IT Network Infrastructure & Connectivity Audit Form

Important Note: This analysis provides strategic insights to help you get the most from your form's submission data for powerful follow-up actions and better outcomes. Please remove this content before publishing the form to the public.

Overall Form Strengths

This IT Network Infrastructure & Connectivity Audit Form is a comprehensive, multi-layered assessment tool that excels in capturing both physical and logical network characteristics. The form's greatest strength lies in its systematic approach to diagnosing network issues, starting from the physical cabling layer and progressing through data-link, network, wireless, security, and operational governance. The structure effectively addresses the three primary use cases mentioned: performance bottlenecks, office relocations, and high-density wireless upgrades.

The form demonstrates exceptional technical depth while maintaining user-friendly navigation through well-organized sections. Each section begins with contextual paragraphs that explain the importance of that layer, helping users understand why certain information is being collected. This educational approach increases the likelihood of accurate responses and helps users identify issues they might otherwise overlook.

Question Analysis: Company/Entity Name

Company/Entity Name serves as the fundamental identifier for audit tracking and reporting purposes. This question establishes the organizational context for all subsequent technical data, enabling proper documentation trail for compliance, billing, and project management. The field's placement at the beginning of the form creates immediate accountability and ensures that all collected data can be properly attributed to the correct entity throughout the audit process.

The open-ended text format with a placeholder example demonstrates excellent UX design by providing format guidance without being restrictive. This approach accommodates various business entity types (LLC, Inc., Ltd., etc.) while maintaining consistency. The mandatory status is appropriate as anonymous audits would compromise the ability to provide actionable recommendations and track remediation progress.

From a data collection perspective, this field enables proper audit trail creation, supports compliance requirements, and facilitates the generation of customized reports. The information collected here will be used throughout the engagement lifecycle, from initial assessment through final recommendations and follow-up activities.

Question Analysis: Primary driver for this audit

Primary driver for this audit functions as the strategic compass for the entire assessment process. By identifying whether the organization faces performance degradation, planning an office move, upgrading wireless infrastructure, or addressing compliance requirements, this question enables auditors to prioritize their analysis and focus on the most critical areas. The single-choice format with an "Other" option provides structured data while accommodating unique circumstances.

The follow-up mechanism for "Other" responses using a multiline text field demonstrates sophisticated form design that captures additional context without cluttering the primary interface. This approach ensures that auditors receive specific details about unusual drivers while maintaining clean data for statistical analysis. The mandatory nature is crucial as without understanding the primary motivation, the audit cannot be properly scoped or prioritized.

This question directly impacts the audit methodology by determining which sections receive deeper scrutiny. For performance issues, the switching and routing sections become critical; for office moves, the physical layer and wireless sections gain importance; for compliance drivers, security and documentation sections take precedence. This contextual intelligence enables more efficient and targeted audits.

Question Analysis: Estimated number of on-site users during peak hours

Estimated number of on-site users during peak hours provides essential capacity planning data that directly influences infrastructure recommendations. This numeric input enables auditors to calculate user-to-infrastructure ratios, identify potential oversubscription issues, and recommend appropriate scaling strategies. The peak hours specification ensures that the audit addresses worst-case scenarios rather than average usage patterns.

The numeric field type with an example placeholder helps users provide accurate estimates while preventing text-based responses that would require manual interpretation. This data point becomes particularly critical when evaluating wireless density, switch port utilization, and bandwidth requirements. The mandatory status ensures that capacity analysis can be performed without making potentially incorrect assumptions about user volumes.

From a network design perspective, this information enables calculation of critical metrics such as AP density per user, switch port utilization rates, and bandwidth allocation per user. It also helps identify whether reported performance issues correlate with user density, potentially revealing oversubscription problems that require infrastructure upgrades or architectural changes.

Question Analysis: Estimated number of concurrent wireless devices

Estimated number of concurrent wireless devices captures the total device ecosystem that extends beyond traditional user counts. In modern environments where each user typically carries 2-3 devices (laptop, phone, tablet) plus IoT devices, this metric provides crucial density calculations for wireless infrastructure assessment. The distinction between users and devices acknowledges the reality of multi-device environments and IoT proliferation.

The numeric format with example guidance helps organizations account for all connected devices, including often-overlooked IoT sensors, smart TVs, wireless presentation systems, and guest devices. This comprehensive count is essential for evaluating whether current wireless infrastructure can handle device density, particularly important for high-density Wi-Fi upgrade scenarios. The mandatory status prevents incomplete assessments that might miss critical density-related performance issues.

This data point enables calculation of device-to-AP ratios, channel utilization analysis, and bandwidth provisioning assessments. It helps identify whether performance issues stem from device oversubscription rather than simple user count problems, leading to more accurate recommendations for wireless upgrades or architectural changes.

Question Analysis: Number of managed switches (Layer-2+ Layer-3)

Number of managed switches (Layer-2+ Layer-3) provides immediate insight into network complexity and management overhead. This single metric helps auditors understand the scale of infrastructure they are assessing and estimate the effort required for configuration review and optimization. The distinction between managed switches and unmanaged hubs or switches indicates the level of network sophistication and available management features.

The numeric format ensures consistent data collection across organizations of different sizes, from small businesses with a few switches to enterprises with hundreds of distributed switches. This count directly impacts audit timeline estimation, tool selection, and analysis methodology. The mandatory status prevents incomplete assessments that could miss significant portions of the network infrastructure.

This information enables calculation of important ratios such as users-per-switch, APs-per-switch, and switch density per floor or building. It helps identify whether performance issues relate to switch oversubscription or if there are opportunities for switch consolidation or redistribution to improve performance and manageability.

Question Analysis: Total access-point count

Total access-point count establishes the baseline for wireless infrastructure assessment and enables calculation of critical density metrics. This straightforward count provides immediate insight into the scale of wireless deployment and helps auditors determine whether current AP quantities align with coverage and capacity requirements. The numeric format eliminates ambiguity and enables mathematical analysis of wireless density.

The mandatory nature ensures that wireless assessments can be properly scoped and that recommendations for high-density upgrades are based on actual infrastructure quantities rather than estimates. This count becomes particularly important when evaluating AP-to-user and AP-to-device ratios, helping identify whether wireless issues stem from insufficient AP density or configuration problems.

This data point enables calculation of wireless coverage density, channel planning feasibility, and roaming characteristics. It helps determine whether current AP placement follows best practices for the identified use case (performance troubleshooting vs. high-density upgrade) and whether additional APs are needed to meet service level requirements.

Question Analysis: I confirm the information provided is accurate to the best of my knowledge

I confirm the information provided is accurate to the best of my knowledge serves as a critical accountability and liability mechanism that protects both the auditing organization and the client. This checkbox requirement creates a formal attestation that the information provided is truthful and complete, establishing legal and professional accountability for the data quality. The mandatory status is essential for maintaining audit integrity and ensuring that recommendations are based on validated information.

The checkbox format provides a clear, unambiguous confirmation that can be legally documented, while the specific wording "to the best of my knowledge" provides reasonable protection for the respondent regarding information they might not have complete visibility into. This approach balances accountability with practical recognition that some network details might be unknown to the person completing the form.

From a compliance and quality assurance perspective, this confirmation enables auditors to proceed with confidence that their analysis and recommendations are based on accurate data. It also creates a feedback loop that encourages careful review of all responses before submission, improving overall data quality and reducing the likelihood of costly errors in audit recommendations.

Important Note: This analysis provides strategic insights to help you get the most from your form's submission data for powerful follow-up actions and better outcomes. Please remove this content before publishing the form to the public.

Mandatory Field Analysis

Company/Entity Name
This field is absolutely critical for establishing audit accountability and creating a proper paper trail for all subsequent recommendations. Without a clearly identified entity, the audit cannot be properly documented, tracked, or referenced in future discussions, making it impossible to maintain continuity across the assessment and remediation phases. The mandatory status ensures that all collected data can be properly attributed and that legal and compliance requirements for documentation are met throughout the engagement.

Primary driver for this audit
The audit driver is fundamental to scoping the assessment appropriately and prioritizing analysis efforts based on the specific business need. Without understanding whether the organization faces performance issues, planning a move, or upgrading wireless infrastructure, auditors cannot focus on the most relevant areas or provide targeted recommendations. This mandatory field ensures that the audit delivers actionable insights aligned with the organization's primary concern rather than providing generic observations.

Estimated number of on-site users during peak hours
User count data is essential for capacity analysis and infrastructure sizing recommendations, making it impossible to assess whether performance issues relate to oversubscription without this baseline metric. The mandatory status ensures that auditors can calculate critical ratios such as users-per-switch and users-per-AP, enabling data-driven recommendations rather than assumptions. This information directly impacts the accuracy of all subsequent infrastructure recommendations and cost estimates.

Estimated number of concurrent wireless devices
Device count has become more critical than user count in modern network assessments due to the proliferation of IoT and multi-device environments, making this metric essential for accurate wireless density calculations. The mandatory requirement ensures that auditors can evaluate whether wireless infrastructure meets current density requirements and identify if high-density upgrade needs are driven by device oversubscription. Without this data, wireless recommendations would be based on incomplete information that could lead to continued performance issues post-upgrade.

Number of managed switches (Layer-2+ Layer-3)
Switch count provides the fundamental infrastructure scale metric that determines audit complexity and resource allocation, making it impossible to properly scope the assessment without this baseline information. The mandatory status ensures that auditors understand the management overhead and complexity they will encounter, enabling appropriate tool selection and timeline estimation. This count directly impacts the feasibility of configuration reviews and the identification of potential single points of failure in the switching infrastructure.

Total access-point count
AP count is the foundational metric for all wireless infrastructure assessments, particularly critical for high-density upgrade scenarios where device-to-AP ratios determine success criteria. The mandatory requirement ensures that wireless recommendations are based on actual infrastructure quantities rather than estimates, preventing under or over-provisioning in upgrade plans. Without accurate AP counts, density calculations and coverage analysis would be compromised, potentially leading to continued wireless performance issues.

I confirm the information provided is accurate to the best of my knowledge
This attestation checkbox is mandatory to establish legal accountability and ensure data quality throughout the audit process, protecting both the auditing firm and the client from liability issues. The confirmation creates a formal record that the respondent has reviewed all information for accuracy, reducing the likelihood of costly errors in recommendations based on incorrect data. The mandatory status is essential for maintaining professional standards and ensuring that the audit can be relied upon for compliance and remediation planning purposes.

Overall Mandatory Field Strategy Recommendation

The current mandatory field strategy demonstrates excellent balance between collecting essential data and minimizing user burden, with only 7 out of 80+ fields requiring completion. This approach ensures critical baseline information is captured while allowing users to provide additional details at their discretion, significantly improving form completion rates compared to more aggressive mandatory strategies. The selected mandatory fields represent the minimum dataset required for meaningful analysis without compromising the depth of insights that can be generated.

Consider implementing conditional mandatory logic for follow-up questions where appropriate, such as making the "Other driver description" mandatory when "Other" is selected for the primary audit driver. Additionally, evaluate whether certain optional fields in critical sections like security and business continuity should become conditionally mandatory based on the primary audit driver—for example, making WAN diversity strategy mandatory when the driver is "Performance degradation" to ensure redundancy issues are captured. This refined approach would maintain the form's user-friendly completion characteristics while ensuring that audit depth aligns with the identified business need.