John Salter Local Government Risk Management Strategic Lessons
- 1. Local Government Lessons Focus on the highest leverage change management opportunities www.emergencyriskmanagement.com Context Assessment Treatment Response Culture
- 2. Significant Variability www.emergencyriskmanagement.com Plan Focus Planning Focus Product Political Constructed Empowered Sustainable Grounded
- 3. Challenge Ignorance of what establish context is and what it entails. Imperative Agreement and commitment to roles and responsibilities – beyond general objects, and narrow tasks in Acts. Caveat - but mindful of partnering instruments (MOUs / SLAs) as panacea approaches. www.emergencyriskmanagement.com
- 4. www.emergencyriskmanagement.com Next Steps (establishing context) Up-skill facilitating analytic-deliberative processes . Move beyond service provider (of response resources) to respected (risk management) partner. Engage stakeholders – beyond “making a copy of the plan available” Establishing agreed risk assessment criteria
- 5. Challenge Hazard-centric approaches to risk assessment Imperative Expand to embrace vulnerability / resilience risk-based perspectives www.emergencyriskmanagement.com
- 6. www.emergencyriskmanagement.com Next Steps (risk assessment) Support scenario-based exercises which go beyond “response to hazards”. An opportunity for Zone Emergency Management Committees to develop emergency risk management capabilities.
- 7. Challenge Risk treatment is addressed by “cheap heuristics” - e.g. the 4Ds - and when forced to the last D of do, go for “cheapest and easiest”) Imperative Quality approaches based on the “due care” criteria used by coroners. www.emergencyriskmanagement.com
- 8. www.emergencyriskmanagement.com Next Steps Establish agreed risk treatment selection criteria, and risk treatment selection process guidelines. Coronial Tests 1 - To what extent ought you be able to foresee the potential harm (risk)? 2 - How well do you exercise "sound judgment" around likelihood and consequence? 3 - To what extent ought you have control over the things which might give rise to risk? 4 - How well do you exercise "sound judgment" around the treatment measures which can prevent, control, or mitigate the potential harm (risk)?
- 9. Challenge Response capabilities - agreed resources and arrangements - are not ad hoc (i.e. solutions designed for a purpose). Imperative Response arrangements are “risk proportionate” and arrangements are well integrated with the State. www.emergencyriskmanagement.com
- 10. www.emergencyriskmanagement.com Next Steps Test and then apply (or develop) a “best value” approach for on-the-ground resources: Assess to “solve or advise”. Advise using the state-wide agreed “templates” for impact assessment.
- 11. Challenge The spin-based culture elicits (and rewards) “self-protection” www.emergencyriskmanagement.com Imperative “ Control Adequacy” attributions must be as simple as possible (but as complex as necessary) for effective resilience building.
- 12. Next Steps Validating agreed indicators to assess emergency risk management capability (monitoring the gap). across all entities www.emergencyriskmanagement.com
- 13. www.emergencyriskmanagement.com CERM PLAN AUDIT/REVIEW Elements of the Assessment Step 1 Context. 1.1 To what extent have you developed and defined a CERM based on AS/NZS 4360? 1.2 To what extent has your approach been approved by an appropriate authority? 1.3 To what extent are the characteristics of your community profiled? 1.4 To what extent are risk criteria established? 1.5 To what extent have key stakeholders been identified and differentiated? Step 2 Assessment. 2.1 To what extent have you profiled existing treatments? 2.2 To what extent are hazards identified? 2.3 To what extent are vulnerabilities identified? 2.4 To what extent are risk analysis scenarios used to assess the likelihood of harmful consequences? 2.5 To what extent are risks ranked and recorded using a risk assessment register? Step 3 Treatment. 3.1 To what extent is the community engaged in decision making? 3.2 To what extent is a comprehensive range of options identified? 3.3 To what extent are identified options evaluated? 3.4 To what extent are risk treatment plans prepared? 3.5 To what extent are risk treatment plans implemented?