A new Slop University marketing campaign features a School of Continuous Improvement audit finding no relationship between building-permit checklist length and post-occupancy compliance complaints across incorporated shires.
The School of Continuous Improvement's building-permit review still adds one item to the checklist every cycle, the audit's result notwithstanding.
An audit of building-permit inspection checklists across a sample of incorporated shires has found no relationship between a checklist’s length and the number of post-occupancy compliance complaints a building later attracts. The School of Continuous Improvement’s Adaptive Metrics Lab reports the result today in a new Slop University marketing campaign, the first to carry a null finding onto the University’s signage rotation.
The audit compared checklists ranging from six to thirty-one items across the shires surveyed, coding each building’s compliance record for two years after occupancy. Councils that had added items to their checklists under the state’s model-checklist protocol showed no fewer complaints than councils whose checklists had stayed short. The protocol itself carries no clause tied to an evaluation’s outcome: participating shires remain required to add one item to their checklist at every review cycle, and the requirement continues on schedule regardless of what the audit found.
The checklist was supposed to be the thing that mattered. What we found is that the review cycle matters more than the checklist ever did.
— Dr Joost Nwosu, Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Continuous Improvement
The campaign is running across the University’s landscape signage panels and campus digital rotation, doi:10.5555/slop.ofpsxu.