Still Writing Down Tyre Readings? How to Reduce Double Entry in Fleet Inspections

A technician has checked the last tyre. The readings are on a clipboard. Later, someone opens a spreadsheet and types those numbers again. If a wheel position is unclear or a value cannot be read, the sheet comes back for clarification.

This is an illustrative workflow, not a customer performance case. If it resembles your routine, a faster gauge may address only part of the job. The useful question is: how many times does the same reading change hands before it becomes a usable record?

Illustrative scene: copying inspection readings from paper into a computer creates a second data-entry task.

What counts as double entry?

In this guide, double entry means manually entering the same measured value into more than one place: for example, writing it on paper and later typing it into a spreadsheet. It does not mean an independent second measurement required by your procedure.

Changing from a paper form to a tablet does not necessarily solve the problem. If a technician types a reading into the tablet and office staff then retype it into another system, the second entry remains. Conversely, a consistent paper process may still be practical for occasional checks or a backup procedure.

For which details belong in the record, use the Fleet Tire Inspection Checklist. This article focuses on how those details move between people and systems, rather than repeating the checklist.

Follow one reading through the process

Choose an ordinary inspection and follow a single tyre-pressure or tread-depth reading from the instrument to the final record. Ask the technician and the person who prepares the report to show each step, including corrections and file transfers.

A photograph of a sheet can be a useful backup, but it is not the same as reusable numeric data. Nor does sending a file by email establish that the receiving system can interpret its fields.

Time the work after the measurement, too

Before comparing tools, agree on what "finished" means. For this exercise, finish when the required readings, identifiers and notes are available in a record that the designated reviewer can use. This is an administrative endpoint, not approval to return a vehicle to service.

Use the worksheet below for both the current process and the proposed process. Record actual times in your own sheet; no benchmark or assumed saving is built in.

Track elapsed time and staff time separately. Elapsed time is how long the process takes from start to finish, including waits. Staff time is the sum of the time people spend working on it. When two people work simultaneously, their staff minutes add together even though the elapsed minutes overlap. Do not sum overlapping stage durations and call the result elapsed time.

Use the same time measure on both sides and a baseline greater than zero. A negative result means the trial took longer. This calculation describes your observation; it is not a promised product result.

Make the comparison fair

• Keep the inspection scope comparable. Use the same number of tyres, required measuring points and reporting requirements, and note access or vehicle-layout differences.
• Keep setup and failures visible. Include pairing, finding the right record, reconnecting, correcting and exporting. Log a failed attempt rather than quietly excluding it.
• Separate learning from routine work. Record training time and repeat the exercise after familiarization. Retain all runs and explain any exclusions instead of selecting only the quickest result.
• Compare complete records. A shorter task that omits required readings or leaves unusable data is not an equivalent completed inspection.

If waiting for the vehicle is the main bottleneck, removing transcription may make little difference to the overall elapsed time. If the second entry is what consumes staff effort, direct capture is a more relevant feature to evaluate.

Remove copying, not verification

Choose one working record for each inspection and make responsibility for it clear. Confirm the vehicle and tyre position before accepting a reading. Check that the saved value, unit and measurement context agree with what was taken; a connection alone does not establish that the right value reached the right tyre record.

For a correction, retain the original reading and the reason for the change where your process requires it. Test how the selected system handles a missed reading, a duplicate, an interrupted connection and a later correction. Ask the supplier to demonstrate these cases rather than assuming that Bluetooth, an export button or a dashboard provides every function.

Where VIRTUS and DigiSpect Tyre fit

The LEMATEC and AssetFindr joint-development announcement describes VIRTUS DTP029 as a combined tyre-pressure and tread-depth instrument connected with DigiSpect Tyre. LEMATEC contributes hardware engineering and manufacturing; AssetFindr develops the software and application workflow.

AssetFindr's DigiSpect overview describes direct logging of pressure and tread readings and CSV or PDF report export. Those functions make the measurement-to-record handoff worth testing. They do not establish compatibility with every fleet-management system, account configuration or reporting process.

In a demonstration, follow a reading all the way into the record your team will review. Ask to see the supported identification fields, a sample export and what happens when a transfer is interrupted. Then time the complete process using your own requirements. The announcement places the VIRTUS launch in late 2026; confirm current availability with AssetFindr.

When a simpler process may be enough

If your team performs occasional checks, has no repeated office entry and can reliably retrieve the required records, a consistent manual method may be adequate. If staff still need to recreate every digital reading in another system, resolve that destination handoff before judging the value of a connected instrument.

The goal is not to eliminate paper at any cost. It is to reduce avoidable copying while retaining complete, usable inspection records.

Frequently Asked Questions

About the Author: Vic Chen

Vic Chen represents LEMATEC in the VIRTUS joint-development collaboration. His application guidance distinguishes hardware functions, software capabilities and the workflow checks buyers should make before adoption.

Connect with Vic Chen on LinkedIn