When we began providing safety consulting and training in the late 1980s, very few companies had a safety manager, or even a safety program to manage.

They were just beginning to realize the enormous cost and risk of unsafe business practices, and that’s why they were seeking people like us to help them develop a systematic approach to safety.

Today, many medium-size and large companies not only have safety managers, they have safety committees and well-documented safety policies, procedures, and training requirements. There is always room for improvement, but they have developed legitimate, effective safety programs.

Now we’re recommending that companies begin to think of inspections and audits in the same way.

Where Is the Inspection Program?

In addition to safety programs, it’s become common to have compliance, quality control, and maintenance programs, headed by a specific manager. But you never hear about “inspection programs.”

Inspections and audits have a direct impact on safety, compliance, quality control, and maintenance, but they are still almost always incorporated into those programs rather than being considered a separate, distinct aspect of the business.

That is a mistake, because it leads to an ad-hoc, fragmented approach to inspections that costs companies a substantial amount of money.

Without a dedicated person to manage inspections (e.g., the safety manager) and a comprehensive inspection program that applies to all divisions, departments, locations, etc., a company has no consistency in:

• how inspections are conducted
• what is required to be inspected
• how (and when) results are communicated
• how the loop is closed between results and corrective actions
• how results are archived and reported.

This lack of consistency inevitably leads to many inefficiencies. Inspections are like any other part of a business—the higher the level of coordination, the higher the level of efficiency.

Lack of a formalized, effective system for communicating results and initiating action steps also increases costs and risk due to miscommunications and delayed reactions to results.

And the lack of a consistent program makes it difficult—if not impossible—to use results in proactive ways, such as preventative maintenance, scheduling, or, and training.

Moving Toward Inspection Maturity

My belief is that widespread creation of formalized, comprehensive inspection programs isn’t that far off.  The business case for such an approach to inspections is simply too compelling to ignore, particularly with the development of technology such as The Checker Software, designed specifically for managing inspecting and auditing programs.

There will be resistance, of course, as there is any time a fundamental change is made in a business (regardless of whether the change is positive or not). For one thing, there must be an admission of the cost of not having an inspection program—an admission that may not be easy for some to make. To make the case that an inspection program will save money, the reality that the company has been wasting money has to be faced.

However, I’m optimistic that good business sense will win out, and that 20 years from now, inspection programs will be as common as safety programs have become.

Why wait, though? You can gain a competitive advantage now by beginning to think of your inspections and audits as a distinct part of your business and taking steps to develop a mature, consistent, and comprehensive inspection program.

Takeaway

A consistent, company-wide inspection program—as opposed to an informal, ad-hoc approach to inspections and audits—will reduce inefficiencies and minimize risk. Software specifically designed for inspection management can help greatly in the creation of the program.