This week, I want to return to Camp Mystic.
If you've read my blog post about 6 lessons all programs can take away from the investigation report, you already know that our old friend and risk management trap played a role: single-person dependency.
It's a trap because it's all too common in our space. Our orgs are small, and work is fast-paced and on tight deadlines, especially during busy seasons. It's too easy for critical tasks to become dependent on a single person, like only one person knows how to drive a specific vehicle, or can speak with a land manager or a partner to resolve an issue, or only one person knows what to do after a fatality.
Dependencies on individuals' skills, abilities, experiences, judgment, and authority exist in every organization I've visited. I've even been that person back in the day, as a program director in Korea.
But it's a trap, and it's easy to fall into. It's an indicator of the overall lower maturity of the entire risk management program.
So, back to Camp Mystic. Single-person dependency isn't named outright in the report. But a keen reader will see it emerge across the facts and circumstances presented.
Here's where I saw it:
One person knew the emergency and evacuation plan, and that same person was the only one monitoring the weather and precip accumulation that night. When he didn't act in time, nothing else was in place to catch the failure.
The reliance on this one person was written into the operating and emergency plans. Staff was trained to shelter in place and await further instruction during heavy rain or a flood. Instead, a trigger policy and training on self-rescue would have signaled that everyone should act.
Campers and their cabin counselors weren't allowed to have phones, so the people closest to the river didn't have a way to receive emergency alerts. They were reliant on one person coming directly to their cabin to tell them to act.
As a cultural and operational norm, the support staff on the grounds were told to keep their distance and not interact with campers. This means they were less likely to step in to help teenage counselors when needed. And, if they were to step in, they wouldn't know what to do or how to engage the young girls.
Local and state officials share responsibility too. There were no warning sirens along the river. New ones were installed and tested along the Guadalupe this spring.
Redundancies and contingencies are classic risk management tactics. Yet dependencies are common in legacy and smaller programs. Seasonal programs are especially susceptible because a high percentage of staff turnover every year, and the few senior, dedicated staff hold all the institutional knowledge and know-how. We all know this; there's so much to train new staff on that we have to cut the unlikely or little-used drills and information.
But, that's exactly the trap.
What are the critical decisions and tasks under your purview? What redundancies and contingencies are in place if you are not able to do them? What about the people you work closest to?
Spend a few minutes discussing with your colleagues this week. Play the “what if” game…you might be surprised, even relieved, about what you learn.
Stu
P.S. Here's a link to the Program Risk Scorecard. (AI made that name…I'm all ears for a better one, FYI.) It's a mini maturity assessment of your risk management program.
Send it to your colleagues and compare your results with each other. How 'mature' is your risk management program? Where do you agree, and where are the gaps?