SMP 365 ICAM

What is SMP 365 ICAM investigation software?

SMP 365 ICAM uses the Incident Cause Analysis Method to organise incident evidence, examine contributing factors and prepare findings for competent review. The workspace connects initial incident information, the investigation and corrective actions, so the analysis can be understood in the context of the event that prompted it.

It is intended for investigators, safety professionals and operational reviewers who need more than an incident entry form. The task is not simply to describe what happened. It is to make the reasoning behind the findings reviewable, including the evidence considered and the questions that remain unresolved.

Start with the incident context and timeline

The initial incident record captures the title, date reported, location, event type, description and immediate actions. The investigation view adds incident context and a timeline. Keeping those elements explicit helps a reviewer distinguish the original report from information established later.

A useful investigation separates observations from interpretations. For example, a changed workshop access route is a piece of context; a claim about why someone used that route needs supporting evidence. Establish the sequence of events before treating an early explanation as the final conclusion.

Organise PEEPO evidence

PEEPO provides five evidence categories: People, Environment, Equipment, Procedures and Organisation. SMP 365 uses these categories to structure the investigation. They give the team a way to examine the conditions around an event without reducing the investigation to one person or one failed component.

Use each category to organise what is known and identify what still needs examination. A procedure may describe the intended process, while observations and accounts describe how the work occurred. Differences are questions for the investigator to explore, not automatic proof that one source is wrong.

Examine contributing factors and defences

The ICAM workflow includes contributing factors, defences and organisational factors. This supports analysis beyond the immediate event: what conditions contributed, which defences were absent or did not work as intended, and what organisational context needs examination?

A finding should explain its relationship to the evidence. Where information is incomplete or conflicting, keep that limitation visible for review. The value of a structured method is a clearer investigation, not a longer list of causes or a predetermined answer.

Connect findings with corrective actions

Actions include a title, owner, due date and required evidence. That creates a practical handover from the investigation to the people responsible for follow-through. The action should describe the change being sought and the evidence the reviewer will need, rather than simply instructing someone to be more careful.

In the workshop example, the team might investigate how access-route changes were communicated and then assign a review of that process. The investigation should explain why the action addresses a supported finding. Completion of a task and demonstration that a control is effective are separate review questions.

Human-reviewed investigation reports and AI assistance

SMP 365 positions investigation reports as reviewed outputs. Investigators and authorised reviewers remain responsible for assessing evidence, challenging conclusions and deciding what is appropriate to issue. A report should be understandable to someone who was not present during the investigation.

Where AI assistance forms part of the selected offer, treat its output as material for human review, not an established fact or an independent investigation decision. Confirm the available assistance, processing arrangements and approval responsibilities during the demonstration. Do not submit sensitive evidence to an optional service until its use has been approved by your organisation.

Microsoft 365 access and implementation

The system is delivered through the Microsoft 365 and SharePoint environment. Investigation records can include sensitive personal and operational information, so the deployment conversation should distinguish investigators, reviewers and the wider audience for approved learning.

Start with a redacted completed investigation and an example of your action follow-up process. Review how the evidence categories, roles and report review fit your method. For migration, preserve the status and source of older material; importing a historical report should not imply that its findings have been reassessed or approved.

ICAM questions