When Hazard meets Vulnerability - geographic and social

Sometimes the interface of hazard and vulnerability is straightforward - physical - in geographic space. Other risks - interfaces of hazards and vulnerabilities are not straightforward - they happen in social space. And other times - they overlay each other and call for complex, mindful management.

Risk is a function of hazard and vulnerability

What is the essence of a "duty of care"?

Due care. Due diligence. Duty of care.

We hear these terms bandied about.

What do they mean?

What do they have in common?



An interesting insight is gained by looking at what people ask after an incident or a disaster. Especially the questions asked by courts and coronial enquiries.

The key - and complex question is - "what ought you to have KNOWN and DONE, about the RISKS and THEIR MANAGEMENT'?

Good question.
Conversation prompt - Is the key question (what ought you to have known and done about risks and their management) a fair question?



PS We think the resources available on and from our website www.disasterresilience.com will help you.

RePosting a classic - how to write well.

MADMAN, ARCHITECT, CARPENTER, JUDGE: ROLES AND THE WRITING PROCESS
by Betty S. Flowers
Professor of English and
Director of the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library

"What's the hardest part of writing?" I ask on the first day of class.

"Getting started," someone offers, groaning.

"No, it's not getting started," a voice in the back of the room corrects. "It's keeping on once you do get started. I can always write a sentence or two-but then I get stuck."

"Why?" I ask.

"I don't know. I am writing along, and all of a sudden I realize how awful it is, and I tear it up. Then I start over again, and after two sentences, the same thing happens."

"Let me suggest something which might help," I say. Turning to the board, I write four words: "madman," "architect," "carpenter," "judge."

Then I explain:

"What happens when you get stuck is that two competing energies are locked horn to horn, pushing against each other. One is the energy of what I'll call your 'madman.' He is full of ideas, writes crazily and perhaps rather sloppily, gets carried away by enthusiasm or anger, and if really let loose, could turn out ten pages an hour.

"The second is a kind of critical energy-what I'll call the 'judge.' He's been educated and knows a sentence fragment when he sees one. He peers over your shoulder and says, 'That's trash!' with such
authority that the madman loses his crazy confidence and shrivels up. You know the judge is right-after all, he speaks with the voice of your most imperious English teacher. But for all his sharpness of eye, he can't create anything.

"So you're stuck. Every time your madman starts to write, your judge pounces on him.

"Of course this is to over-dramatize the writing process-but not entirely. Writing is so complex, involves so many skills of heart, mind and eye, that sitting down to a fresh sheet of paper can sometime seem
like 'the hardest work among those not impossible,' as Yeats put it.

Whatever joy there is in the writing process can come only when the energies are flowing freely-when you're not stuck.

"And the trick to not getting stuck involves separating the energies. If you let the judge with his intimidating carping come too close to the madman and his playful, creative energies, the ideas which
form the basis for your writing will never have a chance to surface. But you can't simply throw out the judge. The subjective personal outpourings of your madman must be balanced by the objective, impersonal vision of the educated critic within you. Writing is not just self-expression; it is communication as well.

"So start by promising your judge that you'll get around to asking his opinion, but not now. And then let the madman energy flow. Find what interests you in the topic, the question or emotion that it raises in you, and respond as you might to a friend-or an enemy. Talk on paper, page after page, and don't stop to judge or correct sentences. Then, after a set amount of time, perhaps, stop and gather the paper up and wait a day.

"The next morning, ask your 'architect' to enter. She will read the wild scribblings saved from the night before and pick out maybe a tenth of the jottings as relevant or interesting. (You can see immediately
that the architect is not sentimental about what the madman wrote; she is not going to save every crumb for posterity.) Her job is simply to select large chunks of material and to arrange them in a pattern that might form an argument. The thinking here is large, organizational, paragraph level thinking-the architect doesn't worry about sentence structure.

"No, the sentence structure is left for the 'carpenter' who enters after the essay has been hewn into large chunks of related ideas. The carpenter nails these ideas together in a logical sequence, making sure each sentence is clearly written, contributes to the argument of the paragraph, and leads logically and gracefully to the next sentence. When the carpenter finishes, the essay should be smooth and watertight.

"And then the judge comes around to inspect. Punctuation, spelling, grammar, tone-all the details which result in a polished essay become important only in this last stage. These details are not the concern of the madman who's come up with them, or the architect who's organized them, or the carpenter who's nailed the ideas together, sentence by sentence. Save details for the judge.

Climate Adaptation – the key role of “adaptive resilience”

It is now widely recognised that complete mitigation of global environmental change is already out of reach, and that consequently institutional frameworks for sustainable development must include governance for adaptation. (Note 1)

Local and regional governments will play a key role in efforts directed at the practical planning and implementation of climate change adaptation.


Adaptive Resilience Framework

The structure of efforts facilitated through services delivered by or on behalf of governments should be around:

1. Purpose focused policies
The focus should be on developing adaptive resilience through achievement of agreed objectives. (Note 2)

A resilience which goes beyond coping, to include continual adaptation and redesign in pursuit of core purpose.

2. Adaptive governance systems.
We should place emphasis on innovation and environmental scanning for future change, and structure organisations for capacity and change rather than assume a stable, fixed state.

Consistent, coherent and well researched risk information should be integrated into corporate and operational processes.

3. Risk based interventions.
Corporate risk assessment criteria should act as a strategic framework for priority setting and decision making activities, including the consideration of opportunities to build adaptive capacity, to advance learning, and to develop new approaches and programs.

Notes

1. “Rio+20 Policy Brief #3: Transforming governance and institutions for a planet under pressure” March 2012 p. 7.

2. Resilience can be usefully characterized by a combination of the following:

• Culture of shared purpose and values

• Predictable financial resources

• Strong internal and external networks

• Intellectual, human and physical assets

• Leadership, management and governance

• Adaptive capacity featuring innovation and experimentation

• Situation awareness of environment and performance

• Management of key vulnerabilities by planning for disruption

(Ref “Making adaptive resilience real” Mark Robinson, 2010 p. 27.)

Hazards, Vulnerability, Disasters - beyond musings on the meanings of words.

This note is derived from a presentation to the FinPro Conference 2012, Creswick Novotel, Victoria, Australia. A copy of the complete paper is available here as a pdf.

By John Salter, Director Emergency Preparedness Capacity Builders

www.disasterresilience.com

A fundamental issue - Plans vs. Planning

Standards and Guidelines for disaster and business continuity management focus on two things:

1. To plan, establish, implement, operate, monitor, review, maintain and continually improve a documented management system; and
2. To protect against, reduce the likelihood of occurrence, prepare for, respond to and recover from disruptive incidents when they arise.

If our emphasis is on the documentation of yet another “plan, do, check, act” system, then standards will be a burden rather than an enabler – a significant risk in a marketplace already crowded with standards, systems and guidelines.

If standards and guidelines are used to support planning – active collaboration to achieve sound outcomes – with only the minimum necessary documentation – then it is more likely to deliver traction.

If we are mindful and use a strategic approach, we should address the key due diligence issue – or “coroner’s test”: i.e. “what you ought to know and do – about risks and their management”. The set of crucial decision points that should be addressed in every disaster management and business continuity management situation, are about:

(1) what is the risk (detection),

(2) what does the risk mean (recognition and interpretation),

(3) who has an interest (communication to multiple stakeholders), and

(4) who should do what (organization of a collaborative system).

Specific objectives will emerge according to the nature and scope of the particular disaster or crisis.

Key Terms - and their meanings

Words and their meanings – or their different meanings – are important when developing context and establishing shared understandings. This enables communication and avoids the “Tower of Babel” syndrome whereby many languages contribute to project failure.

So in checking some terms, let us start with “disaster”. First, while focused on pain thresholds and capacity to cope, the term disaster is contextual – "your thresholds and capacity to cope may not be the same as mine".



Risk is a function of the interface between hazards and the vulnerabilities of your "care-fors"

Second, it is important to recognize that "hazard events are not necessarily disasters". Yes, hazards contribute to risk, but an extreme event only becomes a disaster when it impacts something we attribute value to (our “care-abouts”).

For the same natural phenomenon - sink holes - different consequences.

Incorporating a focus on vulnerability opens up a rich vein of considerations - about what might be the most appropriate thing(s) to do to “protect against, reduce the likelihood of occurrence, prepare for, respond to and recover from disruptive incidents when they arise” (ISO 22313).

A risk based approach focuses on the likelihood of consequences – not the likelihood of hazard events.

While a risk based approach sits comfortable with an “all hazards” approach, it should be recognized that an “all hazards” approach is a civil defence construct – applying largely to response, relief and recovery arrangements which can benefit from such efficiencies. In a more comprehensive risk based approach there needs to be a recognition that “fire is not water” – and that prevention strategies for each need to be tailored.

The framework within which the risk based approach is applied is often referred to as PPRR – or Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery. This P²R² heuristic device was introduced in the 1980’s as an instrument of American foreign policy to encourage third world nations away from reliance upon a post disaster “hand up for hand out” approach. It is not a simple linear construct – though it has constrained thinking by being used in that simple, indeed simplistic manner. A more useful display of the relationship between the four words is displayed here.

What does this mean for communities at risk and the businesses upon which they rely?
There is a need to develop - by planning before a disaster - strategies which reduce vulnerability. Line one in the diagram below which reflects the purpose – or business case – of business continuity planning. To mitigate impact before and after a disruption event.

 

Risk Assessment ≠ Risk Analysis

One distinction between "risk management" in the USA and the rest of the world was - and maybe to a degree still is - the different meanings of "anaysis" and "assessment".

For the United States: "Assessment = Analysis"

For the rest: "Assessment = Identification + Analysis + Evaluation"

Aligned with the Intenational Risk Management Principles and Guidelines (ISO 31000)

• Context and Identification are about nailing your risk issues by focusing on their consequences in relation to "the things you value" (objectives).
• Analysis is about premising the likelihood of those consequences (given the effectiveness of current controls).
• Evaluation involves judgment of acceptability.

To help address this issue and add some value to those who may want to consider it, we have developed a risk assessment tool which is aligned with the International Risk Management Standard, easy to use, inexpensive and works on Excel software as old as 1997 - or the most recent version.

The structure of the tool fully aligns with the structure of the ISO 31000 process.

More information on how the Risk Assessment Tool works is available by downloading this pdf.

We are please to make this immediate download available for the SALE price of only US$14.95

EPCB weekly Risk Management Newsletter launched

To bring together items of common interest and tweets, EPCB will make available a "Paper.li" web-based publication which will provide a collection of (hopefully) interesting items in the one spot -The url for the publication is http://paper.li/risk_reward/1326694527 for those of you who want to consider subscribing to a weekly notification.

Three steps to developing a sound SIPOC diagram

Overview Handout

Purpose: The purpose of a SIPOC Diagram is to define and document the key elements of an activity. This includes Customers/Requirements, Outputs, Process Steps/Requirements, Inputs and Suppliers.

Materials: SIPOC overview handout, whiteboard, worksheets, flipcharts, PowerPoint (not preferred as it can take away from engagement and participation), Posters, PostIts™ (or my favourite, coloured sticky arrows – which are then placed on a large, blank, laminated SIPOC chart)

Time: Varies. Plan for at least two hours based on the complexity of the process, the knowledge of the participants of the process, and their previous experience creating SIPOCs.

Step ONE: Get everyone on the same “purpose” page

Note 1 to facilitator: Do this step even if working with a knowledgeable group by reviewing the elements critical to conducting a successful SIPOC session.

Use this review as a means of setting a positive tone and developing a “conversational” style of facilitating the session.

The five critical elements to a good SIPOC are:

1.   Provide participants a brief overview of the SIPOC structure and how it important to manage its use in terms of range of purposes.

Apply the Covey principle “begin with the end in mind”– SIPOCs are flexible tools and can be focused on achieving a range of purposes – such as project planning, or vulnerability mapping or organisational restructuring. So be mindful – ask how will you USE this SIPOC?

2.  The challenge for service industries (as distinct from making widgets) is to think beyond the process column (where many SIPOCs start). The challenge for individuals is to think outside of their square.

3.   When recording on the SIPOC use only as much detail as needed to understand/communicate effectively.

4.   Record the agreed purpose of this SIPOC session – make the agreed purpose the label of the “car park”. The “car park” is an area of white space, such as butcher’s paper or a whiteboard on wheels, which is structured to capture – as they relate to the SIPOC element being mapped at the time - (1) assumptions (2) constraints (3) risks and (4) decision criteria

5.  This is not an academic exercise - define how things really get done, not how we might want them to be.

Step TWO: Establish the Framework

Note 2 to facilitator: Groups sometimes prefer to be more “organic” than systematic. Be flexible and accommodate as long as the entire SIPOC form is completed with enough detail to understand the process. Be flexible and use plain language. Write it down, and then ask open-ended, clarifying questions to get it right. Place the “thing” or “issue” on the SIPOC at a place of best agreed fit. Challenge the status quo, test the understanding of the process, and encourage dialogue.

Note 3 to facilitator:  A challenge from here on out in this process is to keep the group at a high level of detail - not allow them to get too granular. The detail can come later in the process flow diagram mapping or you can go back and break each key process step into sub-steps and SIPOC them. (It depends on the purpose of the SIPOC and the complexity of the process.)

Use the SIPOC framework (on the wall chart, computer, whiteboard, worksheet, or flipchart).

1.     Seek permission and agreement from the group to start “backwards from the right” - from the Customer column.

• Identify customers (some will be stakeholders with specified needs to be met which are contractual, or legally obligatory - others stakeholders may have a more indirect and general interest, needing only to be appropriately informed).
• “Back into” the customer requirements column by now clearly stating the requirement(s) of each stakeholder. 

(This two set customer column should be reviewed whenever something changes – so that the ripple effects can be mapped and managed.)

2.     List the outputs from the process which will deliver the requirements of the customer – and collectively, achieve the required outcome of the activity.

3.     Structure a process which will deliver the outputs effectively and efficiently.

• Clearly identify the START of your process (cue, prompt, trigger that requires you to act).
• Clearly identify the END of your process (how do you know you are done?).
• List the 3-5 (NO MORE THAN 7) key steps in the process being mapped.
• Incorporate feedback loops – how will you, your customer, your supplier communicate?

(Record: Process name; Process owner; Process performance measures/metrics – structured to inform improvement opportunities; any known operational definitions of key process elements; any known assumptions/constraints and immediately apparent risks - record in “car park)

Note 4 to facilitator: Remind the group that the assumptions and operational definitions are ongoing lists and may be added to as needed during the session. The idea is to make sure everyone is working on the same sheet of paper and means the same thing when using a term and those assumptions are made visible, discussed, and validated or challenged as appropriate.

4.     List the inputs into each step of the process

• List the requirements of each input (your view – the person doing the work)
• List the supplier of each input of the process

5.     List or highlight the Critical-to-Quality (CTQ) elements for the process

Step THREE: Check your work

• Review the completed SIPOC.

• Verify all key components are completed/addressed.

• Determine Next Steps/Action Plan.

• Make sure all assumptions are visible, discussed, validated, and documented.

• Document operational definitions of terms, symbols, acronyms, equipment, standards, etc.

• Do not forget to identify your information/communication loops and feedback mechanisms.

• Document source specifications, standard operating procedures, and/or references for your process.

• Review where you need to have Service Level Agreements (SLAs) – between you and supplier, you and customer.

Updated - EPCB's Buttress Facebook page

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Buttress/113599418683658