Incident Investigation Is Evolving: From Root Cause Analysis to Operational Learning

Incident investigation remains one of the most important tools in safety management, yet many organizations are rethinking how it should be performed.

For decades, Root Cause Analysis (RCA) served as the standard approach to incident investigation. It offered structure, consistency, and a clear path forward. When an event occurred, investigators gathered facts, identified causes, implemented corrective actions, and closed the case.

Over time, this process became deeply embedded in safety systems, audits, and regulatory expectations. It provided a sense of control and reinforced the belief that eliminating causes would reduce risk.

However, many organizations continue to experience recurring incidents despite extensive investigation efforts. Similar exposures, failures, and outcomes still occur. As a result, safety leaders have begun questioning whether traditional approaches provide enough insight.

Research increasingly suggests that many investigations fail to explain why work unfolded as it did under real-world conditions. Instead, they often focus on outcomes rather than operational realities. This realization has driven a shift toward learning-focused approaches that emphasize understanding systems rather than assigning causes.

The Limits of Traditional Incident Investigation

Traditional incident investigations often rely on the assumption that events can be traced to a single cause. This linear approach provides simplicity and closure. Consequently, it has remained popular across many industries.

However, complex operations rarely fail because of one mistake. Instead, incidents emerge from multiple interacting factors that influence one another.

Research consistently shows that most events involve a combination of organizational, environmental, technical, and human influences. Therefore, reducing them to a single cause can oversimplify reality.

Another challenge is hindsight bias. After an event occurs, outcomes appear obvious. Decisions that seemed reasonable at the time may appear flawed when viewed afterward. As a result, investigators may unintentionally judge decisions based on information unavailable during the event itself.

Traditional approaches also tend to emphasize individual actions. Findings such as “failure to follow procedure” often appear in reports. However, these conclusions may overlook workload pressures, equipment limitations, communication gaps, or competing priorities. Consequently, corrective actions often focus on individuals rather than systems.

Although these actions may create short-term improvements, they frequently fail to address deeper organizational influences. This helps explain why similar incidents often recur.

From Blame to Learning

Modern safety thinking is shifting from blame toward learning. Historically, investigations often focused on determining responsibility. Organizations wanted to know who made the mistake and how to prevent repetition. While accountability remains important, this approach can create unintended consequences.

When employees fear punishment, they may hesitate to report concerns or share information openly. As a result, organizations lose valuable opportunities to learn.

Today, many industries recognize that incidents are shaped by the systems in which people work. Human error is not an unusual occurrence. Instead, it is a normal part of complex operations. People make decisions based on available information, competing demands, and operational constraints. What appears incorrect afterward may have made sense at the time. This perspective changes the purpose of incident investigation.

Rather than asking, “Who failed?” organizations ask, “What conditions influenced decisions?” This shift encourages curiosity instead of judgment. More importantly, it helps organizations understand how systems shape performance.

Learning Teams: A New Approach to Incident Investigation

Learning Teams represent one of the most significant developments in modern incident investigation. Unlike traditional investigations, Learning Teams focus on understanding how work is actually performed. They bring together frontline workers and other stakeholders to discuss operational realities. Participants share challenges, adaptations, and constraints encountered during daily work.

This approach recognizes that workers possess critical knowledge about system performance. Because discussions occur in a collaborative environment, organizations often uncover insights unavailable through traditional interviews.

Learning Teams also emphasize dialogue rather than interrogation. Instead of extracting information, facilitators encourage participants to explore how work unfolds under varying conditions. As a result, organizations gain a richer understanding of operational complexity.

Another benefit is the ability to identify recurring patterns. Rather than focusing only on a single event, Learning Teams explore broader system influences that shape performance over time. Consequently, organizations can address emerging risks before they result in harm.

Evidence That Learning-Focused Approaches Work

Research increasingly supports learning-focused approaches to incident investigation. Studies comparing Learning Teams and traditional RCA methods found important differences.

Learning Teams generated more recommendations overall. More importantly, they produced a greater number of system-focused improvements. System-level changes generally provide stronger and more sustainable risk reduction than individual-focused interventions.

The quality of information also improves. Traditional investigations often depend on interviews conducted after an event. Memory limitations and hindsight bias can affect accuracy. Learning Teams explore work as it is performed. Therefore, discussions reveal operational realities that might otherwise remain hidden.

Worker engagement also improves significantly. Traditional investigations sometimes create distance between investigators and employees. In contrast, Learning Teams involve workers directly in the learning process. This participation creates ownership and strengthens trust.

Over time, stronger engagement can improve reporting, communication, and organizational transparency.

Why Just Culture Matters

Learning-focused approaches depend on trust. Without trust, employees may hesitate to share information openly. Therefore, organizations must create environments that support transparency.

This is where Just Culture becomes essential. Just Culture does not eliminate accountability. Instead, it distinguishes between human error, risky choices, and reckless behavior. By understanding context, organizations can respond fairly while maintaining expectations. This balance encourages openness and strengthens reporting.

When employees believe they will be treated fairly, they are more likely to share information about incidents, near misses, and operational concerns. Consequently, organizations gain access to valuable learning opportunities.

Just Culture also supports Learning Teams directly. Open dialogue requires psychological safety. Participants must trust that information will be used to improve systems rather than assign blame. Without that trust, learning remains limited.

From Incident Investigation to Operational Learning

The future of incident investigation lies in operational learning. Traditional investigations are often reactive. They begin after an event and conclude when reports are completed. Operational learning takes a broader view.

Instead of focusing only on failure, organizations examine how work succeeds under normal conditions. This approach recognizes that valuable insights exist beyond incidents.

Near misses, workarounds, adaptations, and routine tasks often reveal important information about system performance. By studying these signals, organizations can identify vulnerabilities before serious outcomes occur.

Learning Teams support this effort by creating continuous feedback loops. Insights from workers inform system improvements. Those improvements are then evaluated through ongoing dialogue and observation. As a result, learning becomes a continuous process rather than a one-time event.

Implications for Safety Professionals

This evolution has significant implications for safety leaders.

First, success must be measured differently. Traditional metrics focus on completed investigations and closed corrective actions. However, these measures do not necessarily reflect meaningful learning. Instead, organizations should evaluate the quality of insights generated and the effectiveness of resulting improvements.

Second, new capabilities are required. Facilitating Learning Teams demands strong communication, listening, and questioning skills. Organizations must invest in developing these competencies.

Third, leadership behavior becomes increasingly important. Leaders shape culture through their actions and responses. When leaders demonstrate curiosity and fairness, employees are more likely to engage openly.

Finally, organizations must integrate learning-focused approaches with existing requirements. Regulatory obligations often require formal investigations. Learning Teams should complement these processes rather than replace them entirely.

Conclusion

The evolution of incident investigation reflects a broader shift in how organizations understand safety. Traditional RCA provided structure and consistency. However, modern operations require deeper understanding. Incidents rarely result from a single failure. Instead, they emerge from complex interactions across systems, people, and conditions.

Learning-focused approaches provide a more complete picture. Learning Teams, Just Culture, and operational learning help organizations move beyond blame and toward understanding. The goal is no longer simply to identify causes. Instead, it is to understand how work is performed, how systems influence decisions, and how resilience can be strengthened.

Ultimately, effective incident investigation is not about closing a case. It is about creating opportunities for continuous learning, adaptation, and improvement.

Organizations that embrace this shift will be better positioned to manage complexity, reduce risk, and build stronger safety cultures over time.

About the Author

James A. Junkin, MS, CSP, MSP, SMS, ASP, CSHO is the chief executive officer of Mariner-Gulf Consulting & Services, LLC and the chair of the Veriforce Strategic Advisory Board and the past chair of Professional Safety journal’s editorial review board. James is a member of the Advisory Board for the National Association of Safety Professionals (NASP). He is Columbia Southern University’s 2022 Safety Professional of the Year (Runner Up), a 2023 recipient of the National Association of Environmental Management’s (NAEM) 30 over 30 Award for excellence in the practice of occupational safety and health and sustainability, and the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) 2024 Safety Professional of the Year for Training and Communications, and the recipient of the ASSP 2023-2024 Charles V. Culberson award. He is a much sought after master trainer, keynote speaker, podcaster of The Risk Matrix, and author of numerous articles concerning occupational safety and health. He is a proud veteran of the United States Navy and a strong advocate for veteran causes.

References

Construction Safety Research Alliance. (2022). Incident investigations and learning: Methods, barriers, and opportunities. https://www.csra.colorado.edu/incidentinvestigationandlearning

Dam, L. (2025). Understanding and applying the principles of fair and just culture in incident investigations. https://www.safetywise.com/post/understanding-and-applying-the-principles-of-fair-and-just-culture-in-icam-incident-investigations

Gupta, K., & Lyndon, A. (2016). Rethinking root cause analysis. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/perspective/rethinking-root-cause-analysis

Martin-Delgado, J., Martínez-García, A., Valencia-Martín, J. L., Mira, J. J., & Aranaz, J. M. (2020). How much of root cause analysis translates into improved patient safety: A systematic review. https://karger.com/mpp/article-pdf/29/6/524/3128116/000508677.pdf

Murray, J. S., Clifford, J., Larson, S., Lee, J. K., & Sculli, G. L. (2022). Implementing Just Culture to improve patient safety. https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/188/7-8/1596/6589441

Peerally, M. F., Carr, S., Waring, J., & Dixon-Woods, M. (2017). The problem with root cause analysis. https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/26/5/417

Robbins, T., Tipper, S., King, J., Ramachandran, S. K., & Pandit, J. J. (2021). Evaluation of learning teams versus root cause analysis for incident investigation. https://medirisk.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Evaluation_of_Learning_Teams_Versus_Root_Cause.154.pdf

SAIF Corporation. (n.d.). Human and organizational performance (HOP): Another way to think about safety. https://www.saif.com/Documents/SafetyandHealth/Leadership/S1104_Human_and_Organizational_Performance_%28HOP%29-Another_way_to_think_about_safety.pdf

WorkSafe New Zealand. (n.d.). Guidelines for successful learning teams. https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/dmsdocument/1586-guidelines-for-successful-learning-teams