Characteristic |
Issue |
Mix of internal and multiple third-party consultants perform inspections in the field. |
The skill and experience of a changing set of inspectors will have a wide variance and each should have authenticated access to rapidly deliver their results into a central repository. |
Most inspection results are captured on paper-based forms. |
Critical inspection data captured on paper is susceptible to errors, and paper based results have non-obvious costs to process, make copies, archive and retrieve. Also, no opportunity for real-time feedback to the inspector. |
Limited means to auto-validate forms for completeness and correctness at the point of data collection. |
Incomplete or inaccurate inspection results have the potential to represent safety hazards. |
Limited ability for teams in different locations to collaborate on the design of forms, including the values defining valid input. |
The better subject matter experts are able to contribute to the design of inspection forms, the higher is the quality of the forms, leading to higher quality inspections and thus safer communities. Mitigates the risk of varied experience levels of third-party inspectors. |
Limited ability to chart trends and detect anomalies from collected data. |
The capability to monitor selective aspects of inspection results over time can be used to improve business processes as well as provide a means to detect anomalies that could represent fraud or security threats. |
