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
|
