The fourth descriptive report in this series is the inspection report. While inspection reports are similar to investigation reports and incident reports in that they are based on verifiable evidence (pardon the necessary redundancy), they differ in two critical ways: their findings and their consequences.
Findings. Inspection reports document inspectors' examinations of materials, equipment, grounds, or structures based on indisputable standards. For examples, an inspection report may state that 7% of 100,000 pairs of latex gloves in a shipment have perforations, or a compressor in an enclosed packaging facility runs at 125 dB, or refuse from two overturned trashcans were strewn across a lawn of a corporate park, or the foundation at the northwest corner of an office building has spalling running 2 meters long by 12 millimeters wide.
On the other hand, investigation reports and incident reports may cover human conduct that is subject to dispute by opposing parties. An investigation of sexual harassment may have only two witnesses to the allegation: the complainant and the accused, both of whom offer different accounts of what occurred. The same holds true for an incident report of a hallway fire, as two witnesses may claim it started at different times, resulted from different causes, and reached different levels of severity.
Consequences. Inspection reports require responsible parties to correct noncompliant conditions and to maintain compliant conditions. The manufacturer of those perforated gloves may be contractually required to replace them, the engineering department may need to create a sound buffer for that noisy compressor, the grounds crew may need to secure those trashcans that spilled refuse, and the building owner may need to solve the spalling problem.
In contrast, investigation and incident reports are after-the-fact historical records of events that may or not require remediation. In the case of an investigation report on a physical assault resulting in permanent bodily injury, the assailant may be incarcerated and the victim may be financially compensated, but these actions will not reverse the physical damage done. Likewise, an incident report on a fire that destroyed a packaging facility may reach a root cause but not undo the devastation.
Two Tips on Inspection Reports: Content and Structure
In terms of content, inspection reports should include the standard (e.g., any observed spalling requires remediation within 30 days of the report date), the source (e.g., Local Building Code 388.8), the finding (e.g., the foundation at the northwest corner of an office building has spalling running 2 meters long by 12 millimeters wide), and corrective action (e.g., repair spalling with Code-approved materials by December 1), and the follow-up (e.g., the inspector will reinspect for compliance within one month).
As for structure, inspectors should get away from their traditional chronological approach to inspection reports in favor of a hierarchical approach. This practice will immediately focus the reader on the point.
Do not write this:
The December 13 inspection found three safety hazards:
- Flammable paint cans stored on the ground floor hallway.
- A missing doorknob on the third-floor rear emergency exit door.
- A skid of cartons blocking the west walkway.
The building owner must correct these problems by December 17.
Instead write this:
As a result of the December 13 inspection, the building owner must correct three safety hazards by December 17:
- Remove flammable paint cans stored on the ground floor hallway.
- Replace the missing doorknob on the third-floor rear emergency exit door.
- Remove the skid of cartons blocking the west walkway.
The inspector will return on December 17 to ensure the premises are free of safety hazards.
