How to Use VIEWAPP to Shift the Majority of Inspections to Self-Inspection
An on-site inspection is a familiar way to obtain information about an asset. An expert travels to the location, takes pictures of the object themselves, checks documents, and records the condition of the asset. The problem is that with a large number of inspections, this model becomes expensive: the number of site visits grows, along with the burden on experts, transportation costs, and processing time. At the same time, without additional control mechanisms, the reliability of the data obtained cannot be guaranteed.
Not every asset truly requires an expert on site. In many cases, all that is needed from an inspection is a standard set of photographs and data: to confirm the existence of the asset, its location, condition, and the presence of damage. Such tasks can already be delegated to the client themselves.
The main question is how to ensure that self-inspection does not turn into a simple upload of photos and videos whose authenticity cannot be verified.
Inspection via VIEWAPP is not just photos from a client or partner
If a client can photograph an asset anywhere and upload any images from their gallery, such an inspection cannot be trusted in any meaningful sense. The photograph could have been taken earlier, could relate to a different asset, or could have been edited.
That is why modern self-inspection is built around controlling the data collection process itself.
With VIEWAPP, the user follows a predefined scenario in the mobile application. The system shows exactly what needs to be photographed, in what order, and from which angles. Photographs are taken during the inspection itself, rather than selected from the gallery. At the same time, coordinates are recorded, compliance with the specified asset is verified, and the shooting process is monitored for signs of substitution or other anomalies.
The result is not a set of photos and videos that the client decided to send to the company, but a standardized inspection conducted according to a specified protocol with built-in protection against manipulation.
What changes for an insurance company, financial institution, or other company
With this approach, the expert ceases to be a mandatory participant in every inspection. Their role quickly shifts from mass site visits to handling complex and non-standard cases.
The majority of routine inspections can follow a single scheme: the client performs the inspection, the system checks the collected data and identifies possible anomalies, alerting experts when necessary. If everything is in order, the result can be used further. If suspicious coordinates, issues with photographs, or other deviations arise, the expert makes an appropriate decision.
Delegating inspections to the client is particularly suitable for high-volume processes — monitoring collateral property, pre-insurance inspections of vehicles and real estate, follow-up inspections, inspections performed by car dealers, and so on. Where the required set of data is known in advance, there is no point in sending an expert every time just to obtain a few photographs according to a standard scenario.
Why this becomes particularly cost-effective at large volumes
Savings begin with every site visit that does not take place. And at large volumes, the economics of the entire process change.
Costs for travel and organizing site visits are eliminated, expert time is freed up, and results are delivered faster.
For example, if out of 1,000 inspections only 40–50% truly require an expert’s involvement, then 500–600 operations no longer need to be organized as on-site visits. Savings arise on each such inspection and become especially noticeable at large volumes.
Therefore, the goal is usually not to shift absolutely all inspections to self-inspection. It is far more reasonable to determine which part of the workflow is routine and can be performed by clients independently.
Will the client agree to undergo a self-inspection?
For the client, self-inspection also proves to be more convenient than an expert’s site visit. There is no need to coordinate a date and time, wait for an expert, or adjust to their schedule. The scenario is already broken down into clear steps, and prompts help them take the required photographs without missing anything. The inspection can be completed at a convenient time — quickly, without unnecessary travel or waiting.
Where is the line between self-inspection and expert assessment?
Self-inspection works well where the company needs to obtain objectively recorded data according to scenarios that do not require specialist involvement. For example, in cases of vehicle damage where there are clearly no hidden defects. For pre-insurance inspections of cars, houses, or apartments — these are simple and straightforward scenarios that clients can complete on their own.
In this model, self-inspection is not a replacement for the expert, but a way to avoid spending expert resources where they are not needed.
What does the company ultimately gain?
For an insurance or financial company, self-inspection via VIEWAPP is a way to reduce the number of site visits without losing control. The client independently follows a clear scenario, the system checks the collected materials, coordinates, and anomalies, and the on-site expert is brought in only for cases that truly require their involvement. As a result, the company gains a faster and more scalable process, reduces the burden on specialists, and begins saving money on every inspection shifted to a remote format.