic hash chaining, meaning no record can be altered or deleted after the fact. The result is a continuous, tamper-evident history that satisfies the most demanding regulatory evidence requirements — from API 510/570 to OSHA PSM to EU PED.
For VP of Operations, capital planning managers, and reliability directors making multi-million dollar maintenance and replacement investment decisions.
Monte Carlo simulation, lifecycle cost analysis, and sparing economics to turn reliability data into capital decisions. Model the financial impact of deferring maintenance versus replacing equipment now, calculate optimal spare part inventory levels with breakeven analysis, and compare reactive, preventive, and condition-based maintenance strategies side by side. For VP-level decision makers who need to justify capital expenditure with quantitative evidence, the output is an exportable cost comparison report with NPV calculations and risk-adjusted confidence bounds.
The financial optimization engine pulls reliability data — failure rates, mean time between failures, repair costs, production loss rates — directly from the platform's asset and inspection records. It then runs Monte Carlo simulations across thousands of failure scenarios to calculate the probability-weighted cost of each maintenance strategy. When comparing repair versus replacement, the model accounts for escalating failure rates as equipment ages, the diminishing reliability gains of repeated repairs, and the opportunity cost of production downtime. The output is not a single number but a distribution: the expected cost, the 90th percentile worst case, and the breakeven point where replacement becomes cheaper than continued repair. These results feed directly into capital planning workflows with exportable reports formatted for finance review.
Every integrity program follows the same fundamental loop: detect degradation, assess risk, plan intervention, execute maintenance, verify completion. The problem is not that organizations do not know this loop — it is that each step lives in a different system, managed by a different team, with no governed handoff between them.
An inspector records a thickness reading in a spreadsheet. A reliability engineer calculates remaining life in a different spreadsheet. A planning team schedules the turnaround in the CMMS. An operations manager approves the scope in email. A compliance officer reconstructs the decision chain months later from fragments scattered across four systems.
Reliatic collapses this into a single governed workflow. The thickness reading triggers a risk recalculation. The risk recalculation updates the inspection priority. The inspection priority generates a governance event with a recommended action. The action requires approval from a qualified engineer. The approval is recorded in an immutable audit trail. Every step is traceable, every handoff is enforced, and every decision is permanently recorded.
This is not project management software with an industrial skin. It is a governance platform built by reliability engineers who understand that the gap between "we made the right decision" and "we can prove we made the right decision" is where regulatory exposure lives.
Most organizations fall somewhere between no system and a patchwork of disconnected tools. The gap between what you know about your assets and what you can prove to a regulator is where risk lives.
These are not four separate products bolted together. They are four perspectives on a single governed data model — and every connection between them is automatic.
Asset Integrity Management provides the data foundation. Every asset in the platform carries its complete profile — design data, operating conditions, inspection history, failure modes, and management-of-change records. This is the substrate that every other module reads from and writes to. When an inspection is recorded, the asset record updates. When a failure mode is identified, it links to the asset. When a management-of-change request modifies operating parameters, the change is recorded against the affected assets with full approval evidence.
Risk-Based Inspection consumes that foundation to generate prioritized inspection plans. RBI reads each asset's damage mechanisms, operating conditions, and inspection history to calculate quantitative risk scores. Those scores determine inspection intervals — not arbitrary calendar schedules, but evidence-based windows calibrated to each asset's actual degradation rate. When inspection results come back, they flow into the asset's integrity record and trigger automatic risk score recalculation. The loop is closed: inspection data updates risk, risk drives the next inspection.
The Operational Dashboard aggregates everything into program-level visibility. Instead of pulling data from multiple systems to build a status report, the dashboard reads directly from the governed data model. Overdue inspections, breached risk thresholds, open corrective actions, and pending management-of-change approvals are all visible in a single view. Every metric drills down to its source records. When leadership asks about program health, the answer is live — not a snapshot that was current three weeks ago.
Financial Optimization closes the loop by connecting reliability data to capital decisions. Failure rates, repair costs, and production loss data from the asset integrity module feed directly into lifecycle cost models. When a reliability engineer recommends replacing a heat exchanger instead of repairing it for the fourth time, the financial model provides the quantitative justification — NPV comparison, risk-adjusted confidence intervals, and breakeven analysis — in a format that capital planning committees can act on. The decision, once made, flows back into the asset record as a governed event.
These are not aspirational targets. They are measured outcomes from organizations that transitioned from calendar-based inspection programs and spreadsheet-based risk management to governed, risk-driven operations.
Quantitative PoF × CoF scoring replaces calendar-based schedules. Assets with active degradation mechanisms get inspected first — assets with no risk drivers get deferred with documented justification.
Pre-built regulatory report templates pull directly from live inspection records, risk assessments, and governance events — replacing manual data compilation.
Import your asset register, configure your risk matrix thresholds, and begin recording governed risk decisions within two to four weeks of platform onboarding.
Every risk assessment, inspection decision, management-of-change approval, and corrective action is recorded in an immutable, hash-chained audit log.
When your risk data lives in spreadsheets, your CMMS, and email threads, no one has the full picture. Reliatic connects risk scoring to inspection scheduling to compliance evidence — so every decision is traceable and every gap is visible.
Data lineage is not an abstract concept in asset integrity — it is a regulatory requirement. When a regulator asks why a pressure vessel was inspected on a five-year interval instead of three, the answer must trace from the risk assessment methodology to the specific damage mechanisms evaluated, to the inspection data that informed the probability of failure score, to the management approval that accepted the resulting risk level. If any link in that chain is missing or lives in a different system with no connection to the others, the organization cannot demonstrate that the decision was governed. Reliatic maintains that chain automatically as a byproduct of using the platform — not as a separate documentation exercise.
Traceability also matters for internal knowledge continuity. When a senior integrity engineer retires, the rationale behind every risk acceptance, every inspection interval extension, and every management-of-change approval must survive their departure. In spreadsheet-based programs, that institutional knowledge walks out the door. In Reliatic, every decision is recorded with its context, its evidence, and its approval chain — making the organization's integrity program resilient to personnel changes, organizational restructuring, and the passage of time.
This is what governed risk management means in practice: not just making decisions, but proving that the right decisions were made by the right people with the right information at the right time. The audit log is immutable. The evidence chain is unbroken. And the next auditor, regulator, or insurer who asks a question gets their answer in minutes, not weeks.
Common questions from integrity managers evaluating the platform.
Yes. Reliatic is designed for incremental adoption. Most organizations start with RBI because it delivers the most immediate, measurable value — transitioning from calendar-based to risk-based inspection scheduling. Once your RBI program is running, activating the Asset Integrity, Dashboard, or Financial Optimization modules is a configuration step, not a migration. Your existing asset data, risk scores, and inspection records carry forward automatically because all modules share the same data foundation.
Reliatic is not a CMMS replacement — it fills the governance gap that CMMS systems were never designed to address. Your CMMS tracks work orders, schedules, and maintenance execution. Reliatic tracks the risk decisions that determine what work should be done, when, and why. Integration is typically via API: inspection results from your CMMS feed into Reliatic to update risk scores, and Reliatic's risk-driven inspection recommendations can push back into your CMMS as planned work orders. We support integration with SAP PM, Maximo, Infor EAM, and others through our REST API.
The RBI module implements API 580/581 methodology with quantitative probability of failure and consequence of failure scoring. The Asset Integrity module supports compliance documentation for API 510, API 570, API 653, ASME PCC-3, OSHA PSM (29 CFR 1910.119), EPA RMP, EU Pressure Equipment Directive (PED), and ATEX. The FMEA workbench follows IEC 60812 methodology. Risk matrix configurations are customizable to match your organization's specific risk tolerance thresholds and regulatory requirements.
A typical deployment reaches first governance event within two to four weeks. Week one covers asset register import, user provisioning, and risk matrix configuration. Week two focuses on baseline risk assessments for your highest-priority assets. Weeks three and four extend coverage to your full asset fleet and configure automated workflows. Full platform adoption — including Financial Optimization modeling and custom compliance report templates — typically completes within eight to twelve weeks. We do not require a multi-month implementation project before you see value.
No. You can import assets incrementally — starting with a single facility, a single asset class, or even a handful of critical equipment items. The platform does not require a complete asset register to function. Many organizations begin with their pressure vessels or rotating equipment (where regulatory requirements are most demanding), then expand to piping circuits, storage tanks, and structural assets over subsequent months. Data import supports CSV upload, API ingestion, and direct integration with common CMMS export formats.
Your data remains yours. Upon cancellation, we provide a complete data export in standard formats (CSV, JSON, and PDF for compliance reports) within 30 days. The export includes every asset record, risk assessment, inspection finding, governance event, and audit log entry created during your subscription. After the export period, all data is permanently deleted from our infrastructure in compliance with your data retention requirements. We do not hold data hostage and we do not charge for exports.
The platform that works for your first facility works for your fiftieth. No re-architecture, no migration, no second system.
Same platform, same governance rules, same audit trail. No architectural cliff when your program grows. Risk scoring, inspection scheduling, and compliance reporting scale linearly — your ten-thousandth asset gets the same governed treatment as your first.
Each facility gets its own asset registry, damage mechanism library, and risk matrices. Cross-facility reporting at the organizational level. Tenant-isolated multi-tenancy means each site operates independently while leadership sees the consolidated picture.
Start with API 580/581 for your refinery. Add NORSOK Z-008 for your offshore platforms. Add FDA 21 CFR Part 11 for your pharmaceutical operations. The compliance engine supports them all simultaneously — each facility configured to its regulatory reality.
See how Reliatic connects risk scoring, inspection scheduling, and compliance evidence into a single governed platform. No commitment required.