Instructor Ed Jones has over 30 years of experience in theindustry, has the title of MasterWater Restorer, is an Institute ofInspection Cleaning andRestoration Certification (IICRC)-approved instructor, and hasserved on the S500-2021consensus body committee todevelop the most recent standard.
In my role as a subject matter expert in water damage restoration and mold, I am asked technical questions every day about different water damage and mold topics.
The most common answer I give is:
“It depends.”
What I mean is that every technical answer depends on many variables. I typically have to ask several clarifying questions before I can make a professional recommendation based on the specific circumstances.
In today’s property insurance claims world, we are all dealing with a daily barrage of claims, emails, and phone calls.
Everyone is juggling large workloads and deadlines, which means we are all under pressure to move quickly, resolve issues, and close claims.
Because of this, we are always looking for ways to have AI and mobile apps do a large part of the work for us.
Add to that the fact that most of us like to keep things simple. We want answers that are either black or white.
Unfortunately, we live in a world of gray.
If you change one variable, it can completely change your answer.
I love mobile apps for the ease of transferring large amounts of information.
However, I have learned that some of the most-used mobile apps in water damage restoration can be manipulated based on the algorithms used.
For example, water damage mitigation mobile apps often have the industry standard formula built into the app for determining the number of air movers to place in an affected room on a drying project.
That recommendation is based on information entered by the user.
Unfortunately, this brings us back to the old saying:
“Garbage in, garbage out.”
If the user does not enter accurate data, the algorithm will not work properly, and the app may produce the wrong answer.
In one case, I called a mobile app company and asked one of their technical advisors why, when I checked the number of air movers charged on a water loss drying project in one affected room, I calculated 3 to 4 air movers, but their app recommended 5 to 6 air movers.
After reviewing the claim number, the advisor explained that there were two offsets or insets listed for that room, which added two additional air movers.
I checked the photos of the room and the sketch and told him the room did not have any offsets or insets.
That raises an important question:
Can the user of the app enter false information and raise the number of air movers they get to charge for?
The app does not check for offsets or insets in a room by reviewing photos or sketches. It relies on the information entered by the user.
The same concern applies to dehumidifier calculations. The recommended number of dehumidifiers depends on the class of water, and the user gets to choose the class of water when entering the information, along with the dimensions.
The point is this: if we rely on mobile apps to tell us whether the right amount of drying equipment was used, the app recommendation is completely dependent on the information entered by the user.
That information can be manipulated.
This means you must use your critical thinking skills to validate what was billed based on your knowledge of the industry standard.
Yes, mobile apps can help obtain the information needed to validate:
But you still have to double-check the information.
You need to make sure the user did not enter false information that manipulated the app and caused it to produce the wrong recommendation.
Below are several tips for using a methodical approach to critical thinking.
We live in a world oversaturated with information of varying quality and relevance.
To be an effective critical thinker, you need to focus on your purpose and context.
Ask yourself:
Clarifying the purpose helps you think your way to the right answer instead of accepting the first answer presented.
Not all sources of information are equally credible, accurate, or relevant.
Questioning your sources helps sharpen your thinking. It also helps you select the most appropriate information and prepare for further analysis and evaluation.
This may include reviewing:
A recommendation is only as good as the data behind it.
If something does not “smell right,” it probably is not right.
Be inquisitive and ask questions when something does not look right.
For length of drying time, you must know the key performance indicators to look for when reviewing drying logs.
Those indicators help you validate whether the drying time was reasonable and whether the drying process was properly documented.
To analyze something means to examine it in detail, explain it, and interpret it.
Work the problem yourself using industry standard formulas as a double-check.
This helps confirm whether the mobile app is working the way it should and whether the recommendation makes sense based on the actual conditions.
Do not blindly accept the output.
Review the inputs, compare the documentation, and use your own professional knowledge.
You have real intelligence. There is nothing artificial about it.
Use your critical thinking skills, and you will be in high demand.
Mobile apps, AI, and automated tools can be helpful, but they cannot replace professional judgment. In water damage mitigation, accountability comes from understanding the variables, questioning the data, reviewing the documentation, and validating the recommendation.
Also remember to always be respectful and professional as you question others.
