Inaugural Sir James Rowland Air Power Seminar – Dirk Maclean speaking.
This talk is a response to the announcement in the 2016 Defence White Paper that up to 900 new positions would be created with the aim of improving Australia’s situational awareness. This is understood mostly as a technical challenge, about networks and interoperability, but here it is argued that the purpose of SA is to support sound situational understanding, which in turn drives good decision making. Unless it does so, SA is of no value whatsoever. Understanding, however, is a human function, not a technical one. It makes sense therefore, that large scale investments into SA should be appropriately matched with developing human capabilities for understanding situations and making good decisions. The talk gives some examples of where SA has not been sufficient in and of itself, and where catastrophic errors were made on the basis of a poor understanding of the situation, the October 2015 airstrike on the MSF Trauma Centre in Kunduz, Afghanistan being a case in point.
‘Avoiding Catastrophe’s editor has been in discussion with a bluestone Australian university over the possibility of including it as a unit within the MBA program. The unit would be titled
‘Managing Decisions – across all levels of your organisation
when you as an executive don’t directly control, or supervise, the frontline employees and managers whose decision making can make or break your business
As an aside, this would have applied nicely to the recent United Airlines fiasco.
The proposed course outline is attached here Managing Decisions
So those of you with an MBA, or thinking of enrolling in one, what do you think ? Is this an elective unit you would choose ? Leave a comment below.
HCD – A Guide
This provides a brief overview of the main dimensions of the HCD program, including its objective, scope, training, sources, case studies, doctrine, and future development
‘High Consequence Decision Making’ began as a research project whose aim is to minimise the risk of catastrophic error. HCD draws on a wide range of existing knowledge in order to define and create an organisational culture, management systems, and training programs that can reduce this risk to a minimum.
The 2016 toxic spill into the coastal waters of Central Vietnam was the worst environmental disaster in the nation’s peacetime history. More than 110 tonnes of fish carcasses were collected in the weeks following the release of untreated industrial waste water from the Formosa Ha Tinh Steel (FHS) complex in early April. The livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and aquaculture farmers were severely affected, as were tourist operators. Beaches were only declared safe again for swimming in August.
The key decisions that led to the disaster were made years before the event itself, during the design phase of the plant. In this forthcoming case study, ‘Avoiding Catastrophe’ shows how this incident was both predictable, and because it was so – preventable.
for access to the full case study, subscribe to ‘Avoiding Catastrophe’s newsletter
because failure IS an option
‘Avoiding Catastrophe’ is the overarching concept behind all management decision making that takes place in the face of adversity. It concerns itself with problems, setbacks, difficulties, failures, accidents, and errors, seeking to minimise their impact and prevent catastrophic outcomes in the shape of irreversible damage to an organisation, its capabilities, functioning, even its existence.
This is not the normal focus of management thinking. Managers, leaders, entrepreneurs, commanders, usually concentrate their energies on achieving success, goals, objectives, tasks, the mission. They ask the question, ‘how do we get to where we want to be ?’. This is understandable, it reflects a determination to succeed, a desire to prevail, a ‘can do’ attitude without which nothing is ever accomplished.