I did an ICAM course with Impac and can absolutely recommend it.

I've done the course and found it helpful - was also done through Impac. We are also rolling out M-ICAM (a one-day cut down version) across the organisation to set up an event learning team and I can recommend Coachio for this - Andy did a fantastic job and is a very engaging trainer.

Hi

I have completed this a couple of times with 2 different providers, one of the best courses I have ever been on highly recommend it to all.
Very good program and works very effectively in lots of different situations

I did my course through Safetywise in Australia. Great provider and I think they do courses in NZ as well.

Yes I completed this course a few years ago through Impac as well. It's quite comprehensive, and I recommend it.

Yes have done the ICAM Investigation course with IMPAC a few years ago now. Very useful 2 day course. We also have this as a requirement for all our Investigators.

Hi Alana,
I have done the two day course and actually found it lacking in areas associated with human factors, and systems thinking. It also appeared to embrace more linear approaches to human error, which is quickly being superseded by systems thinking, safety II, safety differently, resilience engineering. I have also had the opportunity to provide human factors reviews on ICAM investigations and they have shown a very limited and somewhat superficial understanding of human factors, and I discovered many additional findings previously missed. Now admittedly, my ICAM training was given a good 7 or 8 years ago and things may have changed somewhat to the curriculum. However, given that more and more organisations (such as ACC and Worksafe) are starting to appreciate that the depth of human factors in a dynamic work environment plays a fundamental role in things going good or bad, I would at the very least recommend you do not treat ICAM as a fait accompli to your incident investigations. Seek relevant human factors expertise through the HFESNZ or HASANZ directories - and the same advice (concerning HASANZ) if you need any other specialist to look into your investigations.

Feel free to contact me should you need any further information.

Karl
021 858 283

I can't speak about ICAM but I understand many incident investigations stop at the point where the investigator concludes "operator error".

Todd Conklin's thoughts on this in the latest Safeguard are pertinent.

No experience with ICAM but we use six sigma tools like 5 why's and fish bone analysis. all investigations using this approach get beyond operator error and dig deep to the route cause. This usually leads to 'proper task preperation was not done'.

This usually leads to 'proper task preperation was not done'. — Bruce Tollan

But why was proper task preparation not done? :wink:

I did the Impac ICAM course a number of years back now - it was a good basis of understanding of the ICAM principles and a systematic approach to incident investigations.

Proper task preparation not done because of a low perception of the risks by managers and supervisors preparing the task activity.

Good investigation technique for more indepth investigations

I did ICAM with IMPAC 6 years ago, it was worth doing because of the excellent presenter (Frank McCutcheon).
I often hear 'ICAM' bandied about as it was a kit-set surefire way to undertake a successful investigation, like doing a jigsaw puzzle. This can be (and often is) far from the truth. ICAM is just one tool.

Whenever I hear the phrase 'root cause' I get an internal shudder (similar to when I hear 'common sense'). Both of these phrases are oxymorons.

Anyone done the one CECC offers?

We have used ICAM successfully for several years. However potentially it may have limitations when considering unrelated systems and any changes made to those systems which unknowingly at the time can create unsafe conditions elsewhere in a system. I have been researching the investigative systems theory around the STAMP and FRAM system investigation tools - very hard to get ones head around quite frankly. I don't think we would drop ICAM as such but may look at the Organisational Factors part of ICAM and integrate STAMP or FRAM systems theory. So basically I am wondering if anyone else has had exposure to STAMP or FRAM and can offer any advice.

I'm really interested in alternative approaches to learning from events.

The challenge is that, in contrast to Monty Python (Video Link - Spanish Inquisition), 'Everybody expects the Spanish Inquisition!'.

Health and Safety Investigations have a bad reputation. People are often blamed for safety events, our people see others marched 'off site' and all this erodes trust.

This all hampers an organisation's ability to get what they need to learn from events. That is a reliable account of what actually happened and how.

We also waste excessive amounts of time exploring why things happened; often the reality is nobody really knows, so we guess.

The Forestry Industry Safety Council have some good resources on a 'Learning Review Approach' if you are curious:

Learning Reviews - FISC

Here is an example of the sort of outputs you can get from a learning review:

Learning Review Alert

Learning Review Animation

Also the 'Human and Organisational Performance' or 'HOP' approach, encourages the use of learning teams in a similar way. You can learn more about this here:

Human and Organisational Performance Approach

ICAM is one of many excellent frameworks, and like so many things, the most important thing is to understand what any particular framework can or cannot do. This requires careful attention to the structure of the framework itself and understanding its own inherent biases and blind spots.

Most investigation frameworks aim to provide a structured set of tools to guide people through an investigation to maximise the information and insights you can get from an investigation, with templates and tools to capture them in an orderly way that will support analysis and reporting on findings.

In my experience, there are aspects of various methodologies that are very useful, and at the same time there is no real substitute for personal 'tools' such as an open mind, genuine curiosity, and the desire to learn and improve. I once conducted a serious harm investigation led by my unfettered curiosity that not only allowed the elements of the incident itself to take shape somewhat like a 3D model; I also became very aware of a number of other issues that were much more subtle undercurrents that could have potentially influenced the incident under investigation, and these could also be addressed in proactive ways to prevent future incidents. I was quite amazed to see how all the pieces just came together to show layers of cause factors.

Also...I did ICAM Lead Investigator and refresher training with Graham Platts of ACT Safety - he's an excellent trainer, and when I was involved with ICAM training at Ports of Auckland, Graham Platts even came to the port and went out onto a ship to observe the stevedores at work so he could develop a relevant case study for trainees. Graham understands people and a deep level and does an amazing job of facilitating learning, so trainees complete their training with both verified competence and confidence to do the task. He's one of the few safety trainers I would recommend to others because his trainings are very effective.