ADDITIONAL USES

INVESTIGATION CATALYST files created during an investigation constitute a part of a "corporate memory," readily accessible through the automatically created glossary after concatenation of cases, with specificity about behaviors by actors involved, interactions or behavior sets, and the rationale for making changes to the system operation.

Use of the newly created Investigation Catalyst files for monitoring changes is one example of how they can be used to support non-investigative functions. In addition to their immediate use for monitoring, files from incident investigations can be used to support longer term use for other organization functions such as, for example:

• reassessments of procedures,
• proposals for future system changes,
• comparing incidents in related systems,
• assisting with regulatory compliance,
• revisions to personnel training,
• changing corporate culture,
• assisting in insurance inspections and
• dealing with emergencies and natural disaster

Many organizations are required by law to report certain incidents to regulatory or law enforcement authorities. The data from the incident files can be used to prepare such reports, although because of the nature of those reports, some subjective judgments may have to be introduced to the forms.

During incident investigations, the use of the Matrix to help force investigators using other methods to stick to the facts can be very helpful, particularly when such investigators try to mask their errors by raising the level of abstraction or using ambiguous terms that they can not fit into the EB format or Matrix.

Actions required by regulations can be added to a Matrix to test their role in the evolution of the incident and to identify regulatory violations, providing further support for the regulatory compliance process. This also can help assess the validity of the regulations.

Investigation Catalyst incident investigation files support litigation, by providing a factually supported description and explanation of what happened, without subjective judgments about blame or fault for the incident. Rather, a properly completed and tested Matrix describes the complexity of the incident, with all the EBs that were necessary and sufficient to produce the outcome. Each EB had to have a probability of 1 for the incident to occur as it did, and removing any EB would have changed the course of events in that case. Thus no EB is superior to any other EB for analysis purposes: all had to occur.

The Matrix is also useful for rebutting claims or hypotheses about what happened that are not based on facts during litigation. By demanding that the other side fit their scenario into the know network of EBs and links, it is almost invariably possible to demonstrate the error of such claims - if the Matrix was done properly.

A properly prepared and tested incident investigation file provides a description of what happened without judgmental conclusions that can generate controversy or doubt among interested parties such as employee or supervisory groups or families of those involved. Since most of the EBs on a finished Matrix are linked, it is difficult to introduce alternative theories that can not be made to fit them into the EB pattern. On the other hand, awareness that alternative theories are getting an objective hearing, and that if one fits it will be considered, contributes to confidence in the description with positive influence on subsequent performance.