Whenever there’s a chance for Safety to move away from what doesn’t work to explore a new method, its just returns to the same. We see this in HOP, that returns to organisational performance, which is just traditional safety. Traditional safety has always been about organisational performance, all HOP offers is some new slogans to go with it. S1 and S2 safety are just two brands for the same thing, there is no change in methodology (philosophy). The world is still framed through the lens of safety.
We see the same with DMAIC, no change in methodology. Just more of the same: define, measure, analyze, improve and control. And there are all the old safety favourites, measure and control.
Of course, DMAIC is built on the delusions of data, objectivity, measurement and control. Taken from the mechanistic philosophy of Lean Six Sigma, DMAIC ignores all that is most important about the way events unfold, the nature of persons and the complexities of culture. What also happens is that ‘lean’ means multiply systems and more paperwork.
DMAIC starts with the problem of ‘define the problem’ yet doesn’t engage with what happens prior to this. The key to investigation is NOT defining the problem but rather self-reflection.
None of these critical questions are considered: Who is the investigator? What is their bias? What is their ethic and philosophy? How do they prioritise persons? Do they understand risk? What is culture? How do accidents emerge?
Of course, if your philosophy is behaviourist or mechanistic like safety engineering, the framing of the problem and the approach to the problem will be mechanistic and focused on objects. This is just like ICAM (https://safetyrisk.net/deconstructing-icam-useful-or-useless/) that is also just more of the same.
Both ICAM and DMAIC ignore the most critical aspects of investigating thus assuring the safety industry doesn’t need to learn from accidents. This was made clear by Dr Nippin Anand in his wonderful book: Are We Learning From Accidents? (https://novellus.solutions/book-are-we-learning-from-accidents/).
What is clear from DMAIC and ICAM is that safety doesn’t want to learn or explore better methods for event investigations. It only wants methods that conform to the comforts of its behaviourist and mechanistic assumptions. I know, let’s keep repeating the same old methodologies and hope that things will improve.
All that happens with all the training given in DMAIC and ICAM is, confirmation of the same assumptions and indoctrination from the safety curriculum: more linear thinking, binary framing, behaviourist agenda, engineering, focus on objects, myths of ‘safety science’, addiction to measurement, adoration of performance and more delusion about control. None of this stuff helps with investigating or learning from accidents but it sure creates great comfort that something is being ‘done’.
Of course, when it comes to analysis in DMAIC there is no mention of critical thinking. The DMAIC approach to analysis is a data-centric process that dumbs down any notion of thinking critically. It even states the focus is on ‘root cause’ that we know is pure myth: https://vimeo.com/167228715 All this does is send Safety down a rabbit hole that doesn’t exist, creating myths through the collecting of data so as to avoid the most critical aspect of investigation: human judgement and decision making.
What DMAIC provides is the delusions of a method. It creates the idea that one has a method for understanding events without understanding persons.
But it doesn’t matter whether it’s the 5 whys, fishbone, DMAIC, ICAM or tap root, the most important thing is NOT to tackle the most critical elements in why events unfold. None of these methods help in understanding cultural cause of events. None of these methods help understand persons. None of these methods consider an ethic of investigation and all maintain the continued amplification of safety myths.
There is an alternative that works. There are ways of exploring the nature of events that don’t come from the foundation of mechanistic, behaviourist methodology.
If you live in Europe and want to experience a Investigations method that actually works, that has a focus on all the things that these methods ignore, you can attend the SEEK workshop in London with Dr Nippin Anand (https://safetyrisk.net/seek-investigations-program-in-london-with-dr-nippin-anand-14-16-may/) 14-16 May.
In SEEK, we move away from a mechanistic focus and from data, to an ethical understanding of human persons and, why humans do what they do. In SEEK and SPoR we explore all the things missing from the hole in the donut.
In SPoR investigations we explore all the critical elements of investigations that all these methods like DMAIC ignore. And, we provide a better method to help tackle the complexities of culture (https://safetyrisk.net/book-launch-51-stories-in-culture-to-live-and-to-be/) and why accidents unfold.
It’s not too late to register for the workshop with Dr Anand here: https://novellus.solutions/mec-events/032024-517/
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- When Semiotics Show Your Real Agenda in Safety - May 10, 2025
- Heinrich Was Wrong, A NZ Case Study - May 7, 2025
- iCue Methodology – A Video - May 6, 2025
- The Delusions of DMAIC Investigation Method - May 5, 2025
- Safe Work Australia Continues to Perpetuate Safety Mythology - May 4, 2025
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below