Current-State Review
A current-state review of stalled work, records, stakeholders, site limits, safety needs, and process constraints.
All case studies
Documented project | Federal Field Operations | Build Planning
Federal Secure-Site Build Planning
A federal field operation needed a better way to identify, control, and move physical inventory at a constrained site. Sustainable Gaps founder Erik Herring connected source records, custody requirements, stakeholder input, and site limits in a proof of concept that supported initial funding and an expanded build direction.
- Initial decision
- Concept funded
- Follow-on direction
- Scope expanded
- Decision package
- 4 work products
The needs assessment and proof of concept gave decision-makers a practical basis for funding the first build.
The supported concept created a clear basis for authorizing a larger operating build.
Current-state review, proof-of-concept plan, stakeholder brief, and site operating concept.
Deliverables
What the work produced.
Proof-of-Concept Plan
A plain-language plan connecting the visible condition, responsibilities, decision path, and site-control concept.
Stakeholder Brief
A concise meeting path that put leadership, advisors, and operational coordination into one working sequence.
Site Operating Concept
A physical-flow view of the site, including controlled placement, review points, secure handling, and scalable build logic.
Results and lessons
What the available record supports.
- An unclear field condition became a reviewable proof of concept with defined operating requirements.
- System limits were identified early, preventing the team from relying on an incomplete database answer.
- Physical site design and operating procedure were evaluated as one connected problem.
- Decision-makers received a supported plan that funded the initial concept and established the basis for a larger build.
The challenge
What made the work difficult.
Physical inventory was visible at the site, but the available records could not quickly establish what it was, who was responsible for the next decision, or how it should move. Leadership needed an evidence-based plan connecting records, site limits, security requirements, and the proposed build.
The site could hold the inventory, but the process could not explain it.
A secure field site was holding physical inventory that could not be identified, assigned, and moved from one reliable record. Source data, custody questions, physical constraints, and several stakeholder responsibilities intersected.
Leadership needed more than a request for additional space. It needed evidence showing the current condition, the operating risks, and the physical process a new site had to support.
Erik connected the records problem to the site design.
The review brought source records, custody questions, handling requirements, site limits, security needs, and stakeholder input into one operating model.
The proof of concept showed how the proposed site could support controlled receiving, review, placement, and release. Leadership gained a concrete basis for deciding what to build and why.
The approach
What was done next.
- 01
Establish the facts
The first pass documented what existed, where it was held, which records were available, and which responsibilities had to be resolved.
- 02
Confirm the system limits
The available system could not answer the operating questions through a single lookup, so the review returned to source records and responsible parties.
- 03
Connect process to site design
The review connected controlled movement, placement, handling needs, review points, and site renovation in one proof of concept.
- 04
Build the funding case
Stakeholders could evaluate what needed to change, why it mattered, what the first build would prove, and how an expanded build could follow.
Find the gap. Build the fix.
Could this experience help clarify a current situation?
Share one recent example from your organization. SG will determine which parts of this experience are relevant and explain whether an evaluation would be useful.