An investigation is judged by what changes afterwards. Too often, the actions are written last, in a hurry, by people who want the file closed.
Tie every action to a proven cause
If an action does not address a cause the investigation established, it will not prevent recurrence. It will just add work.
Prefer actions that change conditions
Actions have different strengths. Removing the hazard or redesigning the task is strong. Adding a guard or an interlock is strong. A new procedure is weaker. Retraining and reminders are the weakest. Aim as high as you reasonably can.
Make each action specific
Who will do what, by when, and how will we know it worked? 'Improve supervision' is not an action. 'Assign a named supervisor to every night shift from next month' is.
Check effectiveness
Schedule a check, weeks or months later, to see whether the condition has really changed. Close the action only when it has.
Fewer is better
Five strong, specific actions will achieve more than twenty weak ones. A short list is also far more likely to be completed.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
→Every action must address a proven cause.
→Change conditions, not just behaviour.
→Close actions only when they have worked.
QUESTIONS READERS ASK
What makes a corrective action effective?
It addresses a proven cause, changes conditions rather than relying on behaviour, is specific, and is checked for effectiveness.
How many corrective actions should an investigation have?
As few as needed. A short list of strong actions achieves more than a long list of weak ones.
