5 Thinking Traps That Can Derail an Incident Investigation
Every investigator brings a brain to an investigation… and every brain takes shortcuts. We notice some information more readily than other information and form early impressions. Once we have a theory, we tend to notice evidence that supports it. And after we know how an incident ended, events leading up to it can seem more predictable than they actually were.
These thinking patterns are normal. But if we don’t account for them, they can influence the questions we ask, the evidence we collect, and ultimately the causes we identify.
Here are five thinking traps:
- Confirmation bias: “I already know what happened.” Once we develop a theory, we naturally look for information that supports it. During an investigation, deliberately ask: What evidence would show that my current explanation is wrong?
- Hindsight bias: “They should have known.” After an incident, the warning signs can look obvious. The person doing the work did not have the outcome information that the investigator has. Ask: What information was actually available to this person at the time?
- Fundamental attribution error: “They were careless.” We can explain behavior by focusing on the person while overlooking conditions surrounding the work. Instead of stopping at a label such as careless or complacent, examine procedures, equipment, training, workload, supervision, human-machine interfaces, and other factors that shaped the person’s actions.
- Anchoring: “The first explanation stuck.” Early information can influence everything that follows. An initial report, supervisor’s opinion, or witness statement can become the lens through which later evidence is interpreted. Keep competing explanations alive until the evidence supports eliminating them.
- Outcome bias: “It turned out badly, so the decision must have been bad.” A poor outcome does not automatically mean the original decision was unreasonable. Examine the decision using the information, conditions, and constraints that existed when it was made.
You can’t train yourself into having an unbiased brain. You can design an investigation process that reduces bias.
That’s one reason a systematic investigation process matters. TapRooT® RCA helps investigators move beyond their first impressions by providing a structured process for collecting evidence, understanding what happened, and identifying causal factors and root causes. Instead of relying solely on what an investigator happens to think of, the system prompts a more disciplined examination of the work system.
Use a Proven Process to Minimize Bias in Your Investigations
Using the TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis System for incident investigations will help because it guides you to ask questions you normally wouldn’t ask and takes you beyond your own knowledge and experience. Whether you are new to incident investigations or a seasoned investigator, biases affect how you do your job and undermine the results you could get to improve performance.
Read our root cause analysis course descriptions:
2-Day TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis
3-Day VIRTUAL TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis
5-Day TapRooT® Advanced Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Training
Consider not only taming your biases but also changing how you solve problems at your facility by registering for a course.
