OK, "doing it right" is the right thing to do anytime - all the time.
But reputation risk is more at risk in the age of social media than it has ever been.
"United Breaks Guitars" has become a catchcry for activists now, but I still love the song and its history. Old and still gold. Reputation is not a function of spin - it is a function of quality.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Consistency and Clarity - two necessary attributes of good policy.
In South Australia over the last year or so there has been much reflection and gnashing of teeth over how to manage risks to the public on "Catastrophic Fire Days".
"Catastrophic Fire Days" is the unfortunate phrase used to describe days when the weather conditions are bad enough to pose a very high hazard - or even high risk of fire. However the conditions are potential - no "hazard" event has occurred - and certainly no catastrophic consequences have occurred. Nevertheless that is what such conditions are called - and such conditions do indeed call for management. One of the main approaches to management has been to deem certain places not safe enough to allow or advise staying in on such days - but unfortunately this does not appear to have been done consistently.
Schools for closure during a Catastrophic Fire Day" are listed at http://www.crisis.sa.edu.au/pages/welcome/37263/ by the Department of Education and Community Services.
Safer settlements and precincts to resort to on a "Catastrophic Fire Day" are listed from http://www.cfs.sa.gov.au/site/home.jsp by the Country Fire Service.
Putting aside some glaringly obvious communication criticisms - such as using clumsy and unaligned taxonomies to list places and spaces rather than simply using interactive maps - for two organisations which have ostensibly been working hand in glove together under the same government there is a key strategic problem about their risk management approaches.
The problem is a significant inconsistency related to "inclusion on" or "exclusion from" what I will call the risk lists. If you are going to list things as risky or not (i.e. "safe") then it is important to do it the same way. So, for example, you could have a list of places which are NOT SAFE. Then I, as the client, customer or target audience, would know that that school was going to be closed on a "Catastrophic Fire Day" (because it is deemed not safe enough). Similarly, I would know which "settlements" or "precincts" are at most risk (putting aside the strange language choices used for places and areas). What I do not need is to be confused by one agency listing places which are safe (and in so doing, assuming I will know where and how to know the unsafe place I am interested in is not listed in their taxonomy); and another agency listing places which are not safe (which I prefer, because I do know where I am interested in and could find it on the list somewhere regardless of taxonomy by using the internet "find word" window at the top right of the browser - though some of these lists are hard to find downloads, but that's another matter, see maps above).
Then, to compound my confusion I find (eventually) the places I am interested in which are deemed safe (by exclusion from one list) by one agency, are located within an area (settlement or precinct) which is deemed unsafe by another agency! If that is logically possible I would appreciate a "join the dots" rationale - but these sites do not explain, they deem and list. Hmmm - so for most people this will not sit well. It does more than annoy - it challenges confidence and trust.
PS Just one more quibble if I may. I notice "safe" is treated as a policy sensitive word. Please. We great unwashed of the public may not be expert, but we do appreciate that both risk and safety are neither absolute nor objective. But we can cross the road with care.
"Catastrophic Fire Days" is the unfortunate phrase used to describe days when the weather conditions are bad enough to pose a very high hazard - or even high risk of fire. However the conditions are potential - no "hazard" event has occurred - and certainly no catastrophic consequences have occurred. Nevertheless that is what such conditions are called - and such conditions do indeed call for management. One of the main approaches to management has been to deem certain places not safe enough to allow or advise staying in on such days - but unfortunately this does not appear to have been done consistently.
Schools for closure during a Catastrophic Fire Day" are listed at http://www.crisis.sa.edu.au/pages/welcome/37263/ by the Department of Education and Community Services.
Safer settlements and precincts to resort to on a "Catastrophic Fire Day" are listed from http://www.cfs.sa.gov.au/site/home.jsp by the Country Fire Service.
Putting aside some glaringly obvious communication criticisms - such as using clumsy and unaligned taxonomies to list places and spaces rather than simply using interactive maps - for two organisations which have ostensibly been working hand in glove together under the same government there is a key strategic problem about their risk management approaches.
The problem is a significant inconsistency related to "inclusion on" or "exclusion from" what I will call the risk lists. If you are going to list things as risky or not (i.e. "safe") then it is important to do it the same way. So, for example, you could have a list of places which are NOT SAFE. Then I, as the client, customer or target audience, would know that that school was going to be closed on a "Catastrophic Fire Day" (because it is deemed not safe enough). Similarly, I would know which "settlements" or "precincts" are at most risk (putting aside the strange language choices used for places and areas). What I do not need is to be confused by one agency listing places which are safe (and in so doing, assuming I will know where and how to know the unsafe place I am interested in is not listed in their taxonomy); and another agency listing places which are not safe (which I prefer, because I do know where I am interested in and could find it on the list somewhere regardless of taxonomy by using the internet "find word" window at the top right of the browser - though some of these lists are hard to find downloads, but that's another matter, see maps above).
Then, to compound my confusion I find (eventually) the places I am interested in which are deemed safe (by exclusion from one list) by one agency, are located within an area (settlement or precinct) which is deemed unsafe by another agency! If that is logically possible I would appreciate a "join the dots" rationale - but these sites do not explain, they deem and list. Hmmm - so for most people this will not sit well. It does more than annoy - it challenges confidence and trust.
PS Just one more quibble if I may. I notice "safe" is treated as a policy sensitive word. Please. We great unwashed of the public may not be expert, but we do appreciate that both risk and safety are neither absolute nor objective. But we can cross the road with care.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Policy failures a function of poor risk management.
Dr Dean Jaensch (Flinders University) highlights the risk the Australian Commonwealth Government is now under as they run up to an election. His analysis can be accessed here.
The conclusion points to "a government which had tried to do too much, in too short a time, and without thinking out the costs, the methodology and the implications".
This is a stinging "risk management" scorecard - a question now is whether the ongoing discussion will focus on these accountability criteria or will the issues get sidetracked by spin?
The conclusion points to "a government which had tried to do too much, in too short a time, and without thinking out the costs, the methodology and the implications".
This is a stinging "risk management" scorecard - a question now is whether the ongoing discussion will focus on these accountability criteria or will the issues get sidetracked by spin?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)