Observations on Process Deviation

Having established the importance of the artefacts in guiding the crisis response, the data analysis now turns to examining and addressing the central theme of why the performative deviation from the ostensive routines occurs in the first place. As an important initial observation, it is noted that all the subject matter experts had observed the occurrence of process deviation at some point during their careers, irrespective of industry sector, or public or private service. It was further acknowledged that this behaviour had inevitably contributed to adverse outcomes, often creating new risks or exacerbating the crisis.

SME14 summed up the situation by stating that the problem stemmed from “the people that manage the tools…always its people, it is never the fault of the tool” (SME14, 2016, p. 3). This position argues against building a theory that argues that it is the design of the tools that impacts their level of use or is the reason for the process deviation to

occur. He went on to observe that while the tools are available “when the IMCR is opening, looking for the solution is in some way the priority, more than following the process” (SME14, 2016, p. 3). Building on this was the view that the process deviation has two causes. Firstly, ignorance of the existence of the tools. Secondly, an individual’s or team’s arrogance in thinking that the tools are not needed as they believe that they know how to solve the problem (SME1, 2017). SME10 observed that the tools sit in the background and it is known that they are there. However, the practical reality is that when the crisis commences the team becomes focused on ‘looking for the solution’ which in some way becomes the priority, rather ‘than the following the procedure’ (SME10, 2016, p. 3). An incorrect team structure, with members thinking that they know the solution before addressing the issues by leveraging the tools, leads to

deviation (SME7, 2017), and it was argued that teams with strong leadership, where the coordinator ensures that the tools are utilised, perform the most effectively. SME15 (2016, p. 2) noted that in the CCEP teams of which he is a member, and from his experience, there is no sign of deviation “as the tool is on the table” and since the tools are seen as essential, they act as a compass in guiding the team on its journey to successfully resolve the event. This is attributed to the training of the individuals, the selection of the crisis leader, and the cultures that influence the behaviour (SME8, 2017; SME15, 2016).

Process deviation can result in investigations that have limited structure and, in some instances, lack logical direction in their fact-finding endeavours. One perspective following along this line was that team members rely on their own experience rather than leveraging the tools within the existing crisis management framework. This is compounded by the fact that “some of them may just not be familiar with the tools” (SME23, 2016, p. 3), which raises concerns with reference to the level of training afforded to the individual team members. Training can be enhanced through a formalised review process, thereby turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge supporting the utilisation of the artefacts. This will be addressed further in the discussions in Chapter 5.

SME20 (2016, p. 3) argued that “when people are under pressure, then they do not use the tools, they embark directly into managing the situation as it emerges.” This can be

linked to culture, which can impact process discipline and result in people running off and doing their own thing. Linked to this is the inexperience of the leader and the team members, where “people don’t actually know what they are doing” coupled with a “lack of role clarity and people not respecting other people in the room, and I think if I am really honest, where I tend to see it go horrible wrong, is where there is not enough constructive discussion and debate and review of options at each stage” (SME17, 2016, p. 2). These are elements and activities that can be minimised through the correct and timely application of the ostensive routines.

SME19 (2016, p. 3) contended that there is also a human nature element that requires the culture of the business to accept that when there is an incident

“reporting that incident and managing that incident in the proper way shouldn't be viewed as a failure but rather as a success. A success because the processes and procedures are working…and recognising the severity of the issue, or recognising that the tools, in and of themselves, and the processes provide a framework whereby the situation should be properly resolved, if the tools are followed.”

This requires a positive business culture that accepts that bad things can happen, but that it is the way in which the business response is managed that will define the

business in the eyes of its stakeholders. So, this means a business must be supportive in the receipt of ‘bad’ news and also have confidence in the capabilities of their crisis team to successfully resolve the issue.

SME19 went on to argue that there was a second element at play in influencing deviation

and this related to team dynamics. Specifically, “within many team dynamics, you tend to get an element of 'I know better’ ” (2016, p. 5). That is where the team members

believe that, as they have handled these types of situations many times before, the

processes and routines are irrelevant. In these cases they perceive that they can simply jump to the solution without understanding what the issue really is (SME19, 2016, p. 4). Building on this SME10 (2016, p. 11), also argued along these lines and noted that where the team is of the view that they have experienced this type of case before they can fail to examine it through a fresh lens and this results in assumptions being made and the risk incorrectly addressed. In respect of this theme, SME9 believed that

“the natural action once you get into the crisis room is to do what you are

comfortable with, what you understand, what you know. Now that's a problem in a crisis, because very few people have extensive experience in it, so what tends to happen is, they don't have time to read the plan, or don't understand what is in that plan.” (SME9, 2016, p. 3)

Experience, or lack of experience, was also deemed to be an influencing factor as an inexperienced team often lacks process knowledge and the team members do not

actually know what they are doing. Conversely, the experienced team has the awareness to understand that the tools act as a guide and therefore leverage them to drive their thinking and response. An aspect that can contribute to the deviation is a “lack of role clarity and people not respecting other people in the room, and I think if I am really honest, where I tend to see it go horribly wrong is where there is not enough

constructive discussion and debate and review of options at each stage” (SME17, 2016, p. 2). This lack of constructive dialogue can have a variety of causes. SME16 (2017, p. 3) noted that “deviation can be caused by the desire to have a speedy resolution and the formulation of assumptions that we believe we already know the problem and we assume something, we don’t want to waste time on this (the process) and that is the beginning of the failure.”

SME21 also reflected that there is a moral and ethical dilemma that sometimes influences the utilisation of the process. He observed that “when things get bad it’s because people try and cover up something that went wrong in the beginning, it is more of a potential moral or ethical issue than did they use the tools correctly” (SME21, 2016, p. 9). Ultimately, while numerous rationales for the deviation existed the main theme related to the crisis leadership and the nature of the team itself. SME22 (2016, p. 3) identified a combination of leadership and culture in stating that:

“I think it is leadership, pure and simple, the person leading the meeting will either use the tool or they won’t, or they are not a strong person and they are afraid of being booed out of the meeting for wanting to instil discipline.”

The skills and attributes of the crisis leader and their team are critical particularly as that knowledge relates to: the broader business objectives; crisis and operational

experience; managing internal politics (an area that is often underestimated, according to SME3); and culture. Add to this mix team members and a crisis leader who are process adverse, and a formula for process deviation from the ostensive routines is established. It is then imperative that, through training and practice, the process framework is embedded, with a focus on highlighting the role that the artefacts play in minimising process deviation (SME3, 2016; SME4, 2016; SME8, 2017; SME9, 2016; SME10, 2016). This is a core element of the training regime which must be implemented. That is, there is a need to build the leader, build the team, and reinforce the ostensive routines and the utilisation of the artefacts (SME10, 2016; SME11, 2017).

In summary, several critical challenges were observed in relation to process deviation minimisation. SME14 acknowledged that the ongoing human interaction was a factor and that while the ostensive routines minimise deviation “having the right people in place is the most critical challenge” (SME14, 2016, p. 9). SME 4 (2016) conversely argued that the issue was created by the fact that the role of the coordinator is assigned by the virtue of their seniority and the nature of their ‘day job’ rather than their

experience of crisis management. The risk here – and perhaps this can be described as an unintended consequence – is that they lapse back into their ‘normal’ role rather than focusing on the duties of the coordinator, and this creates a formula for process

deviation. Lastly, SME 01 (2017, p. 12) stated that process deviation minimisation is all about getting the group dynamics right. This can be achieved through having a mature and professional coordinator, an individual that can interpret the team dynamics, and navigate the chatter, the psychology and the personalities, thereby drawing the best from the team. This thinking presents a lead in to the next sub section that addresses the role of the team and the crisis leader.