By 803056 
Date 07-04-2011 05:37
Edited 07-04-2011 16:26
I was taught that a technical report (or an inspection report in this case) should be written in the third person. To say it another way, the report is written as if it was written by someone other than the inspector.
The inspector is named in the report as are all the other key people. Once named, the report would read; "The inspector verified the welds conformed to the locations, sizes, and lengths specified by the drawings." or "The inspector, Sam Snicker, provided the fabricator, XYZ Steel Shelters, a copy of the inspection report prior to leaving the job site."
My reports can be divided into three sections. The first section is a listing of the client, the fabricator, their contact information, and other useful information about the project. The second section of the report is a tabular presentation of what was inspected with a synopsis of results of the inspection. Finally a detailed account of the inspection is provided by a narrative that follows the tabulated inspection results.
The first section of the report utilizes a checklist to gather information such as the client's name and address, contact information, etc. Likewise, all the fabricator's information is listed, as well as a listing of the drawings used, whether they were approved for fabrication or not, a list of qualified welders, the range for which each welder is qualified, a listing of the WPSs that have been approved for use, etc. For bolted connections a checklist is used to check off the type of bolted connections required, i.e., slip critical, pretensioned, snug tight, etc. I find the check list approach keeps me focused on collecting the information needed and keeps me from being side tracked which can cause me to forget to collect key information. This is usually completed at the office or on-site before beginning the actual inspection.
The tabulation provides the reader with a quick summary of each piece that was inspected, a snapshot of what item was nonconforming, and what the problem was, i.e., undersized fillet, missing weld, insufficient length, undercut, etc.
The narrative provides more detailed information. The narrative includes listing of each member with all the attached fittings, a listing of the drawing used, and a detailed account of any nonconformance’s discovered. The narrative is where photographs and sketches are included to provide the reader with details of any nonconforming materials, welds, etc.
Spelling and sentence structure are very important. One engineer I work with is a stickler for spelling, grammar, and punctuation. I send my reports to him as drafts so he can review them before they are finalized and distributed to all the appropriate parties. His philosophy is that every report is going to end up as an exhibit in court.
The person reading the report probably did not accompany the inspector when the inspection was performed. The person reading the report has no idea of what transpired during the inspection unless the details of the inspection are included in the report. The inspection report is the vehicle used to answer questions and provides the reader with detailed information. At what stage of fabrication was the inspection performed? What members were inspected? Did the inspector use a flashlight while performing the inspection? What types of gages were used to measure the fillet welds? How were the bevels measured? What qualifications and certifications did the inspector have? The information included in the report is the reader’s only source of information. It provides the reader with a picture of how the inspection was performed and what was inspected.
The report may be read several days, several weeks, or several years after the inspection was performed. It is rare that missing details can be added at a later date. Any and all pertinent details must be provided in the report at the time it is written. The reports must include sufficient details that the reader can understand what was inspected and the nature of any nonconformances.
Clarity is essential in any inspection report. The inspection report should use standard terminology so the reader can look up terms that are unfamiliar. Slang, jargon, and nonstandard terminology serves little useful purpose and usually confuses the reader. Remember that the person reading the inspection reports may not have a technical back ground.
Any qualified inspector can look at a weld and pronounce it good or bad, but an welding inspector that is a true professional can write a report that enables someone else to visualize and understand the nature of the inspector's findings.
QCR's comments on on the mark.
Best regards - Al
Joe - noted your points.
I think the use of “we” will not mislead the readers of your report if you’re representing an organization. Some of the owner-user who needs a 3rd party inspector will consider hiring your service not because of you as an Individual, it is because you came from a reputable and recognized organization. The use of “I’ may give an impression that you acted alone and your findings are not supported by the organization you are representing.
Regards
Joey
Joey
I strongly disagree. "We" don't sign off the document. "I" ( you) do. "We" are are not collectively responsible if it is wrong. (Not-Withstanding that the Inspection Lab "we" may also have some joint and several liability.) "You" ARE acting "alone" as it were, because YOU are the responsible "Inspector of Record". Per the building Code, in accordance with IBC Section 1704, the final person who takes "responsibility" may have to be the P.E., who represents the testing lab that you work for, but everyone still wants to know who actually did the inspections.
However, In general, you are probably right in that someone should be able to figure out what you meant with the word "We".
I know of a case where a very charismatic third party inspector worked on a job for over a year, and had very few write-ups about the contractor. He was always using the word "We" referring to he and the contractor in his reports. The customer became suspicious, and ordered him to be replaced. It turned out that he was actually very competent and thorough, and when something was wrong, he just mentioned it to the contractor's QC, and it was fixed - No Argument. His philosophy was No Defect - No Write-Up. Of course the City Auditor/ Engineer didn't know that, and the paucity of routine write-ups and the use of the "We" word in the reports, set off his alarms.
Joe Kane
Accuracy is also one of the most overlooked qualities in written reports, and it's frequency has increased over time due to as you so eloquently mentioned - the lack of 'objective' as opposed to 'subjective proofreading.' Everything else just makes good sense as well when projecting a professional approach towards presenting & submitting the best report possible... 
