What are the best practices for a post-crisis review?

In a major corporation, we faced a supply chain disruption. Post-crisis, when we initiated a review, the first step was to sharply define its scope. We honed in on supplier reliability, even though broader issues beckoned. This decision ensured a thorough examination of the main issue without digressing. The result? Instead of being bogged down with too many details, we gained clear, actionable insights, which we implemented promptly. The lesson: A tightly defined scope in a post-crisis review ensures depth and clarity, paving the way for meaningful, swift action.

A post crisis review actually entails two processes being carried out, one being the more visible external evaluation of what actually occurred with the usual interrogation of who, when, what, where, and why certain things happened. This explores if possible technical or physical elements that might have been involved oh caused the crisis to have occurred. The second is a personal or internal review of how people reacted in the crisis. This is possibly a more important element given that in the majority of cases the technical and physical elements are usually in place or under their management and control of people, and therefore it is important to interrogate the human side of any involvement in the cause of the crisis.

Merely collecting data is only a part of the process. Understanding which data is important, critical or essential to have in order to be able make informed analyses is essential. Interviewing people regarding the crisis event is vitally important - possibly saving huge time should there be a need for reviewing massive amounts of documents. One person's knowledge of where to go to first can shortcut the process.

Sharing findings is a time critical issue - conducting a review when your department may be subject to legal action will cause great concern. Clear and evident failings or matters of good practice that can improve matters do not require a review but can be clearly stated as soon as identified - but a formal review, especially if written in a tone that reflects only negatives to be repaired, may have significant damaging implications and so is not to be seen as good practice. If you are in the expectation of legal proceedings, then that should take the place of any formal review.

Appoint one person to own implementation of agreed recommendations and link this as a performance measure to their annual appraisal

Reduce the scope of the review early on. Too wide a review and it is unlikely to get done. And make sure the review sponsor makes the decision on which recommendations will be adopted and which will be rejected.