Technology must supplement not supplant surveyors

As technology has advanced through the 21st century, surveyors have been able to speed up data collection and report their findings to clients in new ways. At the same time, though, we should be careful before we surrender control of our tasks to digital tools – after all, who would subcontract any part of their work without also disclaiming liability?

It is critical to remember that surveyors are highly trained and educated practitioners, whose value is in providing credible, evidence-based advice for which they take responsibility – and the associated liability. The technology is simply there to help them.

Our techniques must therefore adapt as well – and this can often entail the use of technology.

For instance, cavity walls were introduced in the late 19th century to combat penetrating damp, but with time the ties used to secure the walls together began to fail. In response, endoscopy has been adopted to support investigations enabling surveyors to pinpoint the source of problems.

Understanding that new construction methods necessitate new means of investigation goes some way to justifying the increasing number of drone surveys carried out to inspect high-rise properties, where there are many inaccessible areas or features.

Previously, surveyors assessed low-rise pitched roofs externally from ground level, supplementing their findings with an internal loft inspection. But increased building heights, accessibility and associated risk have prompted the use of drones to collect data.

RICS recognises the value of technology, but also the importance of thinking about the way it is used. For instance, section 4.1.1 of the current edition of Planned preventative maintenance emphasises that members must be trained and competent to use technology as well as being aware of its limitations. Professional opinions will always be crucial.

With the use of software, legal or technical advisers are increasingly able to share the entire as-built file for a property online, placing it in a digital or virtual data room. However, this does nothing to speed up the meticulous process and time required to analyse the information, typically for the purpose of technical due diligence (TDD).

In contrast, while reviewing paper documents from filing cabinets may sound old-fashioned, practitioners are actually now citing a lack of documentation as the single biggest risk in giving appropriate advice. This is particularly critical in acquisitions where the window to conduct due diligence is often tight.

If they need to locate this information, virtual data rooms must have a standard format with a list of key documents rather than being labyrinths of random scans uploaded by administrative staff who know little about their relevance.

At the moment, though, digital data rooms are simply being imposed on surveyors by legal advisers or other stakeholders wanting to complete transactions at speed. Practitioners are often obliged to confirm that they have had access to all relevant documents when in fact they have had insufficient time to find – let alone review – them.

Accordingly, surveyors are structuring their client instructions and scopes of work to include limitations depending on the availability of documents and the time permitted to review them. Yet this only succeeds in removing the diligence from TDD.

My experience in academia is that AI can write adequate essays. But when it comes to applying knowledge or answering practical questions – which require an understanding of building type, age, material or construction technology as well as the symptoms of defects – the technology currently struggles to offer the correct advice, let alone supply a trail of evidence.

In the short term, therefore, it cannot replace building surveyors.

As my boss explained to me early in my career when I was charged with taking the department's damp meter on a survey, building pathology is more than observational: it is all about the context, cause and effects of defects.

So flying a drone with AI capabilities around a site, for instance, may no doubt pick up numerous loose and slipped roof tiles. But drones and AI cannot independently enter a roof space to establish the root cause of such defects.

External observation from ground level of a low-rise traditional property shows a number of slipped or loose roof tiles (see Figure 1 above left), but the survey needs an internal inspection to determine that frost attack (see Figure 2 centre) and delamination of the tile fixing nibs has made them susceptible to wind damage and material failure (see Figure 3 above right).

Clients may expect drone surveys as the norm, but we need to remind them that findings will be largely irrelevant without context. This means surveyors are needed to interrogate the images or information forensically.

Similarly, while pre-populated drop-down menus of defects may speed up data collection and make reports consistent, the surveyor must also understand the science or pathology of these defects. Free text input fields are therefore essential to supply such context.

There is little value in detailing the presence of spalled brickwork without intrinsically establishing the cause of moisture penetration that is a key factor behind it, for example. This is where it is necessary to provide credible, evidence-based advice.

Despite this, technology should simply be regarded as a tool to help collect data and give advice or even display survey findings through dashboards. It can also be vital in taking measurements such as dampness or dimensions with pinpoint accuracy.

The responsibility ultimately rests with the users: surveyors need to recognise that it doesn’t matter what technology you have, but more importantly to understand why and how you use it.