Explore the situations organisations bring to IGX, and see how to get to the outcome you want: better performance, resilience, compliance, automation and AI.
In your words: “We do not know how work really happens”
A governed, connected view of how work runs gives every team the same starting point. It replaces individual descriptions with one baseline that can be queried, owned and kept current.
In your words: “Our process knowledge is fragmented and untrusted”
Content held across Visio, SharePoint, SOPs and spreadsheets works as one source once versions, owners and dates are visible. Then people know which version is authoritative and who to ask.
In your words: “We cannot quickly see who owns a process, what it depends on or what a change will affect”
When processes, roles, systems, risks and controls sit in one connected model, basic questions take minutes instead of analyst-days. Ownership, dependencies and impact can be seen together.
In your words: “We think we are compliant but cannot prove it”
Traceability from obligation through process, owner, system, control and retained evidence lets you show how a duty is met, whenever you are asked.
In your words: “We do not know where operational failure will spread”
An end-to-end view of critical outcomes, dependencies, concentration, substitution, controls and recovery assumptions shows where resilience is strong and where to strengthen it.
In your words: “Work is managed through email, spreadsheets and chasing”
A digital workflow that follows the approved process makes status, responsibility and deadlines visible to everyone involved. Hand-offs stop depending on memory.
In your words: “Our documented process is not how the work actually gets done”
When the process model and daily execution are connected, the model stays useful and governance reflects real work. Approved workarounds become part of the design.
In your words: “We have dozens of improvement opportunities but no evidence for what to fix first”
Comparable evidence turns a long list of ideas into a ranked plan. Teams can set a baseline, agree what matters and show the value of each change.
In your words: “We need enterprise process management without building a large BPM team”
An accessible, governed and reusable service model combines process, insight and execution capability, so small teams reach enterprise-grade results.
In your words: “Too much of our consulting IP lives in individual consultants rather than a reusable operating model”
When consultant knowledge lives in a reusable operating model, it can be standardised, reused and built on. Each engagement starts from a proven method, not a blank page.
In your words: “Our AI pilots work, but they are not changing how the business operates”
Pilots deliver more when the work around them is redesigned. Defining purpose, authority, constraints, evidence, escalation and how to step back gives human, agentic and hybrid actors a clear operating model.
In your words: “We cannot decide where agents should act”
A shared method for choosing the right autonomy by capability replaces a yes or no debate with a clear, justified target for each one.
In your words: “If an AI agent makes a decision, we are unclear who is accountable”
Explicit delegation, constraints, escalation and evidence requirements make it clear what an agent may decide, when it must stop and who remains accountable.
In your words: “We want to introduce AI agents but do not know which processes are safe to hand over”
A staged transition turns a leap into controlled capability change, one capability at a time.
In your words: “Our systems tell us what happened, but not why the process failed or what to change”
When execution evidence is retained and connected, the organisation can see not just what happened but why, and what to change.
In your words: “Risks, controls, processes and obligations are disconnected”
A connected process-centric risk model shows which processes create each risk, which controls operate within them and where coverage can be strengthened.
In your words: “When regulations change, we cannot quickly identify every process, control, system and role affected”
Connected impact analysis identifies affected processes, systems, controls, roles and suppliers consistently, so implementation starts from a complete list.
In your words: “DORA evidence is fragmented across ICT, risk and operations”
Representing critical functions, ICT assets, third parties, risks, controls, incidents and testing evidence end to end gives one chain that supervisors and boards can follow.
In your words: “EU AI Act duties cannot be operationalised”
Connecting each AI system to its use, role, risk classification, human oversight, controls and evidence makes duties operational, not just documented.
In your words: “FDA QMSR changes expose process and evidence gaps”
Traceability from requirements through quality processes, controls, records, CAPA and accountable roles in one model shows how the quality system runs.
In your words: “EMA and EU medicines requirements are difficult to embed and evidence”
Connecting procedures, roles, systems, controls and inspection evidence across the medicinal-product lifecycle keeps them aligned as things change.
In your words: “Our governance says what should happen, but does not reliably control what people actually do”
Governance that changes tasks, decision thresholds, approvals, escalation and evidence capture is governance you can rely on in operation.
In your words: “We have invested in a process architecture, but most of its value is still locked in the repository”
Process content you already hold becomes far more valuable when anyone can interrogate, benchmark and assess it. The value is already there.
In your words: “Our process repository is not connected to how automated and AI-enabled work actually runs”
When the design system of record informs how automated work runs, logic is shared and controls stay consistent.
In your words: “We have automated individual workflows without understanding the end-to-end processes they belong to”
A common process architecture, ownership model, dependency view and control framework lets each automation fit the enterprise picture.
In your words: “Our processes still live in documents and people's heads, with no governed system of record”
A governed system of record and a controlled route from discovery to execution give every initiative the same starting foundation.
In your words: “We need to automate now without blocking our future use of AI agents”
Designing workflow and the target level of autonomy together creates value now and keeps a controlled path to greater autonomy.
In your words: “UK telecom security duties are not traceable through operations”
One operational view of security-critical functions, assessed risks, measures, permissions, dependencies and evidence makes duties traceable end to end.
In your words: “Critical-infrastructure cyber duties are separated from business services”
Connecting cyber risks, systems, suppliers, incidents and controls to the processes that deliver each essential service shows how duties support continuity.
In your words: “Safety-management systems do not reliably shape daily work”
When mitigations, competence, occurrence reporting and assurance are embedded in workflow, the safety-management system shapes daily work.
In your words: “Our shared-service processes are not standardised across business units, regions or clients”
A dependable standard process, with variation understood and justified, lets you govern and improve the service across every unit.
In your words: “End-to-end ownership is unclear between the retained organisation, shared service and BPO provider”
Ownership of the end-to-end outcome, with decision rights, controls, hand-offs and escalation defined across boundaries, keeps every party pulling the same way.
In your words: “Process knowledge, controls and accountability are lost during transition or migration”
A governed transition model preserves process context, exceptions, controls, dependencies and decision knowledge along with tasks and volumes.
In your words: “We meet the SLA but still cannot explain poor outcomes or customer experience”
Connecting service measures to the end-to-end process explains delay, rework and the customer's real outcome, not just whether a threshold was met.
In your words: “Continuous improvement and automation cannot be scaled consistently across services or clients”
A common process and insight foundation makes improvement comparable and reusable, with necessary variation kept.
In your words: “AI is entering service delivery faster than governance, commercial measures and accountability can adapt”
Defining authority, human oversight, evidence, pricing, service measures and responsibility for agent decisions coherently lets AI scale with confidence.
In your words: “Shared-service and BPO resilience, supplier concentration and failure dependencies are not visible”
Representing and testing the end-to-end concentration and dependencies behind each service as one operating model shows where resilience is strong.
In your words: “Our Integrated Management System doesn't reflect how the business actually operates”
A management system stays an accurate description of the operating model when it is tested against evidence of how work runs, and updated when the business changes.
In your words: “We're collecting the same information in forms, spreadsheets and systems, but nobody knows why”
Tracing what depends on each field turns forms and spreadsheets into a clear picture of what is needed, where it comes from and where it goes.
In your words: “We have hundreds of process maps but no map of how the organisation fits together”
A connecting layer of processes, owners, systems, information, risks and controls turns a folder of maps into an architecture.
No problems match this combination of filters yet.
Placing exposure and control effectiveness in the context of the work that creates the risk makes each risk assessable. A governed, connected and queryable view of the operating model supports that.
View this playA complete, current view of the dependencies behind each critical service, held in one place, supports resilience planning. It shows outcomes, dependencies, concentration, substitution, controls and recovery assumptions end to end.
View this playGovernance that alters tasks, approvals, thresholds, escalation and evidence is governance you can rely on. Traceability runs from obligation through process, owner, system, control, execution and retained evidence.
View this playWhen controls are traced from obligation through process, owner, system, execution and retained evidence, gaps are visible between reviews and evidence is always at hand.
View this playAffected processes, systems, controls, suppliers and roles are identified consistently, because each obligation is traced through process, owner, system, control, execution and retained evidence.
View this playCritical functions and their supporting dependencies traced in one evidence-backed model give supervisors and boards a chain they can follow, from obligation to retained evidence.
View this playOne view of AI purpose, role, classification, oversight, controls and evidence gives each AI system an accountable place in the operating model, with explicit authority, constraints and escalation.
View this playRequirement, process, control, record and CAPA traceability held in one model shows how the quality system runs, and where to strengthen it.
View this playRequirements, SOPs, processes, systems, controls and evidence stay aligned across the product lifecycle when they are traced from obligation through process to retained evidence.
View this playSecurity-critical functions, assessed risks, measures and evidence traced operationally show how each duty is met, from obligation to retained evidence.
View this playConnecting cyber frameworks to the services and processes they protect shows how technical controls support continuity, end to end.
View this playWhen mitigations and reporting paths are part of governed process and workflow, the formal SMS and safety-critical work stay aligned and evidenced.
View this playNIS outcomes, controls and improvement plans connected to service delivery and operational dependencies show how each duty supports the essential service.
View this playA governed end-to-end service model separates global standards from justified variation and links accountability to business outcomes, so the model operates as one enterprise capability.
View this playContracts, governance, controls, measures and accountability that evolve with the delivery model give providers and clients a shared, governed view of the service.
View this playYou want a shared, verified picture of how your processes work today.
When the current state is captured once and verified, every downstream decision, automation and audit starts from the same trusted picture. Improvement programmes fix the process that exists, and the fix holds.
You want your process content from Visio, SharePoint and SOPs in one place you can trust.
Content held across Visio, SharePoint and SOPs works as one source once versions, owners and dates are visible. Teams stop rebuilding locally, and every question has one place to start.
You want fast answers to basic questions: who owns this, what depends on it, what a change will affect.
When something changes or a regulator asks, the answer is ready in minutes. Decisions are made with dependencies in view, and change lands smoothly.
You want to show you are compliant, whenever you are asked.
When policies are linked to the processes and controls that enforce them, the answer to "are we compliant?" is standing evidence. Audit preparation shortens and findings become rarer.
You want to see where a risk has no control and where one dependency carries too much.
Structural risk is cheapest to find in the model. Mapping controls, dependencies and single points of failure lets you design resilience in, before production tests it.
You want improvements that hold, and a clear view of what to fix first.
Improvement programmes deliver more when they start from root causes and a measured baseline. Fixes hold, credibility grows and each initiative builds on the last.
You want to scale or transform processes you have validated first.
Validating a process before you scale it moves discovery into design, where it is quickest and cheapest. Downstream impacts are found before implementation, and the programme scales what works.
You want a number for what improving your processes is worth.
With a baseline you can justify the investment and measure the benefit once you make it. The opportunity becomes visible on the P&L, and finance can fund it.
You want your approved design and the way the process runs to agree.
When the approved design and the running process agree, automation and reporting are built on one version of the truth, and the approved model stays a living asset.
You want to adopt AI where it will pay off first.
AI lands when it starts from process knowledge you can stand behind. The assessment shows where AI will pay off first and what each step needs to succeed.
No results found.
Search is temporarily unavailable. Please try again shortly.
Start typing to search the whole site.
Required for the site to function. Always on.
Google Analytics, via Google Tag Manager. Helps us see which pages are useful.