Panta Rhei(silience) - The Flow of Resilience

“No one ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man” - Heraclitus

The CEO's eyes sparkled with enthusiasm as he declared,

“We need a risk management program that is dynamic and proactive; we should only deal with the important stuff.”

I found myself nodding in agreement, especially with the latter sentiment.

But what does dynamic risk management truly entail?

Little did he know that this very concept – a dynamic approach to resilience management – had been on my mind for quite some time.

While I resonated with his aspirations, I pondered:

Is such an approach feasible? More importantly, is it practical?

Understanding "Dynamic Risk Management:

The term "dynamic risk management" is gaining traction.

At its core, it implies a system that continuously monitors and evaluates risks.

Risk management is fundamentally about decision-making. To be truly dynamic and proactive, we must perpetually reassess our decisions. This doesn't necessarily mean analyzing every decision in detail, which could be an naive interpretation.

Instead, it's about assessing risks when most relevant. This necessitates continuous monitoring to pinpoint the optimal moments for evaluation.

This is the essence of my resilience engineering approach, but I'll delve into that another time.

We all acknowledge that the world is ever-changing, as are we (Panta Rhei). Yet, not all changes are monumental; many are subtle and gradual.

For effective resilience management, it's crucial to monitor these subtle shifts. When these changes near our resilience envelope's limits, it's a clear signal to act.

The Brain's Role in Risk Management:

Ian McGilchrist, a psychiatrist and the acclaimed author of "The Master and His Emissary," offers insights that shed light on our challenges with dynamic risk management. He suggests that our brain comprises two hemispheres:

• Left hemisphere: Detail-oriented, mechanistic.
• Right hemisphere: Big-picture oriented, holistic.

The left hemisphere focuses on specifics and processes information sequentially. In contrast, the right hemisphere captures the broader context.

Both are indispensable. But focussing too much on our rationalizing, mechanistic hemisphere is dangerous.

If I were to draw parallels between risk and resilience, I'd align risk management with the left hemisphere and resilience with the right.

A significant challenge is that Western thought leans heavily towards left-hemisphere thinking.

This analytical mindset often ignores the holistic perspective of the right hemisphere, leading us to miss crucial signals. Numbers without context are useless at best, dangerous at worst.

In the realm of dynamic risk management, we tend to over-rely on our analytical side. We conduct thorough assessments and generate detailed reports, but often miss the overarching context, or changes in it.

Take the "Blackout" scenario as an example. Initial evaluations painted a dark picture. However, as awareness expanded and measures were implemented, the situation seemed less dire.

Some overlooked the fact that this positive shift was a result of continuous expert efforts to raise awareness, mistakenly believing the initial assessment was overly pessimistic.

This is a classic manifestation of left-hemisphere dominance, where the broader context is overlooked.

To truly excel in risk management and achieve resilience, we must acknowledge and counteract this bias. We must strive to see the bigger picture, recognizing our blind spots and the inherent uncertainties of life.

True resilience management goes beyond mere prediction and control. It's about comprehending and respecting life's inherent uncertainties and intricacies.

In essence, Resilience Management is about preparing for foreseeable challenges and creating structures to address unforeseen events or those larger than anticipated.

At its core, resilience is about the ability to withstand and bounce back.

Just as Heraclitus implied, we must adapt and flow with the ever-changing river of life.

Panta Rhei(silience)

See you soon fellow Resilience Engineers!

Marco

P.S.: I am organizing a 3 day workshop with THE Pioneer of Resilience Engineering - Erik Hollnagel.

Drop me a Direct Message or E-Mail if you are interested in participating.

There will be a limit of 10 participants. The course will be online (UTC +1 Timezone) and we’ll align possible possible dates with interested participants.

The price will be at € 2,500 per person (for all 3 days). Newsletter subscribers will receive 15% off. Make sure you subscribe here: https://resilience-engineers.beehiiv.com/subscribe

Here is a brief introduction to the method: Description of Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM)

Erik Hollnagel's Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) is a systems-based approach to understanding and analyzing complex socio-technical systems. It is particularly used in safety-critical domains such as aviation, healthcare, and nuclear power to understand how variability in everyday performance can lead to both regular outcomes and unexpected incidents or accidents.

Here are some key points about FRAM:

1. Variability in Performance: FRAM is based on the premise that variability is inherent in all systems and that this variability can lead to both positive and negative outcomes. Instead of trying to eliminate variability, FRAM seeks to understand it.
2. Functions, not Failures: FRAM focuses on understanding the functions that a system performs rather than looking for failures or malfunctions. Each function is described in terms of its inputs, outputs, resources, preconditions, and time.
3. Interactions: One of the main strengths of FRAM is its ability to visualize and understand the interactions between different functions in a system. These interactions can lead to emergent behaviors that are not predictable by looking at individual functions in isolation.
4. Visual Representation: FRAM provides a visual representation of a system, showing how different functions interact with each other. This can be particularly useful for understanding complex systems where many functions are interdependent.
5. Safety Management: By understanding how functions interact and where variability can lead to unexpected outcomes, FRAM can be used to inform safety management decisions and interventions.
6. Adaptive Approach: Instead of a prescriptive approach that dictates specific solutions, FRAM provides an adaptive framework that can be tailored to the specific context and needs of a system.

Erik Hollnagel developed FRAM as a response to the limitations of traditional safety analysis methods, which often focus on linear cause-and-effect relationships. FRAM, on the other hand, recognizes that real-world systems are complex and that outcomes are the result of multiple interacting factors.