Over the course of 4,000 home inspections and counting (I applaud those who are well beyond this count of self-inspected homes), I have evolved my understandings of our industry, our services, our clients, and our business models. All of those are ripe for written exploration and some I have written on in various iterations. However, one topic I have not much touched on relates to our industry/profession and how we align with the construction-based trades.
The industry of home inspecting has, historically, been discluded from “the trades.” When most people talk of “the trades,” inspectors of all types usually are not intended to be grouped within the same ranks. I feel this may have sewn discord within “the trades” in relation to home inspectors and what we do as professionals.
Now, home inspecting (and everything home inspecting may entail which is quite a long list of services and functions nowadays) is not construction. But, we have a plethora of professionals who readily advertise in an attempt to differentiate from their brethren competitors “experience within the trades.” I’ve always found this dichotomy interesting. Search for any inspector on social media, myself included, and you’ll find ample examples of deficiencies related to “the trades” execution. We, as inspectors, use these as illustrations for why we are good at what we do, as well as to attempt to show others that we know a thing or two.
When an inspector advertises trades experience and touts it as to why they are better than another inspector, I usually mumble to myself, “That doesn’t make you a good inspector. I inspect homes and offices every day that were built by trades professionals and are filled with deficiencies.” Our jobs as inspectors are to inspect what trades professionals “do” because there always are errors to be found—we are human, and materials are imperfect. These errors are separate, of course, from natural degradation of building materials and systems that happen from lack of maintenance.
At any rate, I really feel our industry of professionals took a wrong turn somewhere back when we decided to put all our eggs in two baskets—market and befriend Realtors® for more business and inspect exclusively for deficiency. Now, I understand saying this puts me on a slippery slope with some large industry figureheads, insurers included. But, I really think we missed the mark on the proper evolution of our trade.
Firstly, I think we should be re-branding our profession as a trade. No, we aren’t shooting nails in sheathing or studs, and we aren’t plumbing drain lines (although some do both trades work and inspecting depending on licensing limitations), but we are working exclusively in a world that is the confluence of all trades. We are evaluating, and to some extent critiquing, trade-related work which means we are, inherently, trades professionals. If we aren’t, then how could we do our jobs in a competent manner?
This leads me to the second point—our industry’s education (any licensed state requires coursework prior to licensing; our national associations require continued coursework) has, for the most part, focused on teaching inspectors what to look for related to deficiency. If you are just getting your sea legs, this makes perfect sense. But, very quickly, it runs its course, and we start losing value as trades professionals related to consumer protection. To perform our trade well, we need to have a more concrete grasp on the execution/techniques within “the trades.” Moreover, we need to have an understanding of business practices within “the trades.” It may seem irrelevant when you are in an attic looking for deficiencies but knowing the context of how the home came together, when it was built, and regional practices all help to contextualize what is discovered in that attic.
Am I saying home inspectors need to go through trades school? No. Not unless you want a plethora of backlogged home inspections because all our people are tied up in 12–24-month programs. What I am saying is our education of new inspectors, and onward, should be crafted with a mind’s eye not toward deficiency, but a wholistic perspective of “the trades” and construction. Deficiencies could still be taught, but they become deficiencies of honed perspective. Plus, we’d learn some building science and processes along the way that could let us do more to document the entire home for the client, not just the deficiencies. From my perch, there is greater value in helping the consumer gain control of the structure they purchase. That’s the best case for long-term care and management.
I suspect some will read this and say, “This is exactly why I advertise myself as an inspector with trades experience.” Not so fast. Just because you framed the home doesn’t mean you followed the most appropriate method for flashing a wall assembly prior to window/door installation. Having trades experience is not a free pass to understanding all materials and processes in “the trades.” If that were true, your electrician could flash your roof, plumb your kitchen, and install your adhered masonry stone veneer. We all know better. Advertising trades experience is disingenuous at worst and ignorant at best. Trades experience is helpful, but conceptual understandings of “the trades” in all facets would be of greater value to our trade, “the trades,” and the consumer.
cookeville.wini.com
