NEN 2767 inspection app development
NEN 2767 makes the condition of a building measurable: each defect is assessed for severity, extent and intensity, producing a condition score per building or installation component. Appfront builds the app in which the inspector records that assessment on site, so the multi-year maintenance plan rests on observations rather than an estimate made afterwards.
What condition measurement under NEN 2767 involves
The standard provides a method for objectively determining the technical condition of building and installation components. The inspector assesses not the element as a whole but the defects they observe, weighing each on three points: how serious the defect is, over what part of the element it extends, and how intensively it occurs. From these three factors a condition score is derived on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 is excellent and 6 is very poor.
The value of this methodology lies in comparability. Because two inspectors follow the same assessment methodology, scores can be compared across buildings and over the years. That makes condition measurement suitable as a basis for a multi-year maintenance plan and for budget discussions, because a score of 4 on the façade of one property means the same as a score of 4 on another.
In practice, this stands or falls with how the data is generated. We still often see an inspector walk through a property with a paper form or a spreadsheet and process the findings afterwards. Photos sit in a separate folder and have to be searched for later to find the right element. What then happens is that the nuance disappears: the defect is reduced to a score, and at the next measurement it is no longer possible to trace why that score was given.
Sewerage has its own set of standards with its own condition coding. We cover those on the page about the app for sewer inspection and pumping station rounds.
How we build your condition measurement app
We start with the decomposition of your property portfolio. If that does not align with how you manage, the scores may be objective but will not be usable for your planning.
How do you divide a building into parts: by construction part, by element, by installation? If that matches your existing property administration, scores and maintenance measures can be linked. If it deviates, every report requires translation work.
For each element type, the defects that may occur, together with the assessment methodology. The inspector chooses from a list rather than typing freely, because that is what keeps scores comparable across inspectors.
We work in sprints and begin with the inspection on site. Your inspectors take part and carry out a real measurement early with an interim version; only then does it become clear whether the pace is achievable in a property for which you set aside a day.
The scores need to go somewhere: into your multi-year maintenance plan or your management system. We set up that handover and then transfer responsibility to your management organisation.
What the app does in practice
Six components that turn an inspection round into a usable file. What you need depends on the size of your portfolio.
Decomposition per building
The building broken down into construction parts and elements, with the previous score and the defects recorded at that time for each element. The inspector works through that tree rather than a list, and sees along the way what they have not yet covered.
Defects by seriousness, extent and intensity
For each defect, the three assessments the standard requires, from which the condition score follows. The inspector assesses and the system calculates, so every score can be traced back to the observations beneath it.
Photo attached to the element
Images are attached to the element and the defect, not to the visit. At the next measurement, last year's photo sits alongside, so deterioration becomes visible rather than becoming a matter of debate.
Cycle per property
The measurement cycle differs per property and sometimes per element type. The system plans ahead, groups what lies in the same district or complex, and flags which properties are due.
From score to measure
A score on its own is not a plan. We link scores to proposed measures with a level of urgency, so the outcome of a round can be turned directly into a multi-year maintenance plan rather than first being retyped.
Portfolio overview
Across buildings: where the worst scores sit, which element types consistently score poorly, and how condition develops over time. That is the conversation a property manager has with their board.
Who we build for
Four types of organisation. The difference lies in whether you measure for your own portfolio or on behalf of third parties.
Property managers and housing associations
Large portfolios where the condition survey drives the budget. If this connects to your property management software, the decomposition does not need to exist twice.
Healthcare, education and government
Own property with an in-house technical department, where the survey mainly serves to underpin investment decisions for the board or the municipal council.
Inspection bureaus and consultants
You survey on behalf of third parties and deliver the report. Your interests are turnaround time per property and a report your client can use directly in their own system.
Commercial property managers
Distribution centres, shops or offices, where condition surveys overlap with facilities management and sustainability plans.
Test your idea first: a working prototype in 1 day
With OneDayBuild, we turn your idea into something tangible in one day for €1,150, so you can see whether further development is worth the investment. Decide to go ahead with the full build? Then we credit the full cost.
Explore OneDayBuild →Technology and integrations
What we deploy follows from your way of working. Crawl spaces, roofs and technical rooms rarely have coverage, so offline working is a requirement. Usability outweighs functionality: an inspector who is out all day should spend seconds per element, not minutes.
For foundation research itself, with inspection pits, measurements and a report per property, there is our reporting software for foundation investigation.
Why Appfront
The score follows from observation
We have the inspector assess what they see and let the system do the calculation. A score entered directly cannot be explained at the next survey.
Comparability is the whole point
The value of the standard lies in being able to set buildings and years side by side. That requires fixed defect lists and a decomposition that does not change from round to round.
The scores need to go somewhere
A measurement that stays in a report changes nothing. We build the bridge to your multi-year maintenance plan or management system through integrations.
We join a survey round
Before designing, we spend a day inspecting with you. The difference between an app that keeps pace and one that slows down lies in the number of actions per element.
Security and privacy
A condition survey contains little personal data, but it does record which inspector gave which assessment. That is traceable to a person, and it is sensitive, because scores are a judgement and inspectors differ. We use that record to safeguard quality, not to produce output figures per inspector, and we focus reporting on the property.
More weight attaches to the fact that condition scores have financial consequences. They steer budgets, play a role in purchase and sale, and in leasing they can become part of a dispute. That is why reliability is not a formality here: a confirmed survey cannot be changed silently, a correction is visible as a correction, and photos carry a timestamp. If you survey on behalf of third parties, access is strictly limited per client so that no one sees another's portfolio. How we handle security ourselves is set out in our information security policy; reports from outside go through our coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy.
Frequently asked questions about condition surveys
The scale runs from 1, excellent, to 6, very poor. More important than the score itself is how it is reached: the inspector assesses the defects they see on severity, extent and intensity, and the score follows from that. This means any score can always be traced back to observations. That is why we build the app so that the inspector records defects and the system calculates the score, not the other way round.
There is no general legal obligation. In practice it is the standard method for property management organisations with a property portfolio, and it is frequently required contractually: for tendered maintenance, performance contracts and sometimes for financing. The reason to do it is usually internal: without an objective method, a maintenance budget becomes a debate between opinions.
You decide that yourself, and it varies by portfolio. Many managers work to a cycle of several years per building, with components that age quickly coming up for inspection more often than the structural frame. Because that cycle can differ by building and by element type, we make it configurable and have the system plan ahead, so that a round can be organised efficiently.
Condition assessment establishes the current state; maintenance software carries out the work that follows from it. The two belong together but are not the same: the assessment is a periodic evaluation by an inspector, while maintenance is an ongoing process of requests, work orders and scheduling. We build the assessment so that its outcome flows into your maintenance planning without retyping.
By using fixed defect lists per element type and by having the score calculated rather than entered. It also helps to require a photo for every defect, so that an assessment can be verified afterwards. Two inspectors will never score identically, because it remains expert judgement; what you can achieve is that differences are explainable rather than arbitrary.
Yes. Crawl spaces, roofs, plant rooms and vacant properties rarely have coverage, and that is exactly where you inspect. The app stores everything locally, including photos, and syncs as soon as there is a connection. Inspecting a full day can easily mean hundreds of photos, so we design explicitly for handling that without the device filling up.
That is the goal. We link scores to proposed measures with an urgency rating, and build the export or integration with the system that holds your multi-year maintenance plan. What is possible depends on that system, and we establish it during the discovery phase. Where no integration is possible, we deliver an export in the format your planner uses.
That depends on the size of your portfolio, how granular you want the breakdown to be, and whether an integration with your management system is included. The inspection app is usually the fastest to put to use. Setting up the defect lists per element type is the largest piece of preparatory work, and we do that together with your inspectors. We will give you a well-founded estimate after the discovery phase.
Ready to build a condition assessment app?
Tell us how large your portfolio is and how assessments are currently carried out, and we will help you think through the breakdown, the defect lists and the bridge to your maintenance planning. We build this as a standalone app and as part of a broader custom software or app project. For new construction in consequence class 1, the Wkb file precedes this; see competent authority file.