Evidence Verification
(This
is in response to a readers questions in a previous newsletter.)
A
number of readers shared the concern that investigations stopped too soon
in that conclusions were based on too few facts, or just the more obvious
facts were considered. Other readers felt that in many cases only those
facts supporting managements or the investigators point of view were given
any weight. While this type of bias is difficult to overcome, the following
is one method that might help us take a second look at our evidence, before
coming to a conclusion.
Investigation
conclusions must be based on facts! While we may feel confident that we
have discovered all the facts and reached a logical conclusion this may
not obvious to others. For example, in a case where an employee may be
terminated over a safety violation some parties may not readily accept
your logic.
What
evidence exists to support your findings? What evidence did you find that
some might consider supportive of a contrary point of view? Including
a simple evidence matrix as part of your investigation and in your report
captures the nature of the evidence, its sources, as well as other information.
It not only aids the investigation process, but also strengthens a reader's
confidence in your conclusions.
The
following example, the electrocution death of a truck driver resulting
from the box of his truck contacting high voltage power lines is based
on a real event, but has been modified considerably for illustration purposes.
While your first conclusions may have been exactly right and perhaps very
obvious, using a matrix strongly supports the logic of your conclusions.
Evidence
Matrix Example
Findings
(Suppositions) |
Supporting
Evidence |
Evidence
Sources |
Comments
|
Blowing
dust may have obscured the truck driver's vision of the power lines
|
Weather
office reports winds gusting to over 65 km/h. at time of incident
|
Environment
Canada |
Based
on telephone call. Computer printouts obtained a week later supported
this finding. |
|
The
gravel material being dumped had a high content of dry clay which
was easily disturbed by even light wind. |
Visual
examination. Samples sent to U Of Calgary showed 25% clay content.
Video taken just after incident showed high blowing dust levels
|
Also
witnessed by both company investigators. |
|
Similar
visibility problems were reported the previous day and the job stopped
for two hours |
Weigh
scale records show two hour shut down from 2-4 p.m. Also supported
in drivers' logs |
Environment
Canada confirmed high winds on this day too. |
|
Two
waiting truckers report extremely poor visibility, in that they
could not see the power lines when the truck raised its box to dump.
|
J.
Brown & P. Johnson. |
Brown
and Johnson have been working at this site for two weeks, and also
initiated the previous days shutdown. |
In
the first column list your early suppositions or findings. Some will turn
out to be correct and proven, and others will have to be discounted for
the lack of proof. In the second column list all the evidence that supports
or discounts your early findings. In this example all the findings were
supportive. Including the source of your evidence adds credibility to
your report. Finally, add any additional comments that would be of benefit
to the reader. Now with this evidence clearly displayed in front of them,
most readers will likely agree that your supposition is in fact true.
This
summary article is based on a research paper by R. Leon Horman.
Back to Articles
|
