|
|
Team Based Investigations
The CSA Standard on Accident Information supports the concept of using investigation teams as compared to a single investigator. There are pros and cons to each approach. The prime concern being the level of objectivity an investigator may have if he or she is required to conduct an investigation in their own area of responsibility. The reality is that in most work places a single person, typically the supervisor or foreman, conduct most investigations.
Here are some of the advantages of allowing supervisors to conduct investigations in their own areas. They are familiar with both the production processes involved and the people, and likely know how best to approach individuals in order to get the most amount of accurate information. As the incident took place in their area this may affect their performance rating, and it seems fair to have them involved in the investigation. Perhaps the strongest reason in favour of a supervisor conducting investigations is that the supervisor will have to carry out any corrective actions and is in the best position to prevent a recurrence. Excluding them from the investigation process may severely weaken the implementation of corrective actions.
Of course there are disadvantages as well. The supervisor's reputation is on the line as in some way the quality of their supervision may have contributed to the accident. They may be too close to the situation not to have a bias, and it's difficult to expect a person to be totally objective when they are blowing the whistle on themselves.
A team-based approach may bring more balance and perspective to the investigation and will likely produce a better quality outcome than can a single individual. The bottom line is that in most situations three heads are better than one. Choosing team members from areas such as human resources or purchasing lets us introduce more issues into the equation, and may allow those that perhaps indirectly created the problem an opportunity to solve it. Expanding the team to include both management and worker representatives may achieve a greater buy in from their respective peer groups.
Teams are not without disadvantages. For the most part you are working with a committee which likely means they are slower to get into action and to arrive at findings. More people will need to be trained and more time will be taken away from work. There may be reluctance on the part of some witnesses to talk to a management representative, or even fellow workers, and in spite of everyone's good intentions personal biases may still impact findings.
Many organizations use both approaches in that individuals are conducting the less serious or more routine investigations, and when a significant incident occurs a team is formed. If you want to minimize the amount of investigation resources being used and address the investigator bias concerns, or perhaps allow a fresh set of eyes to look at the problem, consider allowing individuals to conduct solo investigations but not in a department they work in or supervise. Regardless of who or how many people conduct the investigation all investigators should be trained in investigation methods and selected based on their expertise and experience.
Back to Articles
|
|