93rd General Meeting Presentation
JRS Update
Mark Mooney and Jacques Couvillon
The following remarks were delivered at the General Session of the 93rd General Meeting on May 12, 2025. It has been edited for content and phrasing.
INTRODUCTION: Mark Mooney, NBBI's director of operations, software and services, has over 35 years of industry experience as a boilermaker, operating engineer, inspector, and manager. He was the Massachusetts chief boiler inspector for 12 years before joining Liberty Mutual. Before becoming NBBI’s director of product development, Jacques Couvillon spent 16 years as the director of regulatory software for Praeses, a software and IT services company.
For their presentation, NBBI Executive Director Joel Amato (right) led a Q&A session with Mr. Couvillon (left) and Mr. Mooney.
MR. AMATO: Good afternoon, everyone. We've been at this for five years, so maybe you can speak to a couple of things that you're most proud of and that have occurred during your time with NBBI and the JRS team.
MR. MOONEY: The thing I'm most proud of is the fact that we've been able to start from nothing and hire a team of 39 developers. To have a 100% retention rate in those five years speaks to what we're doing.
MR. COUVILLON: Our team is probably what I’m most proud of, the group of individuals who we've had the opportunity to work with. As Mark mentioned, 39 employees are specifically part of the JRS team. Over the last 18 months, we've had the same 39 people working together, so that's great. The other thing is to look at where we were in mid-2020, which was a business plan and a conversation, and now we have full industry involvement. We have 20 states signed to use JRS, and we have also signed eight carriers. The vision that we have for what the system will become and the progress that we've made are all things that I can point to specifically that we're really proud of as a team.
MR. AMATO: To create this program, you had to have some interactions with the industry, code committees, chiefs, carriers, manufacturers, and industry participants. Tell us a little about that.
MR. COUVILLON: From the very beginning, one of the things that the Board of Trustees mandated is that we have an Advisory Task Group. We had our first meeting in the fall of 2020 with our client Advisory Task Group. On the Inspect side, the Advisory Task Group is made up of four jurisdictional chiefs – one from Canada, three from the U.S. – and representatives from HSB, Travelers, and FM. We meet four or five times a year. We review our designs, and there is often a very lively discussion about what we're working on. It's a group of type-A individuals, but great things have come out of it. That group has guided our development. They've weighed in on everything that we've done. I think the system reflects the industry's input.
One of our key objectives is to be a system built by the industry for the industry. From the very beginning, our business plan was how we wanted to construct the system, which is the system that's built by its users. We now have a Register client Advisory Task Group comprised of manufacturers and repair organizations. We also meet regularly with that group, and we're doing the same thing. Much of the vision for what the system will become originated from the input of the people in the room. And we very much appreciate it.
MR. MOONEY: The engagement with our customers is also critically important. When a customer calls, they speak to a person, and we try to resolve the issues as quickly as we can. We want to have constant dialogue with the customers as we move forward.
MR. COUVILLON: One more thing to note, I mentioned our client Advisory Task Group, but it's also an amazing environment to have former chief inspectors who are staff engineers at the National Board – Mike Burns, Gary Scribner (assistant executive director-technical), and his team, Luis Ponce and Terry Hellman. Whenever we have a question or we're struggling with a process, I can't tell you how many times I've reached out to Terry and said, “Hey, can you think through this with me?”
I've worked with people who are on our BOT Advisory Committee and members of our Board of Trustees and had the opportunity to visit with Rob (Troutt, BOT Chair) and Phillip Cole (former Advisory Committee member). We actually have a feature named after Phil in the system, so it's the Phillip Cole feature. There's a lot of industry participation and involvement in what we do from our staff all the way up to the industry.
MR. AMATO: What do you think has been the biggest challenge or accomplishment with JRS inside NBBI that you'd like to share with us?
MR. MOONEY: With the National Board being an organization that is 107 years old, I think we were using an email system that was 107 years old. I don't know if anyone is familiar with Lotus Notes. Well, that was quite a challenge. When I first came on, one of the questions from the executive team and some of the BOT members was: Where are you going to put all the developers in Columbus? I said that if we want the best developers, we need to be able to facilitate that across the U.S. and have remote employees across the U.S.
It was just about the time when COVID-19 was emerging, so the philosophy of having remote employees was very new. I remember one of the assistant executive directors asking how we would manage remote employees. As many of you know, with inspectors across the U.S., you set forth work expectations, and then you make sure that they hold true to the work they need to do and to be able to track those things. In doing that, we needed some systems. We needed to be able to communicate with the teams. And using Microsoft Teams, which was very new for the National Board, helped quite a bit.
MR. COUVILLON: From my perspective, what we've been able to accomplish is really the start of a software development team inside of a 107-year-old company, which is not always easy to do. But through a lot of communication, a lot of conversation, and a lot of overcoming of obstacles, we've worked together as a group. We've had great support from the staff when we came in – great support and great embracing of change from the staff. But I'll balance it with this: On our first day and at our first meeting when Mark and I were in Columbus, we were talking about remote work and a staff member said, “You know that 95% of projects like this fail. So I'm just going to set you guys apart, and we'll figure out how to work with you.” Mark and I kind of looked at each other and said, “Game on, we'll figure out how to do this.”
One of the challenges that I'm most proud of overcoming is that we have a working system. We're not perfect yet by any stretch of the imagination. We're far from done, but I do feel supported. I feel like we've embraced technology. We've embraced the need for support and development. We've brought on and added to our internal IT infrastructure. We've got folks who are in the room with us today who are contributing significantly to what we're doing. It's been an awesome experience to accomplish what we've accomplished within the National Board as an organization.
MR. AMATO: You bring up the points like that we were on Lotus Notes when I first got to the National Board, which was not supported any longer. Many things that you have come across during this development phase of JRS have help shaped the National Board in its core, too. The ideas you bring forward have also made us better as a company, so I want to highlight that. All right. What's the most meaningful theme or guiding philosophy that's driven the JRS team over the last five years?
MR. MOONEY: “Built by the industry for the industry” is a theme that we have used from the beginning. We wanted to make sure that as we developed the system, the feedback from the industry would make sure that it's something that they want to use. It drives down to the core values of the National Board – integrity, teamwork, customer service, and quality. All those things are embedded in the JRS system.
MR. COUVILLON: I've been very fortunate in my career to work with some very gifted people who have mentored me. One of them is a guy from Scotland who taught me a great deal. I still leverage a lot of his old sayings, and one we've tried to embrace was: “You take care of your people and they take care of your clients, and finances will take care of themselves.” What we try to do is focus on our team, focus on our people. One of the things that our head of service does that I love is that we have a monthly review of all the work that the team has accomplished. We have our entire group of 39 folks join that meeting. And our head of services walks through the changes that have been released, and why those changes are there. And she starts every meeting with: What are our four core values? What's the JRS's mission statement?
By the way, the JRS mission statement is to enable safety. We try to stay connected to our core values, our mission, the focus on what we're doing, and everything else just kind of falls back into place, and we take care of our folks.
MR. AMATO: I remember five years ago, the three of us sitting down and asking, “What's this going to look like? How are we going to do this?” How has the JRS vision evolved, and what drove those changes?
MR. COUVILLON: One of the key things that happened about a year in is we had a review meeting to go over the EDT (Electronic Data Transfer) system, which was our registration platform. It was in the process of being rewritten in a more modern technology. As we reviewed it, we realized that the output of the data report and the data that was going to be generated from it would not be connected to the inservice inspection process. We then sat down as a leadership team and as a group and said, “If we're going to do this, we're going to do it right. Let's really contemplate what our product strategy is.”
We quickly pivoted and started to incorporate the registration workflow and the certification workflow – accreditation, credentialing, and training – into that vision for what JRS would evolve into. That was probably the critical moment, as the vision evolved from just being a JRS Inspection platform to becoming a JRS lifecycle support for pressure equipment in the industry. So now you have JRS Register, which the development started in November of last year. All those forms are shared in the inservice inspection workflow so that as field inspectors, we can provide a holistic experience in the entire lifecycle of the pressure equipment. And there's no other organization that has the opportunity to do that, except the National Board. That's the most critical product evolution that's happened in the five years. It happened four years ago, and we've been working on it ever since.
MR. MOONEY: I agree. As we grow, it's a lot like – you ever see the movie Star Trek, and I forget when there was this massive thing coming to the Earth, do you remember that? Did you ever see the first Star Trek movie? So you've got this massive thing coming that the Star Trek people were like, “Oh, this massive thing coming to destroy the Earth.” And they finally get to it and they realize that it's not, it was Voyager, which was sent into the universe in the '70s, and it came back home. But in that time and in that development, it had grown into this massive thing coming back home. I’m not saying that JRS is going to be a massive thing that comes to destroy the Earth, but as we develop the process, there is an entire ecosystem in the boiler and pressure vessel industry that we will serve. It started with JRS Inspect, has now moved to JRS Register, and after Register is completed, we'll have JRS Certified.
MR. COUVILLON: I would imagine that we'll have opportunities to discover through working with the industry that'll enhance what JRS will ultimately become.
MR. AMATO: What is a customer insight that truly changed your mind or changed the direction of a product?
MR. MOONEY: Every time we roll out a new jurisdiction or we speak to a customer, there's always something. We're growing and we're learning, but I think the most significant one came when we rolled out the state of Iowa, and I give a lot of credit to (Chief Inspector) Bob Bunte. Bob had numerous comments and ideas. As a result, we're in the process of upgrading our inspection and Q&A review pages, which will serve the industry very well. We appreciate all the input from all the jurisdictions.
MR. COUVILLON: I'll point to our work with North Carolina, our third jurisdiction to come online, and especially Don (Kinney, chief inspector) and his assistant chief. We conduct regular follow-up calls with our customers after rollout. As we began to develop our analytics package, everyone shared opportunities for enhancement. However, we also partnered with the state of North Carolina in the development of our analytics package, and we've had several iterative calls. We sit and listen a lot, and we try to respond to what the groups are saying, but I think Don and his team have been very instrumental. We'll have the opportunity to share some of our analytics later, and I'm going to bring up Don and ask him to walk through it with us.
MR. AMATO: How are you maintaining a high-performance, fully remote team?
MR. COUVILLON: One of the key things is the focus on individuals to make sure that we connect. One of our standing guidelines is that we do Teams meetings all day, every day. We're always on camera, so that we can see each other, we can watch body language, we can kind of gauge reaction to what we're saying, and that supports the remote. We're not in the office together, but a lot of times it feels like we are. We’re a big family, and we try to treat our team that way. We intentionally spend time talking with each other, talking about kids, family, and what's going on. I know we do a lot of work together in leadership that we open those meetings up with, “Hey, what's one personal, what's one professional thing that's gone on that’s good?” And those types of connections can sometimes be a little corny, but they're meaningful. And to me, they make all the difference in the world in a relationship.
MR. MOONEY: It does come down to communication. We have an annual science fair. In the IT industry, you have your developers take a couple of days to create something for a science fair. And at the end of the science fair, we see what they've produced and judge it, determining who has the best project. It's a neat little thing; it’s off the track. The first year that we did that, we had maybe 50% of the projects that weren’t really relatable to our product. This year, it was 100%. There are things I want to put into JRS today.
MR. AMATO: Are you going to share any of those things that won the science fair? There was one about a photograph that was linked to everything.
MR. COUVILLON: The violation enhancement where you can search is one example. And we've already implemented some of the changes. The violation enhancement is one of the challenges, as the National Board and our engineering team have identified 550 standard violations, and all eight states have adopted those violations. It's not always easy to scroll through 550 violations to find what you need. One of our teams built an intelligent search that provides visibility into which violation they're looking for and allows them to select and add the violation with just a few keywords and a search. We implemented it last Thursday.
MR. AMATO: I'm looking forward to see the other things that get implemented.
MR. MOONEY: And you talked about the photo thing. That was second or third on the list. You've got an app, and when you go into a boiler room and see a violation, you click. It identifies where you are, attaches it to the system, and it's in the system. Now you can use it in your reports and similar documents.
MR. AMATO: That's very cool. As I mentioned, you've been at this for just about five years now. Can you describe the last five years in one word?
MR. COUVILLON: For me, it would be embraced.
MR. MOONEY: Trailblazing. We’ve brought a lot of innovation, ideas, and formative processes to the National Board. That will end up being a foundation for the future of the National Board.
MR. AMATO: Last question, what are you guys working on now and what's coming up that people could be excited about?
MR. MOONEY: I'm super excited about routing and analytics. Jacques, did you want to walk through that?
MR. COUVILLON: I definitely want to walk through it. Before we do, we should see if anyone has any questions.
MR. AMATO: Does anybody have any questions for these guys?
MEMBER: When you look at all those challenges you mentioned, did you all have a moment where you said maybe this is too much?
MR. COUVILLON: Absolutely not. I actually feel like we're not doing enough. I think when we started, what we did is we went back to C.O. Myers and the idea of one code, one stamp. How do we expand that into one system? The drive is to standardize the industry so that we can harmonize into a single dataset, enabling us to have analytics and consistency. The goal is for a jurisdictional inspection done in Arkansas to be no different than one completed in Seattle. And the way that we do that is that we work together. One of the things we've done is try to standardize a JRS Inspection report. Some of the things that we're doing is just trying to breed consistency into the workflow, into the forms, so that we've got core fields still allowing our jurisdictions to have autonomy by having user defined fields so they can support any administrative needs that they've got internally so that our carriers can support any administrative needs that they have for their workflow, but trying to build our core solution in a standard way. I want to continue doing more.
If I start to allow myself to dream 15 years down the road, it can get overwhelming. We try to have a roadmap that is written in sand 15 months from now, written on the whiteboard six to 12 months from now, and pretty much written in stone over the next 90 days so that we have a focus. And when requests come in, we have the proper filter and lens to look at those requests through so that we don't distract ourselves from our year-term mission.
MR. MOONEY: From a consistency standpoint, though, is the consistency in some of the things from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Early on, our goal was to develop a standard set of violations and present it to a new jurisdiction, saying, “This is a national standard that we've adopted.” There's always going to be jurisdictions that will have a couple of additional things that are written in their regulations. Now, as we work with the NBBI committees, with that in mind, you've got types and uses. There are inconsistencies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and we're seeking to establish consistency and drive it, so you can return to the vision of C.O. Myers.
MEMBER: Will the new system allow an inspector to enter more than one pressure relief valve into the system? Additionally, if an inspector enters something contradictory, does it prevent them from submitting the report?
MR. COUVILLON: Today, we're supporting up to five safety relief valves and the ability to capture information for all that. What was the second part?
MEMBER: An inspector might put a “no” for low-water cutoff install and submit a passing report. And I kick it back to them. Will the system be able to flag it and prompt an inspector to reexamine their report before submission?
MR. COUVILLON: Those types of validations are super critical. The way that we're building them right now is not a gate to the submission. A gate would be 'you shall not pass' or 'you shall not go through' unless you satisfy it. However, what we're doing is developing notifications and warnings for things like that, so that we're trying to enable the inspector to submit reports in the proper way. We will continue to work to evolve this type of intelligence into the system. There's great capability. It's just about ensuring we're doing it in a way that doesn't compromise the user experience.
MEMBER: Do you see a time when R-1s or R-2s are submitted to the National Board, so that they will be populated and loaded into JRS to the appropriate object?
MR. MOONEY: Absolutely.
MR. COUVILLON: One of the critical things that we can do is to have them available to the states so that the repair company's job is easier than it is today. We want to encourage that information and data to be available not just to the states, but to the entire industry, again, to enable safety in a much more effective way. Yes, one of our goals is to drive an increase in the number of repair forms that are shared and have that driven through JRS Register into the inspection workflow.
MR. MOONEY: How many of your jurisdictions require reporting to R-1s to the National Board? It's not 100% across the board. As you begin to use the JRS system, you will see the value very quickly when the R-1s are in there. If you don't have it in your rules now, I want to encourage you to implement it because it will increase safety within your jurisdiction.
MEMBER: With all the different jurisdictions and how they identify their objects and how numbers are assigned to different things, is there any talk about standardizing how we're identifying the objects that we're inspecting, as far as like a QR code or something that would unify how we're doing it?
MR. COUVILLON: The QR code or barcode has been a topic of discussion. As the system evolves, one of the things that Mark started doing early on was attending ABMA and PVMA to start the conversation at the manufacturing level for how to integrate QR codes. Very early on in the JRS development, we conducted a proof of concept with our development team, simply embedding a QR code on a certificate of operation so that when an inspector scanned the QR code, it directed them to the inspection page for that piece of equipment. When we embarked on the mission to expand JRS into Register, Inspect, and Certify, we realized we had a much broader set of industry participants to contemplate through the use of the QR code.
As you scan that code, you have to think about where do we land. How do we standardize the web, the URL of the QR code that we direct that person to, where do they land, and what they will access? So we have to think about the manufacturers. Do we support operating requirements? Do we land them at the data report or the repair, or do we land them at the inspection? As we evolve the system over the next several years, we will take into account all these different variables and industry participants to develop a cohesive strategy for scanning, enabling us to drive them to a very specific place.
It's something we've contemplated from the very beginning. We know it's something that can drive efficiency and data integrity into the system. One of the more immediate and powerful things that we're focused on is how do we enable data report data to be leveraged and used in the inservice inspection so at the time of the inspection we search the data report and we pull in data to eliminate bad data getting into the inspection workflow from the start.
MR. MOONEY: If you click on a QR code, it will take you to one site. And because of our development into the whole universe of the industry, if an owner-user clicks on the QR code, they're going to want something different than an inspector, a repair company, or a manufacturer. We want to make sure that we take that into account. It's nice to say, “Hey, let's get this so we can deal with this.” However, we want to build the system correctly and ensure we do the right thing from the start.
MEMBER: Are there any plans to incorporate the functionality to allow for NB-369 compliance and QC within JRS?
MR. COUVILLON: We've been part of the 380 Task Group. By its very nature, a lot of the workflow and a lot of the talking with other industry participants who are all very passionate about the ability to support training and education. So absolutely, it's been part of what we envision – and quite honestly, almost native to what we've already built. The system is specifically designed to support these types of opportunities.
MEMBER: Have guys made any collaboration with ASME as far as their data plate labeling concept to incorporate this?
MR. MOONEY: No, but as was previously said, Joel has had meetings with ASME and Tom Costabile (executive director/CEO) from the beginning. And what Joel and Tom have done is enlarge that meeting to include some senior management, where we can discuss those types of issues as they come up.
MEMBER: Just a little more on the QR code because I think there's huge value in that. What if, in talking with manufacturers, so when they're making them, you get like the tombstone QR code on the item when it's built, and as we're building JRS Register, and data reports are registered with us, the National Board could actually apply the QR code to the data report. We wouldn't necessarily need the manufacturer to put one on. We could put it on when we get it.
MR. MOONEY: On the data plate?
MEMBER: No, on the data report, so when it is installed, the data report could be uploaded to JRS Inspect, and then you've got the QR code on the data report from day one.
MR. MOONEY: That is an option. I would love for manufacturers to be able to have the QR code on the object and scan it in. We also understand the whole concept with the manufacturers, with the stamps, and how they order them and get them on the vessels. That's part of the ecosystem that we have to embrace and figure out. In the meantime, getting the QR codes on the certificates is a great and preliminary solution, but ultimately, I'd like to see those QR codes on the vessel itself.
MEMBER: Has there been any discussion about including certificate holders and repair organizations in Inspect so that whenever violations are noted and a National Board repair organization is used, we have a mechanism to report that more quickly for the customer? Then it would be an incentive for the customer to use it even for non-R-1 or R-2.
MR. COUVILLON: You just answered your question. Yes, the intent is to make sure that the repair organizations have access to the information. That is just as critical to a successful repair. Suppose the repair organization has access to the inspection information, violation information, or data report information. In that case, it is a true industry solution that we're trying to create in an environment where we're sharing data for the benefit of everyone, not just one organization, not just one industry participant, but everyone, including the repair organizations. Our goal is to have the repair organization share that information with the states and the inspection industry through JRS.
MR. MOONEY: The repair organization will go right into JRS to the location where they've done the repair, add the repair, the R-1, and be done with it from that standpoint. The documentation is there. Jacques, we have to present. I'd like to share what you've got going.
Mr. Couvillon and North Carolina Chief Boiler Inspector Don Kinney demonstrated a key component of JRS Connect.
MR. COUVILLON: As Don is coming up, we're going to share a window into analytics. And as I mentioned in the discussion, Don and his team were instrumental, and our initial focus had really two lenses. One was a jurisdiction's financial services team. We have a series of accounting dashboards that cover invoices, accounts receivable, and a lot of the metrics for your accounting group. Additionally, we have a group of dashboards focused on inventory and inspection metrics.
I will focus with Don on our inventory dashboards. What you're going to see are these different tabs, which represent our various dashboards. This first one is our location and equipment dashboard. Don, if you don't mind, talk a little bit about how you and your team, from you down to your two regional managers, are using analytics today, specifically as it relates to the location inventory dashboard.
MR. KINNEY: Analytics has become a powerful tool for us. This is the go-to screen that appears for us. It's a fantastic snapshot of the number of registered active objects that we have. If you scroll down, you will find some other great charts. Some features the JRS team added for us include metrics for overdues and the number of objects that each inspection agency is responsible for in our state. We have a couple of key metrics in North Carolina that start in our strategic plan, which includes the number of overdues, violations, and follow-ups. All our reporting now comes from these analytics.
We have revised our monthly reporting process based on the analytics package. It used to take three people to do our monthly report. Now, with the customization that has been made to this and the package that came with it, the supervisors in the field now generate these reports. As a result, it has significantly refined our monthly reporting process.
When I log in to the JRS home page, at the bottom, it gives the total amount of overdue objects by a percentage. And the next thing I do is go to analytics and scroll down to that list of the AIAs, and I can see who's really behind and who we need to reach out to. Then, we have the next dashboard, which is the overdue inspection dashboard. Some of this information is on the first tab, but the main difference that I see is the inspection is coming due, the T minus and the T plus, which are extremely helpful for us to use.
MR. COUVILLON: One of the nice things about what we're doing with the analytics dashboard is that you'll see that we can pull in all the data. Once JRS is fully utilized by the industry, instead of jurisdictional chiefs having to compile a violation metrics report, we'll be able to walk through those violations for the industry, those inspections for the industry, and the inventory view for the industry.
To walk you through the inventory dashboard, the top-left graph displays the total number of active objects. We're showing who has the inventory broken down by company. We're showing both the number of active equipment and the percentage of market share for that organization. We've got North Carolina being the 28% market shareholder. The largest inspection agency is the state. They have 26,132 active objects. As we scroll down, we're showing compliance by CED and by overdue percentage.
One of the ideas that Don's regional managers had was to break our equipment inventory by county. What you will see in the first column is the location county. We're showing the equipment in the county, the location count, and the average equipment per location. The reason we're doing this is that if we have one part of the state that is a little bit out of compliance, Don's team can form a task force and focus on that county. Now, we're giving the average equipment count per location so that they know if there are six objects on average per location in the county versus two, we're going to be spending more time at each location during the inspection. It lets us normalize the geography a little bit.
MR. KINNEY: The graph on the right has two main things for us, too. One is, of course, being able to focus on the most overdue counties. We have 11 field inspectors, so we have 11 territories across the state. We try to divide up the work so that everybody has about the same amount of work. Having these accurate numbers allows us to go in and ensure that no inspector has significantly more work than someone else, which is super helpful.
MR. COUVILLON: At the bottom of each of these dashboards, we've got the detail that is associated with all the pictures that are represented above. You can filter down to the exact set of information that you'd like to look at, and then extract it into Excel. The overdue dashboard is very similar to the location and equipment dashboard. It just focuses on overdues, giving us the ability to look forward a little bit. Let's take a quick look at violations. We transition from a more inventory-based set of dashboards to a more transaction-based set. This is showing the total number of violations for that jurisdiction. Don, let's discuss how you're using the violations dashboard and what's meaningful to you.
MR. KINNEY: This is a beneficial dashboard for us. As I said before, one of our strategic plan requirements, which flows into all our work plans, is to maintain at least 90% follow-ups for violations. Being able to drill down to the number of violations written by a specific inspector that are still open, how many days it's been open, and if there's been any follow-ups done makes it very easy for supervisors to make sure the inspectors are meeting their work plans, which ultimately ensures that we're meeting our strategic goals.
MR. COUVILLON: We have the ability to control the period that we're looking at. We're giving a bar graph that shows the age of the violation. By hovering over one of our columns, you'll see 506 violations that have been open for less than 30 days. And we get a 30- to 60-day bucket, so on, so forth. As we scroll down, we've got another set of graphs that show the number of violations open in a given month and how many have been closed. What this allows us to do as a jurisdiction is really track what's happening within our jurisdiction. It simply provides us with visibility into what's happening each month.
At the bottom, again, you get the detail. One of the things that Don's team recently asked us to do was to support the annual goal of ensuring they are in compliance with violation follow-up. Let's look at the number of days the violation has been open. Let's look at the number of days past the resolve-by date that the violation has been there. And let's also look at the date of the last follow-up inspection. This allows Don's team to know whether they are following up on violations, especially those that have been opened past the date to be resolved. And I know that that's one of the annual compliance metrics.
MR. KINNEY: This is just one example of where the JRS team worked with us. They knew what our goals were. We had a great idea, but it turned out to be too complex. They offered an alternative, and it's working beautifully.
MR. COUVILLON: Let’s pop into our inspections dashboard, which is another more transactional dashboard. It’s similar to the violations, but it provides a focus on the inspection process. Again, we're able to look at who's performing the inspections within the jurisdiction, what company, and when they were completed. We can also look at their submission date and start to track what's happening. You can see we're about halfway through the month. We’ve had 1,807 inspections flow through, and we can begin to trend and look at what's going on. We are also showing how many of our inspections are done in terms of both percentage and count by state inspectors versus other industry inspectors.
You can see that 34% of the inspections are being done by the state. Detailed information is underneath, including the status of the inspection and where it is in the invoicing workflow.
Lastly, let's take a look at the last dashboard, which is our activities by inspector. This one has no great visuals; it's more of a list. In this dashboard, what we're trying to accomplish is to allow me visibility into the work being done within my jurisdiction. We're looking at the count of location visits, the count of equipment, and the average equipment inspected per visit. We're trying to normalize and be able to benchmark inspectors so that we're taking into account whether we're spending more time. Do we have fewer location visits, but we're spending more time inspecting? How many violations were found? How many violations are we closing? And we're able to show that for our jurisdictions.
Now, for my carriers in the room, you can see we're incorporating your time and expense. We’re not only normalizing your metrics based on the inspection counts, but we're taking into account drive time by providing average drive time per visit. We're doing average inspection time per visit. We're able to normalize many of the traditional industry challenges through the use of these metrics. Don, I don't know if you have any further background for the group.
MR. KINNEY: As a chief, the first inventory dashboard is my go-to one. The rest of them are for the field staff, especially the supervisors, to watch what their inspectors are doing. They're really fantastic tools.
MR. COUVILLON: Don, thanks so much for coming up.
MR. MOONEY: Thanks, Don.
MR. COUVILLON: Lastly, I want to share some advancements we've made on the routing side. Let's go over into our search that's due, the plan work search. We're going to search the city of Raleigh for equipment that's active which is the responsibility of the state of North Carolina. We have incorporated Google Maps into JRS, which serves a variety of functions within the system. One of them is that we're leveraging their routing engine. We can plan a route and optimize it. We're going to generate the optimized route, and this will pass those locations into Google Maps. When it optimizes the route, we get a time between each of these locations. We have the ability to send this to a phone. It’s an inspector or a scheduler tool so you can optimize your route as part of our work plan.
This is one way of optimizing and using an optimized route in the JRS platform. We've got a lot of our carriers in the room that use centralized scheduling units, and we also provide the ability to view the optimized route within a bulk appointment. When we look at this, we have to add appointments for selected locations using the optimized route. This gives us that optimized route. Let's pick the inspector. So, Don, you're going to be doing some inspections this afternoon. You’ll notice that we have the estimated travel time between the locations. Our starting location is Don's house, if I'm not mistaken. And we have 34 minutes to our first location, five to our second, 14 to our third, and 23 to our last, so we can set up our work plan and set our inspection date. Let’s say we're planning for next Tuesday, so we can use the calendar picker or we can just choose a date, either one. We can have a start time. Let's say we start our day at 8 a.m.
We can add about how much time you want to spend at each location, so we'll spend an hour. Then, we'll do an equipment inspection visit, and we'll send all our active equipment into our scheduled inspections. What we can do from here is optimize or update our start times at each one of our locations. When we hit condition, it builds a series of inspection appointments that get passed into our calendar, so all that equipment is scheduled as part of our work plan on the optimized route.
MR. MOONEY: Does that mean it goes to your phone, Jacques?
MR. COUVILLON: Yes, it does. We can send an Outlook calendar appointment. One of the things we can do is include a meeting invite, so we do have the concept of an appointment contact that we can email as part of that appointment that gets created. We love talking about this stuff, as you can probably tell, so thank you all for the opportunity to be here this afternoon.