Home · Solutions · Operations & quality
Solution · Operations & qualityEvery finding gets an owner and a due date the minute the inspector taps Submit
Safety and site inspections: from checklist to closed action
Inspectors complete the checklist on the phone; findings land in the register, corrective actions in Planner, reminders in Teams, and the audit evidence pack builds itself.
Executive summary
Stop retyping site inspections into a register and chasing corrective actions from an inbox.
The loop from finding to closed action sits on the Microsoft 365 tenant you already run, with UiPath robots where a legacy system must be fed.
Administration per inspection falls from about 35 minutes to a few minutes of review; inspectors spend the difference on site.
findings register in Microsoft Lists; Planner plans per site; legacy EHS system
Business problem
Health, safety & field operations
Inspections exist because the law, the ISO 45001 certificate, the insurer and the permit-to-work rules require them, and because a walk around a substation with a checklist is still the best way to find a missing guard rail before it hurts someone. The walk is the good part. The trouble starts when the information leaves the clipboard and changes medium four times: paper to register, register to email, email to a spreadsheet of actions, forty spreadsheets to one monthly report.
Everyone along that chain feels it. Inspectors resent doing the work twice and write less. Site managers hear about overdue actions at the monthly review, when they are six weeks old. The regional HSE lead cannot say how many actions are open today. Contractors, on site more than anyone, report almost no near misses.
At scale the process goes quiet rather than failing loudly. The register lags the field by weeks, "closed" means something different at every site, and the effectiveness check ISO 45001 expects after a corrective action is nobody's step. When an accident investigation asks for the history of one hazard, it was raised twice, assigned once and closed without evidence.
How it works today
The pattern recurs across energy, construction and logistics companies; only the file names change.
- PersonThe inspector walks the site with a printed checklist or a Forms questionnaire and photographs findings with the phone
- PersonAt the depot, the inspector or a site administrator retypes the checklist into the EHS register; photos arrive by email and are attached one at a time
- WaitingFindings wait for the weekly safety meeting before anyone is asked to fix them
- PersonThe site coordinator emails each corrective action to an owner and adds a row to the site's open-actions spreadsheet
- WaitingReminders depend on the coordinator remembering; status is asked for at the next meeting, often after the due date
- Risk of errorClosure evidence (a photo, a work-order number, a signed permit) is scattered across mailboxes; actions are closed on trust or forgotten
- PersonFor the monthly EHS report the regional lead merges forty spreadsheets and counts open actions by hand
Why the current process costs more than it appears
The budget shows headcount, not what it is spent on.
- Double entry is only the visible cost. Every photo found in an inbox and attached, and every action described a second time in an email, adds minutes nobody records against the inspection.
- Chasing is unpaid project management: an open action generates an email, a reminder, a question at a meeting and a status update, none of which fixes the hazard.
- A hazard found on the 3rd and typed into the register on the 17th existed for two weeks with no owner; the register shows the typing date, not the finding date.
- Evidence nobody can find does not exist for the auditor, the labour inspectorate or the insurer; reconstructing one hazard's history from mailboxes takes hours.
- Near-miss reporting, the leading indicator management wants most, disappears first when reporting is hard; a process that suppresses near misses only looks safer.
Cost of inaction
The modelled capacity is lost every year in the most expensive place: hours of inspectors and coordinators whose alternative use is time on site. Every new site adds a spreadsheet and a person who chases.
The exposure that grows with time is documentary. An action identified, assigned by email and closed on trust is a weak point in a certification audit and a serious one in an accident investigation, where the question is not whether the hazard was found but why the fix cannot be evidenced.
A plausible organisation with realistic proportions. The figures are there to be recalculated on your data; they are not a client result.
A European energy and utilities group: 40 field sites (substations, a generation plant, depots, wind and solar parks), about 2,800 employees plus contractors, Microsoft 365 E3 for office roles and F3 for field crews, a legacy EHS system without an API.
650 inspections and reports a month (planned inspections, safety walks, contractor checks, near misses); about one finding in three needs a corrective action; about 35 minutes of administration each.
Paper and Forms checklists retyped into the EHS register at the depot; photos by email; actions emailed to owners and tracked in 40 site spreadsheets merged monthly.
The register lags the field by two to three weeks, nobody knows the number of open actions on a given day, and last year's audit raised a finding on action tracking.
A checklist app in Teams, a findings register in Microsoft Lists, a Planner task per action with owner and due date, Teams cards for reminders and escalations, a robot for the legacy EHS system and the evidence pack, a Power BI dashboard.
In the modelled case administration per inspection falls from about 35 minutes to a few minutes of review, every finding has an owner within minutes, and the audit evidence pack exists on the first of each month. Illustrative figures, not a client result.
Proposed solution
The loop from finding to closed action sits on the Microsoft 365 tenant you already run, with UiPath robots where a legacy system must be fed. The inspector works in a Power Apps checklist inside Teams on the phone: site, inspection type, questions, photos, severity. Submission writes the findings to a register in Microsoft Lists and the photos to a linked SharePoint library. A Microsoft Forms link behind a QR code at the site entrance gives contractors the same register for near misses.
From then on the loop runs on rules, not memory. Power Automate creates a Microsoft Planner task per finding that needs action, assigns it from the site responsibility matrix and sets the due date from the severity. The owner receives an Adaptive Card in Teams with the details and two buttons: accept, or reassign with a reason. Reminders precede the due date; an overdue action escalates to the site manager, then to the regional HSE lead. Closure happens from the phone with a photo or a work-order number, and the site manager verifies high-severity closures.
Two things run unattended. A UiPath robot enters findings and closures into the legacy EHS system, which stays the system of record, and writes the reference number back to the list. On the first of the month a second robot assembles the evidence pack per site on SharePoint. Power BI reads the register. No AI model is involved; the rules are deterministic and owned by the HSE team.
Power Apps canvas app (Camera and Add picture controls); Microsoft Forms trigger "When a new response is submitted"; Microsoft Lists rules and versioning; Planner connector ("Create a task", "Update task details", trigger "When a task is completed"); Power Automate "Post adaptive card and wait for a response" in the Workflows app; UiPath Integration Service Microsoft OneDrive & SharePoint connector; UiPath Orchestrator time triggers and credential stores; Power BI semantic model
The checklist app and templates, the findings data model and severity rules, the responsibility matrix, the flows for tasks, cards, reminders, escalations and status sync, the robot for the EHS system, the evidence-pack generator, the Power BI report and the runbook
The legacy EHS system through UiPath UI automation where it has no API; an export in your certification body's format if required
How the automated process works
- PersonThe inspector completes the checklist in the Power Apps tab in Teams, with photos, location and a severity per finding; contractors use the Forms link on the site poster
- AutomationEach finding becomes an item in the Microsoft Lists register with ID, site, inspector, timestamp and severity; photos go to the linked library
- AutomationPower Automate creates a Planner task per finding, assigns the owner from the responsibility matrix, sets the due date from the severity and sends a Teams card with accept and reassign buttons
- AutomationReminders go out before the due date; overdue actions escalate to the site manager, then to the regional HSE lead
- PersonThe owner closes the action from the phone with a photo or work-order number; the site manager confirms high-severity closures in Teams
- SystemA UiPath robot enters findings and closures into the legacy EHS system and writes the reference number back; the completion trigger keeps list and Planner in step
- AutomationOn the first of the month a robot assembles the evidence pack per site on SharePoint; Power BI shows open, overdue and closed actions by site and owner
Human-in-the-loop model
Automation handles
- Registering findings with IDs, photos, timestamps and severity, from the app and from Forms
- Creating, assigning and dating actions, reminders and escalations
- Keeping the EHS system, the register and Planner consistent
- The monthly evidence pack and the dashboard
People decide
- What is a finding and how severe it is; the site manager can regrade
- Whether an action is done: the owner closes with evidence, the site manager verifies high severity
- Reassignments and extensions, with a reason recorded on the item
- The rules: templates, severity thresholds and the responsibility matrix stay with the HSE team
Before and after
Systems and integrations
We do not add technology to make an architecture look serious. Every element below has a specific job in this process.
Inputs
- Power Apps checklist in Teams
- Microsoft Forms near-miss report
- phone photos
Automation layer
- Power Automate cloud flows (Workflows in Teams)
- UiPath Orchestrator
- UiPath Robots
- UiPath Integration Service (Microsoft OneDrive & SharePoint connector)
Target systems
- findings register in Microsoft Lists
- Planner plans per site
- legacy EHS system
- SharePoint evidence library
- Power BI
Human touchpoints: Adaptive Cards in Teams (accept, reassign, close, verify); Planner tasks in Teams; Power BI tab in the regional safety channel
Technologies used
inspection checklist on the phone inside Teams, with photos and severity
Anear-miss reports from contractors into the same register
Afindings register with rules, versioning and views per site
Aone task per corrective action with owner and due date; completion trigger
Atask creation, Adaptive Cards, reminders, escalations, status sync
Awhere owners accept, close and see escalations
Afeed the legacy EHS system, write back reference numbers, build the evidence packs
Aopen and overdue actions, closure times, findings by type and site
AIllustrative economic model
What it is worth, with the arithmetic shown.
The three inputs below are yours to change; the arithmetic follows. All three are illustrative, not measurements at a client. The 35 minutes per inspection cover retyping and photos (12 to 15 minutes), emailing actions and updating the tracker (about 10), and the inspection's share of reminders and monthly consolidation (about 10). €26 is a fully loaded hourly cost blended across administrators, inspectors and coordinators in Central Europe, drawn from ranges seen in field operations. We show capacity released, not positions removed.
Run the numbers on your data
An illustrative estimate from your own inputs. It models released capacity; it is not a promise of savings.
Business benefits
- Administration per inspection falls from about 35 minutes to a few minutes of review; inspectors spend the difference on site
- Every finding has a named owner and a due date within minutes of submission, not after the next meeting
- Overdue actions surface by themselves, to the owner first and then the manager; chasing stops being a job
- Closure evidence is captured at the moment of closure, and the monthly evidence pack exists without anyone assembling it
- Near-miss reporting becomes a one-minute task for crews and contractors
- The legacy EHS system stays accurate without retyping, and replacing it later does not disturb the front end
The management view
- Open and overdue corrective actions are a fact available at any moment, per site and owner, not a figure reconstructed for the review
- Escalation is a rule applied every time; site managers are measured on the same clock and the regional lead sees exceptions only
- Audit preparation shrinks to opening the folder for the period; every hazard's history runs from finding to verified closure
- The safety review discusses trends and repeat findings instead of reconciling spreadsheets
Board-level KPIs
Security and governance
An auditor should be able to reconstruct every decision.
- Inspectors and owners sign in with their Microsoft Entra ID accounts; group-based permissions per site show each person only their own sites
- Findings, photos and evidence packs stay in your Microsoft 365 tenant within the EU Data Boundary; Purview retention labels keep the records for the legally required period
- The robot uses a dedicated EHS account with data-entry rights only; its secret lives in a vault connected to Orchestrator, and every entry is logged in the Automation Cloud EU region
- Whoever raised a high-severity finding cannot verify its closure, and every reassignment or extension carries a name and a reason
- Near-miss reports may name people; the reporter's identity sits in a column visible only to the HSE team, and anonymous reporting through Forms stays possible
Why now
The next surveillance audit will ask for evidence that corrective actions were taken and were effective, not only that findings were logged; ISO 45001:2018 requires that documented information, and a revision of the standard is in development
Grid investment, new renewable sites and a growing contractor share mean more inspections for the same coordinators; the modelled 379 hours a month, about €9,900, is what administration consumes before the next site is added
Planner basic plans, Microsoft Lists, Adaptive Cards through the Workflows app and camera controls in Power Apps come with the Microsoft 365 licences the company already holds; the old Teams connectors were retired in May 2026, so Workflows is the supported route
Relevant executive roles
Forty private versions of one process become one, and the number of open hazards is a managed figure, not a surprise at the review
Every finding has an owner and a history, the audit pack exists on the first of the month, and inspectors report more because it takes less time
A solution on the existing tenant with standard connectors, one robot for the legacy system and no spreadsheets on personal OneDrives
Crews and contractors can report a near miss in a minute, and safety culture becomes something the company shows with numbers
Common questions and objections
Nothing is installed: the checklist opens as a tab in the Teams they already use on the phone, with the same sign-in, and it is fewer steps than paper plus email. Contractors use a Forms link behind a QR code and never see the app.
Keep it as the system of record; the robot feeds it, so nobody retypes. What legacy EHS systems usually lack is a mobile front end people use and reminders that reach the owner.
The canvas app keeps a checklist and its photos on the device and submits them when the phone is back online. Frontline licensing is checked in discovery: Microsoft 365 F plans include Teams on mobile, and seeded Power Platform rights differ by plan, one reason the app stays on standard connectors.
When this is not the right solution
- Fewer than about a hundred inspections a month at one or two sites: a disciplined Lists and Planner set-up without robots is enough, and we will say so
- Your EHS system already has a mobile module inspectors use and an action workflow with reminders; the gap is then discipline, not tooling
- Sites have not agreed a common checklist and severity scale; templates and the responsibility matrix come first, and a tool will not settle them
A question for the next management meeting
Who owns each corrective action from our own inspections that is still open today, how many are there, and could we show an auditor the evidence for the closed ones tomorrow morning?
Implementation approach
What we deliver, and what we need from you to start.
We deliver
- Discovery with the HSE team and two sites: inspection types, templates, severity scale, responsibility matrix
- The Power Apps checklist in Teams, the Forms near-miss report and the register in Microsoft Lists
- The flows: Planner tasks, Adaptive Cards, reminders, escalation ladder, status sync
- The UiPath robot for the legacy EHS system and the evidence-pack generator
- The Power BI report and a runbook for site coordinators
- Pilot at two sites, then rollout by region with hypercare
We need from you
- Current checklists, the severity scale and last month's open-actions files from two sites
- An HSE process owner and a site manager for the pilot
- Licence plans of office and field users; a test account for the EHS system
- Who verifies high-severity closures, and the retention periods for records
Stages
Discovery
Inspection types, templates, severity rules, responsibility matrix, EHS fields
Design
Data model, due-date and escalation rules, security per site, evidence-pack structure
Build
App, register, flows, robot and dashboard in your tenant
Pilot
Two sites run the loop alongside the old register; rules tuned on real findings
Rollout
Region by region, with hypercare and retirement of the site spreadsheets
Quick win. Effort depends on the number of checklist templates, the legacy EHS data model to be fed, and how many sites keep their own rules.
Nine open actions belong to a site manager who left in April.
Send us one checklist, last month's open-actions file from one site and the name of your EHS system. We come back with a one-page target flow and a first estimate of the administration hours you would release.
Check one site's open actionsThe neighbouring process usually has the same problem
Containment, root cause, supplier 8D and effectiveness checks live in one spreadsheet and three mailboxes.
View solution HR & peopleQualifications and training tracked before they expireYour training register is only as current as the last time someone remembered to update it.
View solution Operations & qualityThe daily production report without the 6 a.m. spreadsheetStop paying production controllers to retype MES numbers into a spreadsheet the meeting does not trust.
View solutionIndustries we deliver this in most oftenManufacturing & industryTransport & logisticsServices & ITEnergy & utilities