Inspections
Guidelines
State your overall evaluation results briefly up front—“serious problems with…,” “minor problems only,” “adequate,” “inadequate and in need of immediate attention,” “adequate with the exception of.…”
Choose the most logical arrangement to present specific findings—by department, by most to least significant, by most to least expensive, by physical layout, or any other easy-to-follow arrangement. Don’t organize your letter or memo by chronological order of inspection.
Under each finding, insert your recommended action to correct or improve the item, area, or procedure. Then follow with specific details—usually how and why. Why did the problem or deficiency develop? How should we do the action and/or how should we prevent future problems? Last, under each separate section, mention any attachment you have included to make the action clearer.
Don’t vacillate between the “adequate” and the “inadequate.” This confusing mixture of details makes it difficult for the reader to keep score on how the situation really stands without marking a tally sheet as he/she reads.
Separate fact from opinion. Don’t make judgmental statements without identifying them as such. Acknowledge where others may disagree.
Don’t put a lengthy list of recommendations in a separate section from the findings and force the reader to go back and forth from page to page (finding to recommendation, back to finding, back to recommendation) to understand and do the recommended action. A separate “Findings” section is appropriate only when the findings are lengthy, complicated, or in need of detailed explanation.
In lengthy inspections, make sure headings are frequent and informative to allow multiple readers to skim and single out their area of interest and action.
When your correspondence is a lateral communication, use a deferential tone.
Email This Page!