Category: Investigations

Now perform your Basic and Major investigations with TapRooT®

June 27th, 2017 by

TapRooT® is a robust root cause analysis system. When you have those major accidents and need an effective and thorough investigation, TapRooT® is the go-to solution. But what about those smaller, simpler, less complex incidents? Is it worth applying such a complex system for such a simple problem? Well, we think all problems are worth a thorough investigation, but we also realize you can only give up so much time on seemingly less serious incidents. Which is why the folks at TapRooT® decided to make a simpler version of our root cause analysis process so that you can still get the best results in less time.

Check out this video of Ken Reed, TapRooT® instructor and expert, to learn more.

 

7 Traits of a Great Root Cause Analysis Facilitator

June 27th, 2017 by

NewImage

After decades of teaching TapRooT® and being consulted about many investigations, I’ve met lots of root cause analysis facilitators. Some were good. Some were not so good. Some were really superior. Some were horrible. Therefore, I thought it might be interesting to relate what I see that separates the best from the rest. Here are the seven traits of the BEST.

1. They don’t jump to conclusions. The worst investigators I’ve seen think they know it all. They already have their mind made up BEFORE the first interview. They START the investigation to prove their point. They already know the corrective action they are going to apply … so all they have to do is affirm that the causes they already have assumed ARE the cause they find.

What do the best investigators do? They start by seeing where the evidence leads them. The evidence includes:

  • Physical evidence, 
  • Paper evidence (documentations),
  • People evidence (interviews), and
  • Recordings (videos/pictures/tapes/computer records).

They are great at collecting evidence without prejudice. They perform “cognitive interviews” to help the interviewee remember as much as possible. (See the new book TapRooT® Evidence Collection and Interviewing Techniques to Sharpen Investigation Skills to learn more about cognitive interviews. The book should be released in August. Get the book with the course being held in November in Houston.) 

The best investigators may have some technical knowledge, but they know when they need help to understand what the evidence is telling them. Therefore, they get technical experts when they need them.

2. They understand What before Why. The worst investigators start by asking WHY? Why did someone make a mistake. Why did the part fail. Why didn’t the guilty party use the procedure. These “why” questions tend to put people on the defensive. People start justifying what they did rather than sharing what they know.

The best investigators start with what and how. They want to understand what happened and how those involved reacted. What did they see as the problem? What were the indications they were observing? Who did they talk to and what did they say? What was happening and in what order did it happen?

People don’t get defensive about what and how questions. They are much more likely to share information and tell the truth. And these what questions help develop an excellent SnapCharT® that helps the root cause analysis facilitator develop a “picture” of what happened.

3. They are not looking for the single root cause. The worst investigators are always looking for THE root cause. The smoking gun. The one thing that caused the problem that can be corrected by a simple corrective action. THE root cause that they are looking for.

The best investigators know that most accidents have multiple things that went wrong. They facilitate their team to understand all the causal factors and how these causal factors came together to cause that particular incident.

These root cause facilitators use their SnapCharT® and Safeguard Analysis to show how the problems came together to cause the incident. This can help show management how latent condition are hidden traps waiting to produce an accident that previously seemed impossible.

4. They dig deeper to find root causes. The worst investigator stop when they identify simple problems. For the worst investigators, HUMAN ERROR is a root cause.

The best investigators know that human error is just a starting point for a root cause analysis. They go beyond equipment failure and beyond human error by using effective investigative techniques that help them go beyond their own knowledge.

For example, if there is an equipment failure they consult the Equifactor® Troubleshooting Tables to find out more about the failure. This helps them get to the bottom of equipment problems. They often find that equipment failures are caused by human error.

For human performance related causal factors they use the Human Performance Troubleshooting Guide of the Root Cause Tree® to help them determine where they need to dig deeper into the causes of human error. 

The best investigators don’t accept false stories. They have a good BS detector because false stories seldom make a sensible SnapCharT®.

5. They find root causes that are fixable. The worst investigators find root causes that management really can’t do anything to prevent. For example, telling people to “try harder” not to make a mistake IS NOT an effective corrective action to stop human errors. 

The best investigators know that their are many ways to improve human performance. They understand that trying harder is important but that it is not a long term solution. They look for human factors related fixes that come from human performance best practices. They know that the Root Cause Tree® can help them find problems with:

  • Procedures
  • Training
  • Quality Control
  • Communications
  • Management Systems
  • Human Engineering
  • Work Direction

And that by implementing best practices related to the root causes they identify, they can reduce the probability of future human errors.

6, They recommend effective corrective actions. The worst investigators recommend the three standard corrective actions for almost every problem:

  1. MORE TRAINING
  2. COUNSELLING (tell them to be more careful and fire them if they get caught making the mistake again)
  3. If you are desperate, WRITE A PROCEDURE

That’ about it.

The best investigators start by understanding the risk represented by the incident. Higher risk incidents deserve higher order corrective actions. The highest order is to remove the Hazard. Other corrective actions may be related to strengthening the Safeguards by implementing human performance best practices. sometimes these corrective action may include training and procedures but that is seldom the only corrective actions recommended.

7. They know what they are doing. The worst investigators don’t really know what they are doing. They haven’t been trained to find root causes or the training they had was superficial at best. (Can you ask “Why?” five times?)

The best investigators are accomplished professionals. They’ve been in advanced root cause analysis training and have practiced what they have learned by performing many simple investigations before they were asked to jump into a major investigation. Even if they have several major investigations under their belt, they continue to practice their root cause analysis skills on simple investigations and on proactive audits and assessments. 

Beyond practicing their skills, they attend the only worldwide summit focused on root cause analysis and investigation facilitation – The Global TapRooT® Summit. At the Summit they benchmark their skills with other facilitators from around the world and share best practices. Think of this as steel sharpening steel. 

GOOD NEWS. The knowledge and skills that make the best investigators the best … CAN BE LEARNED.

Where? Have a look at these courses:

http://www.taproot.com/courses

And then plan to attend the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit in Knoxville, Tennessee, on February 26 – March 2 to sharpen your skills (or have those who work for you sharpen their skills).

NewImage

Interviewing and Evidence Collection: How to Package Physical Evidence

June 21st, 2017 by

Hello and welcome to this week’s column focused on interviewing and evidence collection for root cause analysis of workplace incidents and accidents.  We refer to four basic categories of evidence in our Interviewing & Evidence Techniques training:

  1. People
  2. Paper
  3. Physical
  4. Recordings

Some investigations only require evidence that does not need special packaging such as training records, policies and procedures (paper evidence) and/or interviews of the people who were there (people evidence). While a workplace investigation is not the same as a criminal investigation where physical evidence often requires forensic examination, there are definitely situations where collecting physical evidence is helpful to the root cause investigation.  Here are a few basic tips:

Packaging: Most physical evidence can be stored in paper containers, like envelopes and boxes. There is a plethora of websites that sell packaging material designed specifically for evidence. Wet evidence (such as fabric) should be air dried before packaging because moisture causes rapid deterioration and risks environmental contamination, like mold.   Allow wet evidence to dry thoroughly and then package it. Then store the evidence at room temperature. If the item is not wet and does not need to “breathe” (for example, the evidence is a collection of bolts), you can also use plastic containers for storage.

Sharp objects:  Package sharp objects in a way to ensure the safety of those handling it.  Packaging may include metal cans, plastic or hard cardboard boxes so long as the object will not protrude.

Size: Ensure the packaging is of adequate size. If the packaging is too small for the item, it may fail over time.  If it’s too large, it could become damaged when it moves around the container.

Avoid using staples to seal evidence envelopes:  Staples can damage the evidence.  Tape across the entire flap of an envelope to seal it.

Don’t forget to tag and mark evidence containers so that you will be able to easily identify what is stored in each container at a later date.

If you’re interested in learning more about Interviewing & Evidence Collection, I hope you will join me in Houston, Texas in November for a 3-day root cause analysis + interviewing and evidence collection course or 1-day  interviewing and evidence collection training.

How do you plan your root cause analysis?

June 20th, 2017 by

NewImage

General George Patton said:

“A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.”

But for many investigations, I might ask … Do you have any plan at all?

NewImage

Copyright © 2016 by System Improvements, Inc. Duplication prohibited. Used by permission.

Planning is the first step in the TapRooT® 7-Step Major Investigation Process. We even recommend a simple plan for simple investigations.

You may have read the earlier article about using a SnapCharT® to plan your investigation (see: http://www.taproot.com/archives/58488)

What else can help you plan your investigation? Here’s a list:

  • Have an investigation policy that specifies team make up and other factors that can be predefined.
  • Make sure that people on the scene are trained to preserve evidence and to obtain witness statements.
  • Consider PPE requirements for team members visiting the scene.
  • Collect any recorded evidence (cell phone recordings).
  • Maintain a chain of custody for evidence.
  • Do you need legal or PR assistance for your team?

That’s just a few ideas. There is a whole chapter about planning in the new book: TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis for Major Investigations.

When you order the new book you will also get the latest copies of theRoot Cause Tree®, the Root Cause Tree® Dictionary, and the Corrective Action Helper® Guide – all of which were recently updated.

Order your copy by CLICKING HERE.

Monday Accident and Lessons Learned: Incorrect Pressure Gauge

June 19th, 2017 by

Incorrect Pressure Gauge

Correct Pressure Gauge

The IOGP recently released that in September 2015, the incorrect pressure gauge was used on a high pressure supply line causing a high pressure release. When investigating, they found that the two gauges are identical in appearance, were stored in the same place and were stored in the incorrect place for convenience purposes. What are the corrective actions? Better storage of all pressure gauges, check all gauges before installing them, and check all current gauges to ensure they are being used correctly.

What are your thoughts on this incident? The investigation? The corrective actions?

(Resource: IOGP Safety Alerts)

Troubleshooting and Root Cause Analysis Issues Keep Military from Finding and Fixing the Causes of Oxygen Issues on Military Aircraft

June 15th, 2017 by

NewImage

Let me start by saying that when you have good troubleshooting and good root cause analysis, you fix problems and stop having repeat incidents. Thus, a failure to stop problems by developing effective corrective actions is an indication of poor troubleshooting and bad root cause analysis.

Reading an article in Flight Global, I decided that the military must have poor troubleshooting and bad root cause analysis. Why? Because Vice Admiral Groskiags testified to congress that:

“We’re not doing well on the diagnosis,” Grosklags told senators this week.
“To date, we have been unable to find any smoking guns.”

 What aircraft are affected? It seems there are a variety of problems with the F/A-18, T-45, F-35. F-22, and T-45. The article above is about Navy and Marine Corps problems but Air Force jets have experience problems as well.

Don’t wait for your problems to become operation critical. Improve your troubleshooting and root cause analysis NOW! Read about our 5-Day TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Course HERE.

Flint Water Crisis: 5 Michigan Officials Charged with Involuntary Manslaughter

June 15th, 2017 by

 

Yesterday, five Michigan officials were charged with involuntary manslaughter related to the Flint, Michigan water crisis. Recall that in 2014, Flint switched its water source from Detroit to the Flint River in part to save money. It didn’t take long before residents noticed a difference in the way their water tasted and smelled.  The water caused some residents to get life-threatening Legionnaires disease and the medical community identified higher levels of lead in children’s blood (this type of exposure to lead can lead to developmental issues).

Learn more on NPR.

News stories like this are tragic because they are avoidable.  TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis shifts thinking from ineffective blame to effective solutions.  TapRooT® can be used proactively too to avoid these types of devastating problems from ever happening.

Learn more in our 2-day or 5-day root cause analysis courses.

 

TapRooT® Optional Root Cause Analysis Tools

June 14th, 2017 by

All TapRooT® Users are familiar with the SnapCharT®, Safeguard Analysis, the Root Cause Tree® and Dictionary, and the Corrective Action Helper® Guide. But do you know about the optional TapRooT® Tools:

  • Equifactor®
  • CHAP
  • Change Analysis

These optional techniques are usually applied in more complex investigations.

Equifactor® is used to troubleshoot equipment problems. We found that many people try to understand the root causes of equipment failures BEFORE they really understand the basic reasons for the failure. That’s why we partnered with Heinz Bloch to develop the Equifactor Troubleshooting Tables and Software. 

CHAP is used for a deep dive on human performance issues. Once again we found that people tended to jump into asking “why” before they understood all the details about a human error. That’s why we developed CHAP to help people collect information about the human action before they start asking why things went wrong.

Change Analysis is an older technique that was derived from the work of Charles Kepner and Benjamin Tregoe. The technique helps identify changes that could have contributed to the equipment failure or human error. 

How can you learn to apply these optional techniques to improve your root cause analysis? Attend one off our 5-Day TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Team Leader Courses. To see the locations and dates of our public TapRooT® 5-Day Courses being held around the world, CLICK HERE.

NewImage

Don’t have time to travel to a course but you do have time for some reading? Then order the TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis for Major Investigations book by CLICKING HERE.

Interviewing and Evidence Collection Tip: What Evidence Should You Collect First?

June 14th, 2017 by

Hello and welcome to this week’s column focused on interviewing and evidence collection for root cause analysis of workplace incidents and accidents.  Today, let’s talk about what evidence to focus on first during the flurry of activity that occurs after an accident.

Always begin with a SnapCharT®

Begin your investigation with a planning SnapCharT® – it takes just a few minutes to create an incident and add a few events that lead up to it into the TapRooT® software or into a paper-based version of SnapCharT®.  The SnapCharT® is a tool that will help you visually organize and prioritize evidence collection.

Pre-collection

So, what evidence should be collected first? Ideally, an investigator can photograph the scene at various angles and distances before carefully collecting the most fragile evidence and before disturbing the scene by removing larger, heavier, or less fragile evidence.  Once things start getting moved, it gets really tricky to remember the initial scene or understand the scene.

Locard’s exchange principle holds that every time a person enters an environment, something is added to and removed. This is sometimes stated as “every contact leaves a trace.” So, depending on the incident, the evidence may have already been altered in some way by first responders, employees or bystanders. It may also be disturbed by an investigator’s attempt to photograph it.  This is why it is so critical to cordon off a path for first responders and employees to minimize contamination (and this also helps first response and others avoid injury).

Take photographs or a video recording of the overall scene first.

After photography, collect fragile evidence

Fragile evidence is evidence that loses its value either because of its particular nature and characteristics, or because of the conditions at the accident scene. For example, blood in rain. Fragile evidence should be collected before it is further contaminated or before it disappears.

When the fragile evidence is removed, an investigator should begin by systematically collecting the “top” layer of evidence.  This may be photographing or collecting what he finds beneath that fragile evidence.  Collecting fragile evidence includes memorializing first impressions and observations in writing, including measurements of the scene that photographs cannot capture or record, including smells, temperature, and humidity.

Every accident and incident is different; however, this is a general guideline of how to get started with evidence collection.  Next week, we’ll discuss the best way to package evidence.

If you’re interested in learning more about Interviewing & Evidence Collection, I hope you will join me in Houston, Texas in November for a 3-day root cause analysis + interviewing and evidence collection course or 1-day  interviewing and evidence collection training.

Interviewing and Evidence Collection Tip: Organize your information with TapRooT® Software

June 7th, 2017 by

Hello and welcome to this week’s column focused on interviewing and evidence collection for root cause analysis of workplace incidents and accidents. We’ve talked about the value of a planning SnapCharT® as well as how important it is to uncover facts through evidence collection.

Today, let’s talk about how to keep all of this information organized using TapRooT® Software. Our software is designed to help you track investigations, manage evidence and report on results with ease.

Create a Sequence of Event

The SnapCharT® is a simple method for drawing a sequence of events and is always where an investigator begins evidence collection. Here, you decide many things, including:

  • What information is available
  • What needs to be collected
  • What order the evidence will be collected
  • Who will be interviewed
  • What conflicts exist in the sequence of events and what evidence could help clear them up

Building the SnapCharT® in the TapRooT® software allows you to add all of these notes quickly and efficiently, save them, and edit them as you progress through evidence collection.

Organize digital documents and photos

It doesn’t take long for paper evidence to feel out of control.  Standard operating procedures, work orders, maintenance procedures, company policies and so much more are all collected as you begin uncovering the important facts that will support your conclusions.  Digital photos can easily get lost if they are not stored somewhere immediately.  Storing the digital files in your TapRooT® software catalogs them and keeps them secure.  This also keeps all of these digital items available to pull into the management report feature of the software.  You can easily upload images and documents and add them to your attachment files for each investigation.  Here is a short video to show you how to do just that:  View video.

Use TapRooT® software to create new investigations, manage tasks and analyze the results all in one place.  If you have been trained in TapRooT® and are ready to optimize your investigations, join us for our June 28 webinar!

Are you using the latest TapRooT® Tools and do you have the latest TapRooT® Books?

June 6th, 2017 by

Over the past three years, we’ve been working hard to take everything we have learned about using TapRooT® in almost 30 years of experience and use that knowledge (and the feedback from thousands of users) to make TapRooT® even better.

So here is the question …

Do you have the latest TapRooT® Materials?

How can you tell? Look at the copyright dates in your books.

If you don’t have materials that are from 2016 or later, they aren’t the most up to date.

Where can you get the most recent materials?

First, if you have not yet attended a 5-Day TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Course, I’d recommend going. You will get:

Or, you can order all of these by CLICKING HERE.

NewImage

I think you will find that we’ve made the TapRooT® System even easier to use PLUS made it even more effective.

We recently published two other new books:

The TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Leadership Lessons book helps management understand how to apply TapRooT® to achieve operational excellence, high quality, and outstanding safety performance.

The TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis for Audits and Proactive Performance Improvement book explains how to use the TapRooT® Tools proactively for audits and assessments.

To order the books, just click on the links above.

And watch for the releases of the other new books we have coming out. Shortly, you will see the new books on:

  • Interviewing and information collection
  • Implementing TapRooT®
  • Troubleshooting and finding the root causes of equipment problems

That’s a lot of new information.

We have plans for even more but you will here about that at the 2018 Global TapRooT® Summit that is being held in Knoxville, Tennessee, on February 26 – March 2. The Summit agenda will be posted shortly. (Watch for that announcement too!)

Time for Advanced Root Cause Analysis of Special Operations Sky Diving Deaths?

May 31st, 2017 by

Screen Shot 2017 05 31 at 1 20 19 PM

Click on the image above for a Navy Times article about the accident at a recent deadly demonstration jump over the Hudson River.

Perhaps it’s time for a better root cause analysis of the problems causing these accidents?

Interviewing & Evidence Collection Tip: You can’t know the “why” before the “what”

May 31st, 2017 by

Hello and welcome to this week’s column focused on interviewing and evidence collection for root cause analysis of workplace incidents and accidents.  Last week we talked about the value of a planning SnapCharT®.  I’d like to take a moment to expand on that thought.

Grasping at the “why” before the “what” is a common mistake that even experienced investigators make.  But you have to understand “what” happened before you can understand why it happened.  The goal of interviewing and evidence collection is to provide facts for the “what” so you can continue with the “why” (identifying causal factors and root causes).

When I worked in the legal field, I felt that most investigations were hypothesis-based.  It seemed that more often than not, we started with several hypotheses and then began a process of elimination until we were left with one we liked.  Instead of collecting evidence before we determined “why” an incident happened, we came up with our guesses and then looked for evidence that supported the guesses.

When an investigator reaches for the “why” before the “what,” this is what occurs:

  1. Tunnel vision.  The investigator only focuses on the hypotheses presented, and none of them may be correct.
  2. Abuse of evidence. The investigator may force the evidence to “fit” the hypothesis he/she feels most strongly about.  Further, any evidence collected that does not fit the hypothesis is ignored or discarded.
  3. Confirmation bias. The investigator only seeks evidence that supports his/her hypothesis.

It is a tenet of psychology that the human brain immediately desires a simple pattern that makes sense of a complex situation. So, there is really nothing that the investigator is intentionally doing wrong when he or she falls into that trap. Not to mention, humans simply do not like changing their minds when they become emotionally attached to an idea. And then there is social pressure… when a strong personality on the investigation team thinks he/she knows the “why” – and the rest of the team goes along with it.

TapRooT® helps investigative teams avoid reaching for the “why” before the “what.”  The 7-Step Major Investigation Process taught during our 5-Day training offers a systematic way to move through the investigation and takes the investigator beyond his/her knowledge to determine the “what” first so that the causal factors and root causes identified are accurate. Learn how to collect the evidence you need to understand the “what” in our 1-day Interviewing and Evidence Collection Techniques course on November 8 in Houston, Texas.

Have you fallen into the trap of trying to decide the “why” before the “what”? Do you have something additional to share about this common problem? How has TapRooT® helped you avoid it? Comment below and be entered into our August drawing to win a copy of our new “Evidence Collection and Interviewing Techniques to Sharpen Investigation Skills” book!

Interviewing & Evidence Collection Tip: The Value of a Planning SnapCharT®

May 24th, 2017 by

Hello and welcome to our new weekly column focused on interviewing and evidence collection for root cause analysis of workplace incidents and accidents.

If you are a TapRooT® user, you know that the SnapCharT® is the first step in conducting a root cause investigation.  It doesn’t matter if you’re investigating a simple incident or major accident – SnapCharT® is always the starting line.

A SnapCharT® is a simple method for drawing a sequence of events.  It can be drawn on sticky notes or in the TapRooT® software.  Sometimes we refer to the SnapCharT® in it’s initial stages as a “planning” SnapCharT®. So why is a SnapCharT® essential for evidence collection and interviewing?

When you begin an investigation, you are working with suppositions, assumptions and second hand information. The planning SnapCharT® will guide you to who you need to interview and what evidence you need to collect to develop a factual sequence of events and appropriate conditions that explain what happen during the incident. Remember, a fact is not a fact until it is supported by evidence.  

The planning SnapCharT® is used to:

  • develop an initial picture of what happened.
  • decide what information is readily available and what needs to be collected immediately.
  • establish a list of potential witnesses to interview.
  • highlight conflicts that exist in the preliminary information.
  • plan the next steps of interviewing and evidence collection.

The SnapCharT® provides the foundation for solid evidence collection.  Learn how to create a SnapCharT® by reading, “Using the Essential TapRooT® Techniques to Investigate Low-to-Medium Risk Incidents or register for our 1-day Interviewing and Evidence Collection Course in Houston, Texas on November 8, 2017.  We also offer this course as a one or two-day onsite course that can be customized for your investigators.

How has SnapCharT® helped you plan your investigative interviews and evidence collection?  If you’ve never used a SnapCharT®, how do you think a planning SnapCharT® would be helpful to you? Comment below and be entered into our August drawing to win a copy of our new “Evidence Collection and Interviewing Techniques to Sharpen Investigation Skills” book!

See you next week!

CSB Video of Torrance Refinery Accident

May 3rd, 2017 by

CSB Releases Final Report into 2015 Explosion at ExxonMobil Refinery in Torrance, California

Press Release from the US CSB:

May 3, 2017, Torrance, CA, — Today, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) released its final report into the February 18, 2015, explosion at the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, California. The blast caused serious property damage to the refinery and scattered catalyst dust up to a mile away from the facility into the nearby community. The incident caused the refinery to be run at limited capacity for over a year, raising gas prices in California and costing drivers in the state an estimated $2.4 billion.

The explosion occurred in the refinery’s fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) unit, where a variety of products, mainly gasoline, are produced. A reaction between hydrocarbons and catalyst takes place in what is known as the “hydrocarbon side” of the FCC unit. The remainder of the FCC unit is comprised of a portion of the reaction process and a series of pollution control equipment that uses air and is known as the “air side” of the unit.The CSB’s report emphasizes that it is critical that hydrocarbons do not flow into the air side of the FCC unit, as this can create an explosive atmosphere. The CSB determined that on the day of the incident a slide valve that acted as a barrier failed. That failure ultimately allowed hydrocarbons to flow into the air side of the FCC, where they ignited in a piece of equipment called the electrostatic precipitator, or ESP, causing an explosion of the ESP.

CSB Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland said, “This explosion and near miss should not have happened, and likely would not have happened, had a more robust process safety management system been in place. The CSB’s report concludes that the unit was operating without proper procedures.”

In its final report, the CSB describes multiple gaps in the refinery’s process safety management system, allowing for the operation of the FCC unit without pre-established safe operating limits and criteria for a shut down.  The refinery relied on safeguards that could not be verified, and re-used a previous procedure deviation without a sufficient hazard analysis of the current process conditions.

Finally, the slide valve – a safety-critical safeguard within the system – was degraded significantly. The CSB notes that it is vital to ensure that safety critical equipment can successful carry out its intended function. As a result, when the valve was needed during an emergency, it did not work as intended, and hydrocarbons were able to reach an ignition source.

The CSB also found that in multiple instances leading up to the incident, the refinery directly violated ExxonMobil’s corporate safety standards. For instance, the CSB found that during work leading up to the incident, workers violated corporate lock out tag out requirements.

In July 2016, the Torrance refinery was sold by ExxonMobil to PBF Holdings Company, LLC, which now operates as the Torrance Refining Company. Since the February 2015 explosion, the refinery has experienced multiple incidents.

Chairperson Sutherland said, “There are valuable lessons to be learned and applied at this refinery, and to all refineries in the U.S.  Keeping our refineries operating safely is critical to the well-being of the employees and surrounding communities, as well as to the economy.

The CSB investigation also discovered that a large piece of debris from the explosion narrowly missed hitting a tank containing tens of thousands of pounds of modified hydrofluoric acid, or MHF. Had the tank ruptured, it would have caused a release of MHF, which is highly toxic.  Unfortunately, ExxonMobil, the owner-operator of the refinery at the time of the accident, did not respond to the CSB’s requests for information detailing safeguards to prevent or mitigate a release of MHF, and therefore the agency was unable to fully explore this topic in its final report.

Chairperson Sutherland said, “Adoption of and adherence to a robust safety management process would have prevented these other incidents.  In working with inherently dangerous products, it is critical to conduct a robust risk management analyses with the intent of continually safety improvement.”

The CSB is an independent, non-regulatory federal agency charged with investigating serious chemical incidents. The agency’s board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.

Visit our website, www.csb.gov, for more information or contact Communications Manager Hillary Cohen, cell 202-446-8094 or email public@csb.gov. 

 

Are You Writing the Same Corrective Actions?

April 17th, 2017 by

Repeating the same corrective actions over and over again defeats the purpose of a quality root cause analysis investigation. If you spend the time investigating and digging deeper to find the REAL root cause, you should write the most effective corrective actions you can to ensure it was all worth the resources put into it. Instructor & Equifactor® and TapRooT® Expert, Ken Reed, talks about corrective actions and how to make them new and effective for each root cause.

 

Take a TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis course today to learn our effective and efficient RCA methodology. 

How to Interpret Body Language In Your Incident Investigation Interviews

April 10th, 2017 by

TapRooT® Instructor and Non-Verbal Communication Expert, Barb Phillips, explains how to interpret common body language cues with an example investigative interview. Watch here for some investigative interviewing tips!

Want to know more? Take a TapRooT® Effective Interviewing and Evidence Collection course.

Root Cause Tip: What is the minimum investigation for a simple incident?

March 20th, 2017 by

NewImage

What is the minimum investigation for a simple incident?

Before you can answer this question, you need to decide the outcome you are looking for. For example:

  • Do you just want to document the facts?
  • Would you be happy with a simple corrective action that may (or may not) be effective?
  • Do you need effective corrective actions to prevent repeats of this specific incident?
  • Do you want to prevent similar types of incidents?

The answers to these questions depend on two factors that determine risk:

  1. What were the consequences of this incident and could things have happened slightly differently and had much worse consequences?
  2. What is the likelihood that this type of incident will happen again?

Of course, before you start an investigation, answering these two questions may be difficult. Before you start an investigation, you don’t really know what happened! But in spite of this lack of knowledge, someone must decide if an incident is worth investigating and the resources to dedicate to the investigation.

I’ve seen simple incidents that, when investigated, revealed complex problems that could have caused a serious accident. Therefore, if a thorough investigation is not performed, the investigator may never know what they could have discovered. That’s why I caution management that something that seems simple may not be simple.

However, some incidents ARE simple. I’ve seen many incidents that people were investigating that were similar to this one:

An employee stumbles, falls, and sprains
his wrist while walking down a flat sidewalk.
He had on simple shoes with adequate tread.
He was not particularly preoccupied
nor was he entirely paying attention to each step
(just normal walking).

How much can be learned by investigating this incident? Probably not much. I would suggest that even though the person sprained his wrist, this incident should not be investigated beyond a simple recording of the facts so that the incident could be recorded for safety records (OSHA logs in the USA) and included in future incident trending.

You might ask:

“But what if the employee had stumbled and fell in front of an oncoming car and the employee killed?”

In that case, because of the consequences, a detailed major investigation would be required.

In either case, the TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis System could be used to complete the investigation.

The TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis System is a robust, flexible system for analyzing and fixing problems. The complete system can be used to analyze and fix complex accidents, quality problems, hospital sentinel events, and other issues that require a complete understanding of what happened and effective corrective actions.

Learn more about when to investigate a simple incident by attending our 2-Day TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis training.  Click here to view the upcoming schedule.

 

Carnival Pride NTSB Allision Report – Causal Factor Challenge

March 7th, 2017 by

collision, allision, carnival

The NTSB released their report on the allision of the Carnival Pride cruise ship with the pier in Baltimore last may. It caused over $2 million in damages to the pier and the ship, and crushed several vehicles when the passenger access gangway collapsed onto them. Luckily, no one was under or on the walkway when it fell.  You can read the report here.

Pride

The report found that the second in command was conning the ship at the time.  He had too much speed and was at the wrong angle when he was approaching the pier.  The report states that the accident occurred because the captain misjudged the power available when shifting to an alternate method of control to stop the ship.  It states there may have been a problem with the controls, or maybe just human error.  It also concluded that the passenger gangway was extended into the path of the ship, and that it did not have to be extended until ready for passengers to debark.

collision, allision, carnival

Gangway collapse after allision

While I’m sure these findings are true, I wonder what the actual root causes would be?  If the findings are read as written, we are really only looking at Causal Factors, and only a few of those to boot.  Based on only this information, I’m not sure what corrective actions could be implemented that would really prevent this in the future.  As I’m reading through the report, I actually see quite a few additional potential Causal Factors that would need to be researched and analyzed in order to find real root causes.

YOUR CHALLENGES:

  1. Identify the Causal Factors you see in this report.  I know you only have this limited information, but try to find the mistakes, errors, or equipment failures that lead directly to this incident (assuming no other information is available)
  2. What additional information would you need to find root causes for the Causal Factors you have identified?
  3. What additional information would you like in order to identify additional Causal Factors?

Reading through this incident, it is apparent to me that there is a lot of missing information.  The problems identified are not related to human performance-based root causes; there are only a few Causal Factors identified.  Unfortunately, I’m also pretty sure that the corrective actions will probably be pretty basic (Train the officer, update procedure, etc.).

BONUS QUESTION:

For those that think I spelled “collision” wrong, what is the meaning of the word “allision”?  How many knew that without using Google?

Remembering an Accident: Montana Coal and Iron Company

February 27th, 2017 by

Two small communities in Montana were tragically touched by a mining accident this day in 1943.

smith-mine-disaster-sign

The Montana Coal and Mine Company employed most men living in Washoe and Bearcreek, Montana. There had never been any major accidents like the one that took place on February 27, 1943. That morning, a massive explosion in mine #3 occurred. It was so powerful that families in both local communities heard and felt it. As the supervisors tried to find the cause of the explosion, they couldn’t find anything. No exact root cause. No evidence to tie together to ensure it doesn’t happen again. Sadly, all they could do was inform the families of their losses and shut down for good. The final fatality count was 74 out of 77 miners. All but 3. It was the largest accident they had ever had.

It’s stories like these that we can learn from. How could they have investigated better to find the root cause? What kind of corrective actions could have been implemented to keep these sort of explosions of happening again?

Top 3 Reasons for Bad Root Cause Analysis and How You Can Overcome Them…

February 7th, 2017 by

NewImage

I’ve heard many high level managers complain that they see the same problems happen over and over again. They just can’t get people to find and fix the problems’ root causes. Why does this happen and what can management do to overcome these issues? Read on to find out.

 

1. BLAME

Blame is the number one reason for bad root cause analysis.

Why?

Because people who are worried about blame don’t fully cooperate with an investigation. They don’t admit their involvement. They hold back critical information. Often this leads to mystery accidents. No one knows who was involved, what happened, or why it happened.

As Bart Simpson says:

“I didn’t do it.”
“Nobody saw me do it.”
“You can’t prove anything.”

Blame is so common that people take it for granted.

Somebody makes a mistake and what do we do? Discipline them.

If they are a contractor, we fire them. No questions asked.

And if the mistake was made by senior management? Sorry … that’s not how blame works. Blame always flows downhill. At a certain senior level management becomes blessed. Only truly horrific accidents like the Deepwater Horizon or Bhopal get senior managers fired or jailed. Then again, maybe those accidents aren’t bad enough for discipline for senior management.

Think about the biggest economic collapse in recent history – the housing collapse of 2008. What senior banker went to jail?

But be an operator and make a simple mistake like pushing the wrong button or a mechanic who doesn’t lock out a breaker while working on equipment? You may be fired or have the feds come after you to put you in jail.

Talk to Kurt Mix. He was a BP engineer who deleted a few text messages from his personal cell phone AFTER he had turned it over to the feds. He was the only person off the Deepwater Horizon who faced criminal charges. Or ask the two BP company men who represented BP on the Deepwater Horizon and faced years of criminal prosecution. 

How do you stop blame and get people to cooperate with investigations? Here are two best practices.

A. Start Small …

If you are investigating near-misses that could have become major accidents and you don’t discipline people who spill the beans, people will learn to cooperate. This is especially true if you reward people for participating and develop effective fixes that make the work easier and their jobs less hazardous. 

Small accidents just don’t have the same cloud of blame hanging over them so if you start small, you have a better chance of getting people to cooperate even if a blame culture has already been established.

B. Use a SnapCharT® to facilitate your investigation and report to management.

We’ve learned that using a SnapCharT® to facilitate an investigation and to show the results to management reduces the tendency to look for blame. The SnapCharT® focuses on what happened and “who did it” becomes less important.

Often, the SnapCharT® shows that there were several things that could have prevented the accident and that no one person was strictly to blame. 

What is a SnapCharT®? Attend any TapRooT® Training and you will learn how to use them. See:

TapRooT® Training

NewImage

2. FIRST ASK WHAT NOT WHY

Ever see someone use 5-Whys to find root causes? They start with what they think is the problem and then ask “Why?” five times. Unfortunately this easy methods often leads investigators astray.

Why?

Because they should have started by asking what before they asked why.

Many investigators start asking why before they understand what happened. This causes them to jump to conclusions. They don’t gather critical evidence that may lead them to the real root causes of the problem. And they tend to focus on a single Causal Factor and miss several others that also contributed to the problem. 

How do you get people to ask what instead of why?

Once again, the SnapCharT® is the best tool to get investigators focused on what happened, find the incidents details, identify all the Causal Factors and the information about each Causal Factor that the investigator needs to identify each problem’s root causes.

NewImage

3. YOU MUST GO BEYOND YOUR CURRENT KNOWLEDGE

Many investigators start their investigation with a pretty good idea of the root causes they are looking for. They already know the answers. All they have to do is find the evidence that supports their hypothesis.

What happens when an investigator starts an investigation by jumping to conclusions?

They ignore evidence that is counter to their hypothesis. This problem is called a:

Confirmation Bias

It has been proven in many scientific studies.

But there is an even bigger problem for investigators who think they know the answer. They often don’t have the training in human factors and equipment reliability to recognize the real root causes of each of the Causal Factors. Therefore, they only look for the root causes they know about and don’t get beyond their current knowledge.

What can you do to help investigators look beyond their current knowledge and avoid confirmation bias?

Have them use the SnapCharT® and the TapRooT® Root Cause Tree® Diagram when finding root causes. You will be amazed at the root causes your investigators discover that they previously would have overlooked.

How can your investigators learn to use the Root Cause Tree® Diagram? Once again, send them to TapRooT® Training.

THAT’S IT…

The TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis System can help your investigators overcome the top 3 reasons for bad root cause analysis. And that’s not all. There are many other advantages for management and investigators (and employees) when people use TapRooT® to solve problems.

If you haven’t tried TapRooT® to solve problems, you don’t know what you are missing.

If your organization faces:

  • Quality Issues
  • Safety Incidents
  • Repeat Equipment Failures
  • Sentinel Events
  • Environmental Incidents
  • Cost Overruns
  • Missed Schedules
  • Plant Downtime

You need to be apply the best root cause analysis system: TapRooT®.

Learn more at: 

http://www.taproot.com/products-services/about-taproot

And find the dates and locations for our public TapRooT® Training at:

 http://www.taproot.com/store/Courses/

NewImage

Monday Accident & Lessons Learned: Railroad Bridge Structural Failure

December 12th, 2016 by

Screen Shot 2016 11 14 at 6 18 33 PM

A Report from the UK Rail Accident Investigation Branch:

Structural failure caused by scour at Lamington viaduct, South Lanarkshire, 31 December 2015

At 08:40 hrs on Thursday 31 December 2015, subsidence of Lamington viaduct resulted in serious deformation of the track as the 05:57 hrs Crewe to Glasgow passenger service passed over at a speed of about 110 mph (177 km/h). The viaduct spans the River Clyde between Lockerbie and Carstairs. Subsequent investigation showed that the viaduct’s central river pier had been partially undermined by scour following high river flow velocity the previous day. The line was closed for over seven weeks until Monday 22 February 2016 while emergency stabilisation works were completed.

The driver of an earlier train had reported a track defect on the viaduct at 07:28 hrs on the same morning, and following trains crossed the viaduct at low speed while a Network Rail track maintenance team was deployed to the site. The team found no significant track defects and normal running was resumed with the 05:57 hrs service being the first train to pass on the down line. Immediately after this occurred at 08:40 hrs, large track movements were noticed by the team, who immediately imposed an emergency speed restriction before closing the line after finding that the central pier was damaged.

The viaduct spans a river bend which causes water to wash against the sides of the piers. It was also known to have shallow foundations. These were among the factors that resulted in it being identified as being at high risk of scour in 2005. A scheme to provide permanent scour protection to the piers and abutments was due to be constructed during 2015, but this project was deferred until mid-2016 because a necessary environmental approval had not been obtained.

To mitigate the risk of scour, the viaduct was included on a list of vulnerable bridges for which special precautions were required during flood conditions. These precautions included monitoring of river levels and closing the line if a pre determined water level was exceeded. However, this process was no longer in use and there was no effective scour risk mitigation for over 100 of the most vulnerable structures across Scotland. This had occurred, in part, because organisational changes within Network Rail had led to the loss of knowledge and ownership of some structures issues.

Although unrelated to the incident, the RAIB found that defects in the central river pier had not been fully addressed by planned maintenance work. There was also no datum level marked on the structure which meant that survey information from different sources could not easily be compared to identify change.

As a result of this investigation, RAIB has made three recommendations to Network Rail relating to:

  • the management of scour risk
  • the response to defect reports affecting structures over water
  • the management of control centre procedures.

Five learning points are also noted relating to effective management of scour risk.

For more information, see:

R222016_161114_Lamington_viaduct

Monday Accident & Lessons Learned: Collision at Yafforth, UK, level crossing, 3 August 2016

November 28th, 2016 by

NewImage

For a report from the UK Rail Accident Investigation Branch, see:

www.gov.uk

The Blame Culture Hurts Hospital Root Cause Analysis

November 22nd, 2016 by

If you don’t understand what happened, you will never understand why it happened.

You would think this is just common sense. But if it is, why would an industry allow a culture to exist that promotes blame and makes finding and fixing the root causes of accidents/incidents almost impossible?

I see the blame culture in many industries around the world. Here is an example from a hospital in the UK. This is an extreme example but I’ve seen the blame culture make root cause analysis difficult in many hospitals in many countries.

Dr. David Sellu (let’s just call him Dr. Death as they did in the UK tabloids), was prosecuted for errors and delays that killed a patient. He ended up serving 16 months in high security prisons because the prosecution alleged that his “laid back attitude” had caused delays in treatment that led to the patient’s death. However, the hospital had done a “secret” root cause analysis that showed that systemic problems (not the doctor) had led to the delays. A press investigation by the Daily Mail eventually unearthed the report that had been kept hidden. This press reports eventually led to the doctor’s release but not until he had served prison time and had his reputation completely trashed.

Screen Shot 2016 11 22 at 11 09 45 AM

If you were a doctor or a nurse in England, would you freely cooperate with an investigation of a patient death? When you know that any perceived mistake might lead to jail? When problems that are identified with the system might be hidden (to avoid blame to the institution)? When your whole life and career is in jeopardy? When your freedom is on the line because you may be under criminal investigation?

This is an extreme example. But there are other examples of nurses, doctors, and pharmacists being prosecuted for simple errors that were caused by systemic problems that were beyond their control and were not thoroughly investigated. I know of some in the USA.

The blame culture causes performance improvement to grind to a halt when people don’t fully cooperate with initiatives to learn from mistakes.

TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis can help investigations move beyond blame by clearly showing the systemic problems that can be fixed and prevent (or at least greatly reduce) future repeat accidents.Attend a TapRooT® Root Cause Analysis Course and find out how you can use TapRooT® to help you change a blame culture into a culture of performance improvement.

Foe course information and course dates, see:

http://www.taproot.com/courses

Monday Accident & Lessons Learned: Pilot Error is Root Cause

November 14th, 2016 by

The Navy still likes to blame folks as a root cause. At least that’s what I see in this report about a “pilot error” keeping a F/A-18 Hornet making it back to the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt.

Seems there were lot’s of Causal Factors that contributed to the loss of an $86 million dollar aircraft that are described in this article on Military.com:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/10/27/debris-pilot-error-caused-2015-jet-crash-persian-gulf-navy.html

I haven’t found the report of the video on line.

What do you think of the report of the investigation?

 

Connect with Us

Filter News

Search News

Authors

Angie ComerAngie Comer

Software

Barb PhillipsBarb Phillips

Editorial Director

Chris ValleeChris Vallee

Six Sigma

Dan VerlindeDan Verlinde

VP, Software

Dave JanneyDave Janney

Safety & Quality

Gabby MillerGabby Miller

Marketing

Garrett BoydGarrett Boyd

Technical Support

Ken ReedKen Reed

VP, Equifactor®

Linda UngerLinda Unger

Co-Founder

Mark ParadiesMark Paradies

Creator of TapRooT®

Per OhstromPer Ohstrom

VP, Sales

Shaun BakerShaun Baker

Technical Support

Steve RaycraftSteve Raycraft

Technical Support

Wayne BrownWayne Brown

Technical Support

Success Stories

TapRooT® is a key part of our safety improvement program that has helped us stop injuries and save lives.

Canyon Fuel Company

Many of us investigate accidents that the cause seems intuitively obvious: the person involved…

ARCO (now ConocoPhillips)
Contact Us