Taking the Subjectivity Out of Asbestos Audits: How AuditPRO Delivers Greater Consistency
Two experienced asbestos auditors can inspect exactly the same asbestos-containing material — and potentially reach different conclusions about its condition.
One auditor may describe an asbestos cement sheet as being in good condition. Another may consider the same material to be fair, while a third may decide that visible deterioration justifies a poor rating.
This variation matters.
The condition assigned to asbestos-containing material (ACM) can influence its risk assessment, the recommended management action and, ultimately, whether money is spent monitoring, encapsulating or removing the material.
For asbestos consultancies conducting hundreds or thousands of assessments, the question therefore becomes:
How do you ensure every auditor is assessing asbestos in a consistent way?
The Problem with Subjective Assessment
Experienced asbestos professionals use their training, qualifications and judgement when assessing ACM. However, condition assessment inevitably involves observations about deterioration, damage, surface treatment and the potential for disturbance.
Australian asbestos guidance recognises this challenge. The Asbestos and Silica Safety and Eradication Agency has specifically identified consistency as an important objective of asbestos assessments, with its National Guide for Asbestos Surveys promoting a robust and standardised process for surveys across Australia.
The issue becomes particularly significant when an asbestos consultancy employs multiple auditors.
Auditor A may have 20 years’ experience. Auditor B may have five. A new employee may have been trained by a different organisation and bring slightly different interpretations of terms such as good, fair, poor, damaged or deteriorating.
Over time, those differences can create inconsistencies across an organisation’s asbestos data.
AuditPRO Helps Standardise the Audit Process
Lupin AuditPRO is designed to provide auditors with a structured methodology for collecting asbestos information in the field.
Rather than allowing every auditor to develop their own approach to recording an inspection, AuditPRO guides users through a consistent data-capture process.
The objective is simple:
Same questions. Same terminology. Same methodology. More consistent results.
By standardising how information is collected and recorded, an asbestos consultancy can reduce the amount of variation caused simply by individual working practices.
Turning Professional Judgement into Structured Data
Software should never replace the expertise of a competent asbestos professional.
What it can do is provide a framework within which that expertise is applied.
For example, rather than relying heavily on an auditor’s overall impression of an ACM, a structured assessment can require consideration of specific characteristics relevant to the material and its condition.
These may include factors such as:
- material type
- condition and extent of deterioration
- friability
- surface condition
- accessibility
- potential for disturbance
- location and environment
- photographs and supporting observations.
This creates a more defensible assessment because the result is supported by structured information rather than simply an auditor’s general impression.
Photographs Provide an Important Reference Point
Photographic records are particularly valuable when trying to achieve consistency.
AuditPRO enables photographs to become part of the audit record, providing visual evidence of what the auditor observed at the time of inspection.
This can help supervisors review assessments, compare similar materials and identify situations where two auditors appear to be applying condition ratings differently.
It also becomes extremely useful during subsequent inspections.
Instead of relying solely on the previous auditor’s written description, the next auditor can have a clearer historical reference against which deterioration or damage can be considered.
Consistency Across Large Audit Teams
The benefits become even greater as an asbestos consultancy grows.
With one auditor, maintaining a consistent methodology may be relatively straightforward. With 10, 20 or 50 people conducting inspections, consistency becomes much harder.
Staff change. New auditors join. Experienced people leave. Different offices can gradually develop different working practices.
A common software platform provides the organisation with a common audit methodology.
That means the company’s asbestos knowledge and processes are embedded more effectively within its systems rather than residing solely in the heads of individual employees.
Better Data Means Better Asbestos Management
Consistency isn’t simply about producing better-looking reports.
An asbestos register is intended to record important information including the location, type and condition of asbestos-containing materials. Condition is important because damaged, disturbed or deteriorating ACM can present an increased potential for asbestos fibres to be released.
If condition assessments are inconsistent, subsequent management decisions can also become inconsistent.
One site may be recommended for remedial work while an equivalent condition at another site is simply monitored.
Structured assessment helps organisations make decisions using more comparable information.
Improving Quality Control
AuditPRO can also support a stronger quality-assurance process.
Because information is captured within a structured system, managers have a better foundation for reviewing the work of different auditors and identifying unusual or inconsistent assessments.
For example, if one auditor consistently rates materials more severely than the rest of the team, that pattern may become easier to identify.
That doesn’t automatically mean the auditor is wrong. But it provides an opportunity for review, discussion and training.
Over time, this feedback can help an organisation develop a more consistent internal standard.
Consistency Is Becoming Increasingly Important
The Australian asbestos industry itself is moving towards greater standardisation.
The National Guide for Asbestos Surveys was developed specifically to provide a more robust and standardised survey process, while the associated risk assessment approach uses standardised terminology and is intended to reduce subjectivity.
For asbestos consulting companies, that makes consistency more than an operational efficiency issue. It is increasingly an important measure of the quality and defensibility of the service being provided.
From Individual Auditors to an Organisational Standard
Your clients aren’t simply buying the expertise of the particular auditor who arrives at their site.
They are buying the expertise and methodology of your organisation.
If five different auditors inspect five similar sites, clients should reasonably expect the methodology and resulting assessments to be consistent.
Lupin AuditPRO helps turn individual auditing practices into a consistent organisational process.
By providing structured data capture, standardised terminology, photographic records and a common methodology across the auditing team, AuditPRO can help asbestos consultancies reduce subjectivity, improve quality control and produce more consistent asbestos information.
Because when it comes to asbestos management, consistency isn’t just about efficiency.
It’s about ensuring that the same risk is assessed the same way — regardless of who conducts the audit.
Find Out How AuditPRO Can Standardise Your Asbestos Audits
If your organisation has multiple auditors — or you’re looking to improve consistency, quality control and efficiency across your asbestos surveying operation — Lupin AuditPRO can provide a structured platform for the entire audit process.
Contact Lupin Systems to arrange an AuditPRO demonstration.