Remote access property inspection and dispatch system (RAPIDS)

Process Reengineering
The housing inspection and enforcement process consists of several sub-processes required to determine the scope of infractions and compel the owner to remedy them or risk condemnation of their property. These include the sub-processes addressed by RAPIDS: 1) Complaint Entry 2) Inspection Assignment and Dispatch 3) Inspection Documentation 4) Owner Violation Service. OPTIMUS sought to reengineer these sub-processes to improve inspection and enforcement efficiency by providing inspectors with time saving and enhanced information technology, and by empowering managers with real-time performance metrics. The overall process and inspection forms were not subject to change as they are legally required for enforcement actions.

Original Inspection Process
The original inspection and enforcement process was triggered by a telephone complaint to the Housing Regulation Department. Complaints would come from residents, a housing inspector, or other DC departments that encounter problems with housing and property in the course of their responsibilities. The complaint was entered into a complaint system computer. However, as that computer system did not interface with the inspection computer system, the printed out complaints had to be reentered before inspectors could be assigned.

The inspection and reinspection assignments were devised by the department manager and given to the inspectors in the morning. Assignments were made depending on the priority of the complaint and where it was located.

The inspectors were rarely provided with more information than contact person, address, and type of complaint. Information about the property owner had to be researched from outdated property books or learned from the complainant. The inspector usually would not know if the property had been inspected before or whether the owner had been cited before even though the law provides for escalating fines for repeat offenses. At the time we visited, inspectors even had to make their own copies of inspection forms as the department could not provide them.

The inspectors determined their own route and were responsible for transportation either using rapid transit or their own vehicles. They were reimbursed for a portion of these expenses. Once they left the office, the department manager had no way to contact or monitor the inspectors.

The inspectors would arrange to meet the complainant and inspect the premises. They would note the violations on scratch paper during the inspection. The official inspection form was not completed until they returned to the office. The inspector filled out the form by hand, and submitted it to a data entry person to input the information into the inspection computer. Before the citation could be printed and mailed, the inspector had to proofread the data entered. It often took several weeks before the entry was correct and the citation could be issued. (High priority violations such as no heat in winter were manually expedited.)

The property often had changed owners since the books were updated so mailing the initial violation notice just delayed the enforcement until it was returned and the real owner could be determined. To do this, the inspector had to visit one or more of the DC government departments that maintained different property databases (such as for taxation), and search them for the latest listed owner. The corrected inspection form then had to be reentered into the computer through the time consuming process described above.

After successful service of the citation, a reinspection is scheduled to assure the infractions have been remedied within the allotted time. The inspectors call to set up these appointments. If the violations were not remedied, the inspection process repeats but with more severe fines. Ultimately, the property can be condemned or seized by the government but, as is evident from the preceding description, it is a long procedure that provides numerous opportunities for process abuse.

Reengineering the Sub-Processes
The overall goal was to increase the speed, integrity, and effectiveness of the enforcement process, as well as to increase customer (DC citizens and businesses) satisfaction. If these goals could be met, the system would quickly pay for itself. The goals resulted in the following priorities for reengineering the sub-processes:

Eliminate data entry redundancies
Assign inspections for efficiency
Provide inspectors information on previous citations
Provide an improved method to research property
Increase the speed and quality of the documentation of inspections
Provide a method to give the complainant an inspection receipt
Provide a method for real-time inspection status determination
Provide improved inspector and management situation awareness
Empower management through real-time process metrics.

The resulting pilot system is designed to fulfill these goals using a unique integration of technology that is described below.