Cam digs into why pressure distorts judgement, how shortcuts creep in, and what practical systems help people make better calls when the heat is on.

Drawing on ICAM thinking, this episode unpacks human error, time pressure, competing goals, and the difference between a bad decision and a system that set someone up to fail.

An ICAM-focused episode about why good investigators resist the easy answer, challenge assumptions, and keep digging until the system story is clear.

• Theme: avoid blame-focused shortcuts.
• Focus: data gathering, witness interviewing, timeline building, and causal analysis.
• Takeaway: better questions create better investigations.

A blunt look at the usual reasons incident investigations fall over: weak data gathering, sloppy analysis, rushed recommendations, and the old favourite—blaming the person instead of fixing the system.

Using ICAM and 5 Whys examples from Safety Wise training materials, Cam breaks down the failure points that turn investigations into expensive paperwork instead of useful learning.

In this Cam’s Corner episode, Cam rolls up his sleeves and has a cheeky go at one of his favourite topics: the blind spots in ICAM investigations. Drawing on the Safety Wise article “Seeing the Blind Spots: What Investigators Often Miss”, he unpacks why so many investigations still end up with neat charts, recycled recommendations and very little actual learning.

With his usual dry humour, sarcasm and a few well-aimed jabs at “tick-and-flick ICAM”, Cam walks through the biggest traps: treating ICAM like a filing system instead of an inquiry, stopping at “human error” instead of asking why it made sense at the time, and writing organisational causes so generic they could fit on a coffee mug.

Cam then digs into the messier reality of work: success bias, drift into failure, procedures nobody really uses, and those weak signals and near misses everyone quietly steps over. He shows how real investigations need to follow decision lineages upstream, interrogate KPIs and leadership messages, and design recommendations that actually change systems instead of just ordering more training.

If you’ve ever sat in a boardroom explaining an ICAM that you know didn’t quite hit the mark—or you’re tired of hearing “just retrain them” as a fix-all—this episode is for you. Expect blunt honesty, practical examples, and plenty of witty, no‑nonsense guidance from Cam on how to stop missing the blind spots and start doing ICAM the way it was meant to be done.

In this Cam’s Corner episode, Cam dives into a hard truth: even with modern systems, automation, and safety management in place, things still go badly wrong. Drawing on the Safety Wise article “When Systems Alone Are Not Effective…”, he explores why serious incidents still happen in organisations that look good on paper—and what to do about it.

Cam walks through two big red flags investigators keep seeing: low-level “nothing events” quietly piling up in the database, and workers saying after an incident, “I knew that was going to happen one day…”. He unpacks why these are signs of ineffective systems rather than bad people.

Across the episode, Cam talks about trending and analysing minor incidents, the real-world constraints on HSE teams, and how to turn your incident database into a proactive risk radar. He also digs into why hazard reporting systems often fail in practice—too slow, too hard, or seen as pointless—and how to redesign reporting and training so people actually use them.

If you’re serious about ICAM, learning from events, and closing the gap between “established” and “effective” systems, this episode is for you.

An easygoing, plain-English chat about what a basic cause really is in an incident investigation, why it matters, and how it differs from symptoms, errors, and the bigger system stuff hiding underneath.

• Why the obvious answer usually isn’t the real answer.
• How to spot where control was first lost.
• Why good investigations start with facts, not blame.

Cam takes a hard look at why strong investigations don’t stop at the last person who touched the problem. This episode unpacks contributing factors, the difference between symptoms and causes, and why good incident analysis focuses on systems, controls, human factors, and organisational decisions—not just the sharp end.

Expect practical ICAM thinking, a few blunt truths, and the usual Aussie honesty about what really needs fixing.

Cam takes a hard look at the Fukushima nuclear accident through ICAM, separating the frontline actions from the system conditions, organisational decisions, and failed defences that set the stage. This episode explores what incident investigators can learn when they stop blaming the last person holding the wrench and start asking what the system made possible.

In this episode of Cam's Corner, Cam takes a hard look at one of safety's sacred cows: the DuPont Bradley Curve. For years it's been rolled out in boardrooms and inductions as the roadmap to "world-class" safety culture — but what if the story it tells is more comforting than it is true?

Drawing on real-world ICAM investigations and decades of frontline experience, Cam unpacks why the Bradley Curve became so popular, how it quietly keeps the focus on worker behaviour instead of system design, and why linking injury rates to "cultural maturity" can be downright dangerous.

Cam then walks through how ICAM breaks the curve wide open: shifting attention from culture to conditions, behaviour to context, and blame to genuine organisational learning. If you're tired of colour-coded culture charts and want a more honest way to understand risk, this one’s for you.