Five Whys for SIFs: 6 Investigation Traps
Five Whys can support SIF investigations only when leaders test barriers, latent conditions and action quality beyond the first human act.
Workplace safety, safety culture, leadership and risk management — international perspective.
Por Andreza Araujo Global Safety Culture Specialist
Page 8
Five Whys can support SIF investigations only when leaders test barriers, latent conditions and action quality beyond the first human act.
A field guide for leaders who want safety walks to verify barriers, expose weak signals and change decisions, instead of creating visibility theater.
Bow-Tie Analysis works only when leaders verify critical controls, owners, degradation factors, and SIF exposure in the field before failure.
A practical guide for supervisors who need PTRA forms to expose real field risk before high-risk work becomes another signed ritual on site.
A practical guide for EHS managers who need working at height rescue plans to become permit-to-work controls, not emergency-folder paperwork.
Post-incident meetings decide whether teams speak honestly after risk events or retreat into silence, hierarchy, and weak corrective actions.
A safe return to work after mental-health absence needs role clarity, workload control, supervisor discipline and early warning indicators.
DART rate helps compare injury impact, but leaders must pair it with SIF potential, speak-up data, and corrective-action quality.
Behavioral observation fails when BBS counts cards instead of reducing exposure. See seven failures and how supervisors can fix them.
Speak-up metrics reveal whether people can question risk before harm occurs, giving EHS and plant leaders a sharper view than TRIR alone in daily work.