One of the many podcasts I listen to is the TED Radio Hour from NPR. For the uninitiated, the TED Radio Hour is a compilation of highlights from several TED Talks (you know what these are, right?) arranged around certain topics. I like the topical arrangement and the sampling they do of the presentations, as well as the inclusion of interviews with many of the presenters. Yesterday I listed to one from July 29, 2016 titled Failure is an Option. In it, I was most drawn to the points made by Tim Hartford, an economist, and began to think that this guy needs to speak at some emergency management conferences. What can an economist tell emergency managers? His TED Talk is titled Trial, Error, and the God Complex. It’s worth checking out.
How often do you hear someone in public safety proclaim that they don’t know about a certain topic or how to handle a certain situation. Not very often. Certainly we have a lot of confident, Type A people (myself included) who will not be stopped by a problem, even if we don’t know right off how we will solve it. At the extreme end of this are those who refuse to plan. Why? Maybe they don’t want to be constrained by a plan, or maybe they don’t want something put in writing. Maybe they simply don’t know right now what they will do, either a) hoping that it never happens, or b) assuming they will figure it out when it does. Determination and persistence is good, but we can’t become ignorant despite it. As I often mention in my posts, this is public safety, not a pick-up game of kick ball. To me, there is nothing more serious.
Our egos drive us to feel that everything is on the line all the time. While some may refuse to plan, others do plan, but the approach may not be realistic. We’ve all seen plans that begin with one, two, maybe even three pages of assumptions. That’s a lot of assuming for an emergency or disaster situation, which we all know is uncertain and dynamic. Those long lists make me uncomfortable, as they should you. Why do we do it? Sure there are some things we can expect, but otherwise we are trying to dictate terms to the disaster. Trust me, the disaster doesn’t give a damn about the plan you wrote or the terms and conditions you try to lay out for it. But it makes us feel better by putting the disaster in a very defined box. I know I’ve been guilty of this.
Let’s remove the ego. Let’s proclaim that maybe we have no idea, or we have a few ideas but we aren’t sure which one is best. Preparedness should be collaborative. Get lots of ideas from people. Talk though them and figure out which ones are the most viable. Get these ideas down on paper, even loosely, and try them out. We need to take advantage of our preparedness work to figure out the things we don’t know.
A number of years ago, it was identified through feedback and after action reports of incidents that the flow of information and resource requests in a certain EOC simply wasn’t working the way it was intended. While I’m a big fan of the application of ICS in an EOC, the specific role an EOC plays as a multi-agency coordination center, the cross functions of some staff, and the politics involved aren’t really accounted for in ICS, so the strictest applications of ICS sometimes don’t apply well. A small group of us were tasked to fix it. While we each had some theories, none of really knew why the current processes weren’t working. So we set up a small exercise solely for this purpose. Our observations helped us identify the root cause of the problem. The members of our group, all experienced EOC personnel, had different theories on how to solve the problem. We went again to exercises, this time a series of small ones. We ushered some people into the EOC, each time giving them a flow chart and some narrative on what each person should be doing relative to the processes we devised. The injects flowed and we observed the outcomes. We saw what worked and what didn’t. We then assembled an amalgamation of the best traits of each methodology into a new process. Then guess what we did – we exercised that – and it worked. Not only did we have a great scientific and structured approach, we also had validation of our final product – one that stood up to further exercises and actual incidents.
Does trial and error take time? Sure it does. Does it always yield results? Yes – although not always positive ones – but those are still results. It’s important to remember to collect data on each of our attempts. Just like an exercise we want to evaluate and document. Sometimes our ideas turn out to be epic failures, and that’s OK. Had we not found this out during our trial and error, just like an exercise, it could have been devastating and costly in a real life application. A severe mistake during an incident can be career ending for you, and life ending for those you are sworn to protect.
The bottom line is that it’s OK to fail – just try to control when and how you fail. In order to accept that premise, however, we need to let go of the super Type A hero/god/ego thing. Yes, we can learn from successes, but we learn more from failure, especially with a little root cause analysis. Sometimes things look great on paper, but unless you actually try them out, you’ll never know. In your trial and error, also consider different variables which may have influence on the outcomes. It’s great to plan for a response and practice it on a sunny day, but what about pouring rain, freezing temperatures, or high winds? How does this impact your plan? Often we can make assumptions (remember those?), but we’ll never really know unless we try.
Do you buy into this? Thoughts appreciated.
© 2016 – Timothy Riecker, CEDP
Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC – Your Partner in Preparedness