You know how a global programme is one programme in the deck and five different operating models on the ground, so no two regions report the same thing and nobody can tell you which sites are actually behind.
Every region has its own partners, its own templates and its own version of the truth.
A standard that holds in one country quietly drifts in the next, and nobody sees it until handover.
Consolidating a global status takes a fortnight of chasing, and it is out of date by the time it lands.
We run one governance layer across every region: one set of SOPs applied the same way in each country, one reporting shape every site fills in, and one accountable team rather than a different partner per geography.
One operating model, every country
A single set of SOPs, templates and acceptance criteria applied in each region, so the standard signed in one country is the standard delivered in the rest.
One weekly view across regions
Site-by-site status in the same shape everywhere, comparable between countries, built from what partners are actually doing rather than what they reported.
One team, not a partner per region
The people who ran a 102-building, 64-country programme for one of the world's largest technology companies, working as one global team with named owners you can ring.
One region first
Fixed scope, existing MSA, no new legal cycle. We prove the model in one region, then it earns the rest on its own merits.
So that the programme runs the same way everywhere, a global status takes ten minutes rather than a fortnight, and the postmortem, if there is one, has a named owner that isn't only you.
64
Countries run on one set of standards
Forensic governance ends with evidence you hold, not a verbal assurance.
A site-by-site status record built from source, not from integrator self-reporting
A written RACI naming who owns every handoff between contractors
A standing risk and change register your delivery lead can hand to anyone
Fifteen minutes on a call is usually enough for both of us to know whether this is a job for MCMS.
Run by our project management and security design teams, with vendor management alongside on the supply side, distribution management getting kit to each site on time, and our training team handling familiarisation for site staff at handover.
Independent review
You know how you're asked to sign off a project record you didn't build and can't fully verify.
Data
You know how you collect data in multiple places and multiple documents, so nobody can give leadership a straight answer.
Contract and vendor performance
You know how you have fixed rates with your vendors, but no mechanism that actually checks what you're invoiced against them.