Document Evidence

The value of paperwork as an evidence source is typically underrated, and tends to receive only a passing glance. It may be a case of familiarity breeds contempt. Examples of document (paper) evidence include safety policies, inspection reports, memos, pre-job meeting records or safe work procedures.

Examining documents usually tries our perceptive abilities to the limit. When confronting a large stack of records, the urge is to scan for significant bits and pieces. However, a quick scan is likely to result in important facts being overlooked. A scan should serve merely to get the lay of the land. Careful study yields truth's gems.

Information Anxiety (Doubleday 1989) by Richard Saul Wurman offers a powerful approach. He argues that organizing information takes five forms: by Time, by Continuum, by Alphabet, by  

Locations, and by Topic . Each form provides a different perspective on a document or a set of records. In other words, you can learn something new by looking at the same material from a different angle.

Let's for example, consider that we are investigating a serious incident and the records under review might include pre-job safety meetings and previous similar incident reports.

In examining these records, the investigator can create chronologies such as the meeting times, incident times in relation to meetings, or the dates when training was provided. Organizing the evidence by time enables the investigator to observe relationships that may not be apparent with a simple reading of the records.

A continuum is a magnitude scale: from the smallest to the largest or from the dullest to the brightest. In our pre job safety meetings this might measure meeting length, the number of attendees, or the seriousness on a risk scale of the topics discussed. Cross-referencing this data against a chronology might reveal that the certain types of incidents are happening within a specific time frame in relation to meetings or other activities.

Alphabetizing all the workers, supervisors or safety representative's names will provide a good cross-reference list to check against the previously generated chronologies and continuum lines. Who attended what meetings? Is there a pattern of missed meetings? Are the same names popping up in relation to incidents? You might further evaluate these names by adding length of service with the organization, training, journeyman status etc.

Evaluating by location, that is listing where on the site the incident occurred, provides an excellent cross-reference list to check against the previously generated chronologies and continuum lines. If, for example, potentially incidents are occurring at a distance from competent supervision, the increased number of incidents might be easier to understand.

Topically listing all the subjects discussed in a months worth of pre-job meetings will further enhance recognizing incidents where supervision might be a critical factor; or where incident causing factors have not been reviewed for some time. Under each subject, an investigator can identify the risks involved. Then using the skills and competencies identified for each participant, an investigator might demonstrate that the worker in a critical phase of his or her job may not have been adequately trained or supervised.

Wurman's five information tools can powerfully integrate the data found in documentary evidence; they can turn the mere reading of documents into a thoughtful observing process.

Summarized from the article How to Increase Your Powers of Observation by Ronald L. Mendell, CLI

Back to Articles