Skip to content
Use case 13 · Maintenance / Service

Fire safety site inspection and maintenance

A workflow that assigns visits, identifies the assets on site, captures field evidence, classifies defects and produces a reviewed client report — from the same record the technician signed. The technician arrives knowing what was found and fixed there last time.

Runs standaloneUploads and manual entryService supervisor signs
Workflow 13 · demo runAwaiting sign-off

Maintenance technicianTechnicians work through different inspection regimes and document findings in the field, usually without reliable history.

  1. Assign the visitSupervisor
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  2. Identify assetsTechnician
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  3. Capture field evidenceTechnician
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  4. Classify defectsTechnician
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
  5. Produce a reviewed reportSupervisor
    QueuedWorkingDoneSign-off
Stopped for the service supervisor to sign
  • Who uses itMaintenance technician, service supervisor, service manager
  • Lifecycle stageMaintenance / Service · also Operations
  • Buyer groupTrack D · Commissioning & Service
  • RequirementsBRD v0.1, sent as written
At a glance

What goes in, what comes out

Goes in
Scheduled visit
Last visit's history
Inspection regime
Site Inspection & MaintenanceFive steps · one approval gate Service supervisor signs
Comes out
Signed inspection record
Photo evidence
Corrective actions
Client report
What it does

Site Inspection & Maintenance, step by step

Five steps, one decision point. The last step is a person, every time.

  1. 01
    Supervisor

    Assign the visit

    Site, regime and scope allocated to a technician with the history attached.

  2. 02
    Technician

    Identify assets

    What is actually on site, matched to what the record says should be.

  3. 03
    Technician

    Capture field evidence

    Findings and photographs recorded against the asset, on site.

  4. 04
    Technician

    Classify defects

    Severity and corrective action, consistently, not by individual habit.

    Defect found?

    Yes Classified with a corrective actionNo Asset passes, next service set
  5. 05
    Supervisor

    Produce a reviewed report

    The client report generated from the signed record, then reviewed.

  6. Output

    What lands at the end

    A signed inspection record, defects with photographic evidence, a corrective action list and a client service report.

Who’s involved

TechnicianService supervisorClient

What you get

  • Signed inspection record
  • Photo evidence
  • Corrective actions
  • Client report

In the wireframe

A defect is captured with a photo and classified, and the client report is produced from the same record the technician signed.

Use case diagram

Who does what, and who signs

Automated steps prepare the evidence. People make the calls.

Swipe to see the whole diagram

Use case diagram: Site Inspection & Maintenance People: Technician, Service supervisor, Client. Steps: 1 Assign the visit; 2 Identify assets; 3 Capture field evidence; 4 Classify defects; 5 Produce a reviewed report. Service supervisor approves the final step. Site Inspection & Maintenance«workflow, built with DeX»«inputs»01 Assign the visit02 Identify assets03 Capture field evidence04 Classify defects05 Produce a reviewed reportTechnicianService supervisorClientService supervisor«approves»«documents»Scheduled visit, …
Automated step Done by a person Approval gate Takes part Leads to
What changes

Why this costs you time today

Technicians work through different inspection regimes and document findings in the field, usually without reliable history. A client report then gets retyped from the technician's notes, which is where the detail goes missing.

Task
Today
With this workflow
Site history
Technician arrives without it
Last visit attached to the job
The client report
Retyped from notes
Generated from the signed record
Defect severity
Depends on who inspected
Classified consistently
The line we do not cross

What this software will not do

Life-safety work. These limits are written into the requirements, not added as a disclaimer.

Specific to this workflow

It does not certify that a system is fit for service and it does not determine that an inspection regime has been satisfied. It records the inspection and who signed it.

It does not decide compliance

The software assembles evidence, retrieves source clauses and shows conflicts. It does not determine whether anything complies. A named engineer does.

It does not stand in for an authority

An approval recorded in the software never implies consent from an AHJ, Civil Defence, building control or a building surveyor.

Nothing leaves without a named reviewer

Every output carries who approved it. Anything unverified keeps a draft marker until someone signs it.

It does not do sealed engineering

Hydraulic network calculation, definitive sprinkler layout, sealed design, BIM geometry authoring and final cost estimates are all out of scope by design.

Your standards, not ours

NFPA, EN, BS, ISO, FM, UL, LPCB and Civil Defence appear in the requirements as examples. None is assumed to apply to your projects until you say so.

~1/10of traditional build time
~30%of traditional cost

That is a claim about how fast Colakin builds software with DeX, and it is supported by delivered projects. It is not a claim about what any of these fifteen workflows will save your business. The requirements deliberately leave that to a pilot, measured against your own baseline.

How an engagement runs

From a question to a pilot, in five steps

Nothing hidden behind a discovery call. Stop at step one and keep the document.

  1. 01

    You ask for the requirements document

    The full BRD for the workflow you care about, sent as written.

    Same day
  2. 02

    A ten-minute wireframe walkthrough

    A clickable prototype of that one workflow.

    10 minutes
  3. 03

    The Fire Fit Check

    Five questions: fit, hours lost, who approves spend, whether your documents can be shared, and timing.

    One call
  4. 04

    A scope built on your rules

    Your standards, your document formats, your approval gates.

    Within a week
  5. 05

    A pilot against your own baseline

    One workflow, your data, your engineers.

    Q1
Questions

Site Inspection & Maintenance: questions

Does the technician see what happened on the last visit?
Yes. History is attached to the visit, so a recurring defect is recognisable as recurring instead of being logged fresh every quarter.
Does it support different inspection regimes?
Regimes are configured to what you actually work to — AS 1851, NFPA 25, BS 5839, Civil Defence maintenance or your own client-specific scopes. None is assumed.
How does the client report get produced?
From the signed field record, not retyped from it. That removes the step where detail is usually lost.
Can we use it across a mixed portfolio?
Yes. Assets, regimes and report formats are set per site or per client.
Next step

Ask for the Site Inspection & Maintenance requirements document

The business requirements document as written, including what it refuses to do. No brochure, no drip sequence.

  • The requirements document, usually the same working day
  • A ten-minute wireframe walkthrough with the people who specified it
  • No claimed percentage saving — your pilot measures it

Request the document

One working day. A person replies, not a sequence.

We use this to reply, nothing else. No list, no newsletter.