In-House, Software, or Full-Service: Which Audit Approach Is Right for Your Utility?

If your utility is reevaluating how to go about your pole audits, you’re not alone. Past challenges and growing complexity regarding attachments, records, and compliance have many utilities asking whether a new audit model would work better.

In this article, we set out to help answer that question by outlining the four real-world approaches available, including their pros and cons and when each might make the most sense.

With more than 40 years of field, joint-use, and pole auditing experience, we’ve seen how different approaches perform in practice. These insights can help you identify the model that best aligns with your utility’s scale, staffing, and long-term data reliability goals.

The Four Real-World Approaches Utilities Use to Complete Pole Audits

The way a utility conducts pole audits has a direct impact on safety, NESC compliance, billing accuracy, and the quality of its attachment records. Different audit models place different demands on internal teams, offer varying levels of accuracy, and scale differently as pole networks grow.

If issues such as outdated records, unauthorized attachments, or inconsistent audit results have surfaced in the past, it may be worth evaluating whether your current approach is still the best fit. 

Below, we outline four common pole audit approaches utilities use today, along with the strengths and limitations of each.

The two key questions to consider are a) who performs the fieldwork? and b) whose software or workflows are used? 

The four models below are combinations across the spectrum of internal versus outsourced as it relates to both questions.

Approach 1: Fully In-House: Internal Field Teams + Internal Software

Because it’s so labor-intensive, the fully in-house model in which employees of the utility perform all field inspections is a rare occurrence. Typically only the largest IOUs can cover that amount of fieldwork, as well as handle the QC, data integration, and reporting internally. Even in those cases, sustaining a consistent audit schedule can be challenging alongside other operational priorities.”

However, if a utility has the necessary human capital and possesses its own GIS/mobile data collection tools, the payoff is maximum control and visibility with no vendor dependency. You’re on your own for aspects such as staff training and revenue recovery, but if you prefer complete ownership and have dedicated audit staff, this could be the best route to take.

Best for:

• Large utilities with mature internal GIS infrastructure
• Utilities that prefer complete ownership and have dedicated audit staff

Approach 2: In-House Fieldwork + Utility-Licensed 3rd-Party Software

If you have the personnel but don’t want to invest in developing your own system for mobile data collection, you may find this approach works for your utility. It involves purchasing ready-made audit software to pair with your internal field teams as they collect the data. In other words, you get help with the structure, but not the labor, associated with pole audits. 

This approach still requires ongoing staffing, training, and internal oversight. Results may vary depending on team turnover, but your staffers will likely know local standards better than third-party servicers. And the streamlined digital data collection can lead to fast, consistent results, although QC will still be up to you.

Best for:

• Medium-sized utilities with some field capacity
• Organizations comfortable managing labor and QC internally
• Utilities not yet ready for outsourced solutions

Approach 3: Outsourced Fieldwork + Utility-Selected Software

With this approach, a utility licenses software for its audits and hires a contractor to perform its fieldwork. The contractor then uses the utility’s selected software to collect data during audits. 

While this model reduces the demand on internal field staff, it can introduce ambiguity around quality control and accountability. When issues arise, responsibility may be unclear—field contractors may point to software limitations, while software configuration remains the utility’s responsibility. Outcomes can vary depending on contractor training, experience, and oversight.

But it does allow you to keep your preferred software environment, and you may save money by using lower-cost, third-party labor. The breakeven question will be whether the oversight requirement from your staff to verify results is worth the savings.

Best for:

• Utilities already locked into software contracts
• Short-term or stopgap audit needs
• Utilities that want external labor but maintain their own tools

Approach 4: Full-Service Outsourced Audit (Fieldwork + Software + QC from One Provider)

This approach uses a single provider to perform the physical audit and supply the supporting software and reporting tools. Field data collection and structuring, QC, corrections, and final deliverables are all the responsibility of the vendor under. Attachment inventory, power equipment inventory, double wood identification, condition checks, and compliance verification may be included as well, often in one consolidated visit.

The benefits of this option include:

• the ability to have one accountable partner for the entire audit process

• higher accuracy and consistency thanks to integrated workflows

• minimal internal labor or training required

• the ability to scale easily in the case of large pole networks

• reduced disruption to your operations.

The most challenging aspects of this approach are selecting the vendor–performance can vary, as some rely on temp labor–and budgeting for their services. Utilities that prefer to maintain direct involvement in field methods, data collection standards, or QC processes may need to evaluate how much control they want to retain under this model.

Best for:

• Utilities with 50,000+ poles or limited internal field capacity
• Organizations seeking predictable, repeatable audit cycles
• Utilities wanting a single, streamlined process backed by built-in QC

Key Decision Factors When Choosing Your Audit Approach

1. The Scale of Your Pole Network

It’s rare for a utility that handles audits in-house to be able to scale past 30K poles. On the other hand, full-service models can easily handle 50K+. 

2. Accuracy Requirements & Regulatory Pressure

While lost revenue or unsafe pole environments are never acceptable outcomes, some utilities may need to take every possible measure to ensure the accuracy of their field data. 

For example, utilities in states with strict Public Utility Commission (PUC) rules or FCC pole attachment regulations must maintain precise inventories to avoid fines or disputes. Utilities in storm-prone states such as Texas need accurate pole condition data to prioritize replacements and hardening programs.

3. Internal Staff Bandwidth

Consider whether your team has the capacity to support the day-to-day demands of field audits, including data collection, training, oversight, and quality control, especially when audits must be completed consistently over time.

4. Need for Revenue Recovery

Full-service audits can help identify unauthorized attachments and support back-billing efforts. Utilities that view revenue recovery as a priority may want to consider how well different audit models support accurate attachment identification, documentation, and follow-through. Software-only and hybrid approaches typically require more internal effort to achieve the same level of revenue visibility.

5. Desire for One-Visit, Multi-Inventory Efficiency

Typically only Approach #4 avoids the need for multiple passes by different crews. If disrupting your operations as little as possible is high on your priority list, this is a big point to factor in. 

6. Accountability

The more parties involved, the more gaps in data accuracy and QC are possible.

Comparing the Four Audit Approaches (at a Glance)

	Fully In-House	In-House Fieldwork + 3rd-Party Software	Outsourced Fieldwork + Utility-Selected Software	Full-Service Outsourced
Fieldwork provider	Utility	Utility	Vendor	Vendor
Software provider	Utility	Vendor	Vendor	Vendor
QC owner	Utility	Utility	Utility + Vendor	Vendor
Expected accuracy	High	Medium	Medium	High
Scalability	Low	Low	High	High
Revenue recovery capability	Medium-Low	Medium	Medium	High
Incomplete data risk	Medium	Low	High	Low
Total internal effort required	High	High	Low	Low
Best for	Large utilities with dedicated audit staff and established software platform	Medium-sized utilities comfortable managing labor and QC internally	Utilities already locked into software contracts or that want external labor but maintain their own tools	Utilities with 50,000+ poles, limited internal field capacity, interest in predictable, repeatable audit cycles

Why Many Utilities Eventually Move to Full-Service Audits

Most utilities that start out performing audits fully or partially in-house commonly run into challenges, such as:

• limited internal bandwidth

• training inconsistencies or staff turnover

• fragmented workflows (one vendor for software, another for fieldwork)

• QC gaps and unclear accountability

• incomplete or inaccurate data requiring rework.

Full-service audits can offer better consistency, more predictable outcomes, and simpler accountability. This is especially the case for utilities with large networks and/or recurring audit cycles.

How Flexible Is It to Switch Approaches Later?

Changing audit approaches is generally feasible and sometimes necessary as a utility’s needs, staffing, or audit scope evolve. The primary considerations when making a change involve how existing audit data is carried forward and whether additional validation or quality control may be required to ensure continuity and accuracy.

If your network is growing, you’re going through significant staffing changes, or your current process isn’t flexible enough, it may be time to consider switching.

Where Alpine Fits in as a Full-Service Audit Provider

Alpine delivers both the physical audit and the software/reporting workflows that support it, using trained, full-time staff. Our audits are multi-inventory and single visit, analyzing all necessary components of a pole in one visit.

We bring over 40 years of joint-use and field experience to the table, helping utilities strengthen data accuracy, improve quality control, and align audit results with existing records. This can help you achieve higher data integrity, clearer compliance visibility, and stronger revenue recovery opportunities, while scaling with your growing pole network.

See What a Full-Service Pole Audit Looks Like with Alpine

Work with one accountable partner backed by decades of experience delivering comprehensive, utility-grade pole audits and reliable, high-quality data.

Follow the link below to learn more about what our audit services can do for you.