The choice of expert may be obvious; but is it?

We have learnt some very important lessons.

• the core dispute issue is usually not in the discipline first envisaged
• a technical expert can not necessarily express himself
• a technical expert is not necessarily able to conduct a robust investigation
• will the expert do the work or pass it to a junior? ('Supervision' may not be good enough.)

It is difficult to over emphasis these points; we have seen many cases crumble for these reasons.

Wide Experience and Adaptable Expertise

Increasingly, the core dispute issue is not in the discipline first envisaged. This points to the high value of Azteck's wide experience and ability to investigate scientific, engineering and technological phenomena.
Breadth of experience and adaptability leads to success.

• interpreting the core dispute issues
• formulating an investigation
• robust conduct of the investigation
  
  
• guiding each stage of the exploratory correspondence
• plain language presentation of science and engineering

"Azteck's inter-disciplinary expertise has been a vital factor for the successful outcome"

Remember, if your issue involves washing machines, it is more likely that you need an expert who understands bearings or electric wiring or degradation of rubber seals than a 'washing machine' expert.

Expertise with Investigation, ( details ).

Undiluted Expertise, ( details ).

Fields of Expertise, ( details ).