This article was originally published on LinkedIn on 22 June 2025. It has been moved to the riskfacilitator Insights library so the website remains the permanent source.[1]

Ben Hutchinson Safe AF – Episode 3: Learning Teams vs Root Cause Analysis[2] explores a growing shift in safety thinking. Organisations are beginning to move away from traditional Root Cause Analysis (RCA) as the default method, leaning instead into Learning Teams as a more effective tool for understanding how work is actually done. This shift is backed by a peer-reviewed study conducted in a large NHS hospital, which found clear differences in both engagement and outcomes between the two approaches.

This isn’t about abandoning RCA. It’s about evolving. RCA still has its place, especially for isolated technical faults. But in today’s complex work environments, a single-cause mindset rarely explains the full picture.

Read the full NHS study: Evaluation of Learning Teams Versus Root Cause Analysis for Incident Investigation in a Large United Kingdom National Health Service Hospital[3]

Key Findings from the Study

  • Learning Teams generated a median of 7.5 actions, compared to 3.5 under RCA.
  • 57% of Learning Team actions focused on system improvements, versus 30% in RCA.
  • Learning Teams facilitated more open conversations, wider participation, and better contextual understanding.

Why Learning Teams Matter

  • They prioritise work-as-done over hypothetical models.
  • They reduce hierarchy and promote psychological safety.
  • They identify systemic conditions, not just individual missteps.
  • They support the goals of Safety-II, HOP, and modern risk intelligence.

How to Conduct a Learning Team

  1. Clarify the purpose – Understand whether you're responding to an incident or exploring recurring work patterns.
  2. Invite the right people – Include workers from across levels, not just those involved in the event.
  3. Facilitate, don’t interrogate – Create a space of trust and curiosity.
  4. Explore normal work – Focus on pressures, adaptations, and variability.
  5. Then explore the event – Ask what made sense at the time.
  6. Identify patterns – Look for systemic themes, not single-point failures.
  7. Co-design improvements – Let participants shape realistic, system-level actions.
  8. Follow up – Communicate results and implement what was learned.

RCA Still Has a Role

Use RCA when:

  • The failure is isolated, technical, and traceable.
  • There is a regulatory need to establish a direct causal chain.

Use Learning Teams when:

  • The issue involves complexity, human factors, or recurring process variation.
  • The goal is system improvement, learning, and cultural development.

Final Thoughts

This is not about replacing one method with another. It is about matching the method to the context. A dual approach allows organisations to use RCA where it is effective, and Learning Teams where deeper understanding is needed.

This is how we build capacity, culture, and resilience, not just compliance.

References

  1. Paul Chivers, Beyond Root Cause - Evolving Incident Investigation with Learning Teams, LinkedIn, originally published 22 June 2025.
  2. Safe AF – Episode 3: Learning Teams vs Root Cause Analysis, source linked in the original article, accessed 10 August 2026.
  3. Evaluation of Learning Teams Versus Root Cause Analysis for Incident Investigation in a Large United Kingdom National Health Service Hospital, source linked in the original article, accessed 10 August 2026.