This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Are there lessons we could all learn from how the modern military copes with unexpected situations?

Hi,


A couple of serious issues I was involved with this weekend made me think of this. One was in the engineering world to do with the day job, I was reviewing a very serious incident report (fortunately no fatalities but very close) involving a mixture of everyone trying to do the best they could, but perhaps over reliant on structured checklists which had completely missed an entire piece of equipment in a fairly unique situation. The other was a medical issue in the family, once again all the individual hospital staff were doing their best, but there was a bit of the process that just didn't cope with a particular situation.


Which made me think of something that's long been at the back of my mind: I've never worked in a military environment, but my impression of the modern military from the contacts I have had is that there is still a very structured hierarchy, chain of command, and focus on process, but equally it appears that somehow there is also the ability for small units to have the skills and freedom to evaluate and make their own decisions when challenging circumstances arise - exactly the key skills that were missing in the two examples above. 


So really two questions I'd really like to know other people's views on (particularly those who have worked across both the military and civilian worlds): firstly are my impressions above correct? And if so (or even if a bit wrong but on the right lines) are there lessons we can learn from how this works that we can apply to the management of engineering activities in the wider world - particularly in safety critical issues where we need structure but also need the ability to rapidly and effectively cope with new problems when they come up?   


Thanks,


Andy
Parents
  • Hi,


    I think Alasdair's example exactly encapsulates the situation I'm considering. Yes, we all do our best with our structured Hazops, FMECAs, FTAs, ETAs, bow ties etc etc (and they are all extremely good techniques which I happily train people in and recommend) but they will never capture every real world situation. So the challenge is how to make sure that the team on the ground precisely follow the requirements that flow out of these analyses for the 99% of the time that it makes sense for them to do so, without being so unquestioning of them that they can't still identify and adapt to scenarios that were simply never anticipated in the backroom analysis. With safety critical systems we can't afford mavericks, but equally we can't afford unquestioning reliance on the responsibility and competence of others.


    Without wanting to stop discussion of any other ideas in this, I'm particularly interested in Maurice's comment about 'Commander's intent', can you explain more on this? Also (and I guess this is related) there must be situations where the squaddie realises (because they are on the ground) that the command advice seems to be wrong, how is that managed in the military these days? Are there lessons we can apply to create a culture where people really understand "follow these rules precisely, but equally you have the right to speak up the instant you think there's a problem"?


    I'm very happy to discuss the issues of military people moving into the civilian world but please let's keep that for a separate thread...try and keep this one for moving ideas rather than people!


    Thanks,


    Andy
Reply
  • Hi,


    I think Alasdair's example exactly encapsulates the situation I'm considering. Yes, we all do our best with our structured Hazops, FMECAs, FTAs, ETAs, bow ties etc etc (and they are all extremely good techniques which I happily train people in and recommend) but they will never capture every real world situation. So the challenge is how to make sure that the team on the ground precisely follow the requirements that flow out of these analyses for the 99% of the time that it makes sense for them to do so, without being so unquestioning of them that they can't still identify and adapt to scenarios that were simply never anticipated in the backroom analysis. With safety critical systems we can't afford mavericks, but equally we can't afford unquestioning reliance on the responsibility and competence of others.


    Without wanting to stop discussion of any other ideas in this, I'm particularly interested in Maurice's comment about 'Commander's intent', can you explain more on this? Also (and I guess this is related) there must be situations where the squaddie realises (because they are on the ground) that the command advice seems to be wrong, how is that managed in the military these days? Are there lessons we can apply to create a culture where people really understand "follow these rules precisely, but equally you have the right to speak up the instant you think there's a problem"?


    I'm very happy to discuss the issues of military people moving into the civilian world but please let's keep that for a separate thread...try and keep this one for moving ideas rather than people!


    Thanks,


    Andy
Children
No Data