OUR COMMUNITY OUR RISK

16 & 17 February 2004 at UNSW

The Benefits of Planning

Abstract
To claim that planning has benefits is a bit like saying motherhood is good.
However whether all the potential benefits of effective planning are realised is worth
some further consideration. The context for my considerations is emergency
management and the framework is historical, philosophical, strategic and tactical
with the identification of some key concepts that assist the realisation of the benefits
of planning
The history
Planning and its benefits would have been very apparent from the first mammoth hunt. And sorting out
who was going to do what, where, when, how and why, before the event provided benefits through the
ages to people like Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Napoleon, Rupert Murdoch and Bill Gates.
In 1988 in the Emergency Services, with whom I served, became aware of the fact that only two out of
forty three local government councils had current Emergency Management Plans for their
communities. This was despite the fact that there was a law that required them to have plans produced.
Much time and effort had been spent on telling what their legal obligations were. In fact the Solicitor
General provided advice to the effect that, each councillor of every council, who did not have a plan
could be found in breech of his or her statutory obligations. So we could have probably prosecuted
successfully most of the local government councillors in that state. We decided that this was probably
not the most productive course of action, not the least reason being that they could satisfy their legal
obligations, by taking one of the two plans that existed and just change the name to their municipality.
What we did was to recognise that much effort and gone into telling them what was needed, but no
effort had been invested in showing them how to do it. We therefore developed a program to teach
them how to plan. All the municipalities in that state now have current plans for every municipality. I
also remember that ubiquitous State Disaster Plan which, at that time occupied a metre and a half of
shelf space, and had never been consulted in any emergency/disaster. But it was the product of a
planning officer who was very proud of what he had written on his own for his state.
I do find it interesting that in NSW the current equivalent legislation requires a planning committee just
exist. There are no obligations on them to ever produce anything and realise the benefits of planning
for their communities.
The philosophy
About thirty years or so ago I can remember the six ps being used as a mnemonic. It went something
like Prior planing prevents pretty poor performance or some variation on that theme. I can also
remember that it seemed retiring military personnel filled many of the senior emergency service
positions. Not that I have anything against ex military people, I was one. However it did and still
causes me some concern that many of the military models that were imported are not appropriate for
the context in which the people found themselves. Evidence of these phenomena may be found in the
nomenclature that is still apparent today:
TEWT, tabletop exercise without troops;
Fire fighting rather than fire management;
SMEAC, situation, mission, execution, administration, communications;
I am sure that there are many more examples.
I also wonder if this para-military mind set was why the focus was on battling the flood, fighting the
fire and responding to the clarion call. Respond to the alarm, fight the good fight, and when you have
won, return to barracks until the next conflict. And perhaps why one of the most revered military texts,
from 450 BC written by a Sun Wu later called Sunzi, is called the Art of War, and does not include
how to prevent war or how to recover from war.
It is only very slowly over the last fifteen years that the myopic view of planning has expanded from
purely response planning to include consideration of prevention, mitigation and recovery management.
But I still find it very rare that emergency planning includes detailed specification of the arrangements
for all of these elements.
Until it does we will not be able to enjoy the full benefits of appropriate planning.

The strategic issues

Risk management is one of the planning processes that is a hot topic at the moment, and it appears
that it is pervading all management processes, in the same way as management by objectives did.
Whether or not we agree with risk management, and its various applications we need to develop our
understanding of it, and be able to talk about it if we are to maintain our credibility in this field of
operation.
The most appropriate starting point is a definition of the term.
The definition that I favour most is (Australian Standard AS/NZS 4360:1999) when risk is defined as a
function of likelihood and consequence. So risk is described as something like:
The risk of being killed is one in a million in any one year.
In this example, the likelihood is one in a million in any one year, and the consequences are death.
Part of the reason I favour this, is that it is currently the most widely accepted internationally. So if you
are talking about risk to other people in other places, you are more likely to be talking the same
language. But it does highlight the need to ensure that whomever you are talking with is clear about the
definition that you are using.
To me each of the stages currently in the process are described using in-put terms, whereas I think I
would be more useful if they were described in output terms. This has the added advantage of
recognising that there will be many more activities that will be involved in producing the desired
output at each stage. So I am advocating the stages would be better described as:
Context described: Description of the legislation, regulations, policies and procedures that are relevant
to this context; description of the problem; risk evaluation criteria developed.
(I dont think that the vast majority of us have the authority to establish the context, but we do need to
know the constraints within which we need to work, and be able to describe them for others and
ourselves).
Risks described: Identification and description of: the hazards (sources of risk), the community, the
environment and the vulnerability.
Risks analysed: Determination of the likelihood and consequences.
Risks evaluated: Comparison of the risk against criteria set in the context description; risk priorities set.
Risks treated: Identification and evaluation of options (acceptance/toleration of risks or not); selection
of options; plan and implementation of risk treatment strategies.
I dont know of anyone who is happy with the description of the final stage in the process. But risks
managed is what the whole process is about, so until someone can come up with more appropriate
terms than treat risks or risks treated we are stuck with them.
My colleague Ian Manock has told me that Occupational Health & Safety professionals refer to it as
Risks Controlled so that is an options that could be considered.
Vulnerability assessment:
Many people talk about vulnerability assessment, but few provide a methodology. What I have done
here is to provide a scale, which we developed as part of three engineering lifelines studies, but which
can be applied in any context.
The following scale is used to assess the susceptibility to damage for each element against each
hazard.
Susceptibility Indicator
Very Low

Not very susceptible to damage

Low

Low susceptibility to damage and would require minimal repairs/resources to sustain

a full service.

Medium

Susceptible to damage, which will require some repair/resources before a full service,
can be provided.

High

Susceptible to damage that will require extensive repair/resources, before a basic

service can be provided.

Consequences of failure of each element and the ability of the community to function, its resilience can
then be determined according to the following scale:
Resilience Indicator
High
Medium

Low

Very Low

The community could function for an extended time without this element. Economic
impact would generally be low.
This element will be required at an early stage as the organisation re-establishes
normal functioning, and its continued unavailability would mean general community
inconvenience. The local economy will be significantly affected, and there could be
some business failures.
This element is required to facilitate a part of the emergency response and recovery
process, and its continued unavailability could mean increased community disruption,
possible public health problems and widespread business failure.
This element is vital and the continued unavailability could cause substantial loss of
life or property and a devastating impact on the business sector.

The relative vulnerability of an engineering lifeline and its component parts may then be indicated by
consideration of the susceptibility indicator and the resilience indicator using the following matrix.
VULNERABILITY MATRIX
(Produced by John Lunn 17 May 1995 with input from the following people Merrick Chatfield, Allan
Dodds, Bevis Dutton, Peter Koob, Ian Manock, & Garry Muldoon)
The financial resources of any community are finite, and therefore decisions need to be made about
where the limited funds may be invested for the most benefit.
The purpose of the vulnerability chart is to display the relative vulnerability of the various elements. If
any element has a High rating for Susceptibility and a Very Low rating for Resilience then it would
appear to warrant more urgent consideration, than that which had a Very Low rating for Susceptibility
and a High rating for Resilience.
The vulnerability indicator may be obtained from the following scale: Susceptibility rating

Resilience rating

Vulnerability indicator

Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low

High
Medium
Low
Very Low

2
4
16
256

Low
Low
Low
Low

High
Medium
Low
Very Low

3
9
81
6561

Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium

High
Medium
Low
Very low

4
16
256
65536

High
High
High
High

High
Medium
Low
Very low

5
25
625
390625

The vulnerability indicator numbers have no special pseudo scientific basis. They are just squared each
time to indicate that the importance of each factor increases dramatically as a situation of high
susceptibility and very low resilience is approached. The numbers only indicate the relative
vulnerability that you ascribe to the elements that you have considered. There is no absolute right or
wrong answer it is just a way you have indicated your relative priority.
The following headings are one way in which the data could be presented to emphasise the relative
vulnerability and priority.
ELEMENTS

CREDIBLE THREATS

Pumping station Flooding of the station

No 5

SUSCEPTIBILITY
RATING
Medium area subject
to 1 in 50-year floods

RESILIENCE
RATING
Very Low no
flood proofing
of buildings or
motors

VULNERABILITY
INDICATOR
65536

Vulnerability Assessment is a consideration of Susceptibility and Resilience

High Susceptibility and Low Resilience = HIGH VULNERABILITY
Low Susceptibility and High Resilience = LOW VULNERABILITY
The sequence one could use is:
n
n
n
n
n

Description of elements
Description of credible threats
Specification of Susceptibility rating
Specification of Resilience rating
Determination of Vulnerability indicator

Risks Described
Having completed all of your descriptions, analysis and vulnerability assessments you are now in a
position to describe the risks to your commu nity.
What is at risk?
Which particular elements are at risk and to what extent?
Risks Prioritised
Now you are faced with the dilemma how do you decide which ones you address first. None of us has
the resources to fix everything at once so again some sort of overall priority needs to be sorted out; eg
Prioritisation Process using S M A U G:
n
n

Seriousness
Those risks that will affect most people and / or will cost most money will be given a high rating.
Those risks that will affect least people or cost least dollars will be given a low rating.
Manageability
Those risks that could be most affected by intervention will be given a high rating. Those that we can
do little to affect will be given a low rating.
Acceptability
Those risks that are the least acceptable in terms of the political, social, economic impact will be given
a high rating. Those that will have little political, social or economic impact will be given a low rating.
Urgency
Those risks that we believe need to be fixed urgently will be given a high rating. Those that could be
fixed next year will be given a low rating.
Growth
Those risks that will increase quickly will be given a high rating. Those that will remain static will be
given a low rating.
Identification of Management Measures
The last step in this process is a rational approach to the specification of appropriate preventative and
contingent actions to protect your plans to safeguard your community and realise the benefits of the
planning:
POTENTIAL PROBLEM ANALYSIS
n Identify potential problems
n Identify likely causes
n What preventative actions can be taken
n What contingent actions can be planned
n Identify trigger events for contingent actions

The tactics
Critical path analysis, Gantt charts etc are just tools of the planning process. Some describe them as
sophisticated planning tools, but when I look up the meaning in the dictionary of the word
sophisticated, it means uncomplicated and worldly wise. The most effective planning should take
account of your accumulated wisdom, be uncomplicated, and serve the best interest of your
community.
Risk Communication
In the management of emergencies it has been identified that a critical element of its effectiveness is
the degree of ownership by the community at the planning stage. If something is done to the
community it will be less effective than something that is done, with or by the community.
This was an important aspect of hazard analysis/ risk assessment when the focus was very much on
prevention; preparedness and response, but the principles remain true for all aspects of emergency
management and planning.
Shut up and listen
After an overview of the science of risk management and its contribution to planning, I will now
mention the science of listening and community consultation s o that its role in realising the benefits
will be apparent.
This is paraphrased from an article written by Julie Macken a senior writer with the Australian
Financial Review. It appeared in BOSS June 2001 and was a conversation with Steven Ames a futurist.
Covert listening is what many organizations are currently doing within our communities, and around
the world.
There are all manner of surveys, questionnaires, polls being undertaken to test the waters, either before
the launch of a product or afterwards to find ways of keeping it afloat. There was a recent example
where a current affairs program asked people to ring in if they had any concerns about increases in
their insurance premiums. There was therefore no surprise, that they in fact did get calls from people
who had concerns about increases in their insurance premiums. This is a typical example of
organizations hearing what they want to hear, but whether or not this is representative of the general
situation is another question. It also makes sense from the survey or pollsters point of view to give the
client what they want to hear, and not provide a result that might reflect badly on the organization or
the CEO, and their survey condemned to a dark cupboard. How many times would a bearer of bad
news be rewarded with a new contract or how many times would they consider shooting the
messenger?
Covert listening has become big business in itself, and increasingly sophisticated. But how often are
the questions, answers and reports skewed to provide the appropriate answers? How often is it used to
find ways of selling, what I have got rather than finding out what people want?
Overt, open or public listening is what we need to engage, but finding an organisation with the will to
invest in this strategy is difficult.
Overt listening is providing forum for people who want to have a voice. The fact that they want to have
a voice often means that they are passionate about the issues, or otherwise they would have no interest
in expressing their views. Whether their views are based on fact, fiction, rumour, good or bad advice
should not be barriers to them being heard. If people are not given the opportunity to have their views
heard they might become strident activists, not because their view is the right view, but because no
one would hear what they had to say.
Covert and overt listening both have their place, and both have their benefits, and limitations, and each
forms part of a holistic approach, which benefits from the resulting synergy.
Corporations answer to their stockholders and communities to their stakeholders, but neither scenario is
mutually exclusive, and consideration of each needs to impact on the other for ultimate survival,
growth and prosperity and realisation of the potential benefits.
Steven Ames cites the example of Rio Tintos backing away from the Jabiluka uranium mine as a
recent example of the impact of stakeholders on corporations. Heres a company that has read the
community sentiment and chosen not to proceed.
Another recent example was the Treasurers response to the bid by Royal Dutch Shell for the
Woodside oil and gas fields on the North West Shelf.
It would be nave for any organisation to think that they can quarantine their operations from the glare
of publicity with a global media for whom bad news is good news.
In the run up to the next federal election listening to the electorate has become a platform competition
for all of the parties. But as Ames states, listening is not the same as hearing and even I am
hearing what you say has become a pejorative term.

We need to hear from all of our constituents, and not turn a deaf ear to the sounds that threaten our
harmony, ignorance may be bliss, but it will be short-lived and the long term benefits of our planning
will never be accomplished.
To survive organisations need to demonstrate a genuine desire to hear the community concerns
(Kirkwood, A.S. 1994) about their operations, outputs and outcomes for the community. Any attempts
to gag the debate, or suppress a view will only cause it to go underground, and surface at a time and
place, and to an extent that will be unexpected and potentially more damaging.
Overt listening or hearing the community has to be honest, open and visible characterised by humility
and not smart and high tech.
Overt listening is providing the community with the opportunity to speak of their fears about the sky
falling in without fear of ridicule. Overt listening is seeing all of their concerns listed, and addressed
without omission of condescension.
Overt listening can be scary, but with a sound process it will provide enormous rewards.
A vital part of overt listening is recording verbatim the comments from the community. Do not
interpret, paraphrase, summarise or change in any way the comments that come from the community.
In this way they will feel ownership and commitment to the process and the results. If you interpret
their words they will no longer own the process you will and you will not gain their commitment to the
results.
The creation of community consultative groups is providing a vehicle, but what is needed now is the
map to enable the vehicle to get to the appropriate destination, otherwise it will get off track, and could
even crash and burn.
The prioritisation process SMAUG is an ideal mapping process to use. It gives them the chance to see
their concerns recorded as they identify them and also the priority that they as a community believe is
most appropriate.
The power of open communication
I am reminded of a time when I was part of a state government department that had the responsibility
for managing the visits of nuclear powered warships. It was and still is the case, I believe, that the
governments from which these visiting warships emanated would never confirm or deny if their
warships carried any nuclear weapons, but would notify the fact, if a ship was powered by a nuclear
reactor. When we were notified of an impending visit from a nuclear powered warship, we had to
prepare and test all of the arrangements for the management of the visit.
For many years despite governments of different persuasions coming and going, these arrangements
were kept secret. For many years prior to and during the visits there was much strident criticism of the
visits, and the perceived risk they posed to the community. Eventually the government was persuaded
to make the plans a public document, and the public could purchase copies. I am unaware of a single
copy being purchased.
However I remember talking with a medical doctor from a group who call themselves 'Doctors Against
Wars'. When I showed him the plans and the 'scientific fact', that the risk of an accidental release of
radioactive material was less than 1in 10,000,000, his response was that no level of risk was acceptable
because of the perceived consequences.
I did notice that after these plans were made public that demonstrations decreased, although opponents
of the visits of nuclear powered warships would never agree that the visits were appropriate. I think
that they were more prepared to accept the visits when there was access given to all of the information
that we possessed.
I am listening to what you say, but I dont trust you: Science is no longer revered it is feared.
In our increasingly litigious society many of the disputes between industry, science and the community
are going to end up in the courts and the verdict decided not by scientists, but by lay people drawn from
the community. There is the case mentioned by Steven Maynard-Moody in a book by D. Nelkin
(1992). In 1974 a Boston physician Dr Edelin was arrested and charged for the manslaughter of a
foetus. In the eyes of his scientific peers the medical procedures and protocols followed by Dr Edelin
were routine and accepted practice.
To several observers the trial produced mo re confusion than clarity. The jury found the doctor guilty of
wanton and reckless" behaviour. After one year probation and the conviction being overturned in
1976 the fact remained. A doctor who had followed a standard medical procedure during a legal
operation was found guilty of an offence; although some jurors indicated they considered Edelin a
competent physician they did not believe the scientific standards were enough to guarantee responsible
medical behaviour.

This is a manifestation of many contemporary concerns. Just because some behaviour, test or
intervention is scientifically possible, does not automatically guarantee that it is appropriate in the
community view.
Other examples include things like the atomic bomb, human cloning, napalm, genetic manipulation,
neutron bombs etc.
The community view is that the scientist produces new technologies because they are able to; but then
step back saying that their production and utilisation is not an issue with which they are concerned. The
moral and ethical issues have to be decided in other places certainly not in the secret laboratories. But if
we have to resolve all the moral and ethical dimensions before we make any scientific discovery how
many very beneficial scientific advances would have been made? (Smallpox, polio vaccines etc) At the
end of the day the judgement is going to be made by the jury and the jury is going to comprise
representatives of the community at large. If the scientific community and those doing the planning do
not want to be found guilty of "wanton and reckless" behaviour and want the support of the
community, the initiative lies with them. And their communications strategy should include the
following:

Firstly adopt an open and transparently honest dialogue; the first time that they are caught being
dishonest or secretive will mean that they will forever be perceived to be so. (Don't hide behind
'commercial in confidence' labels it will never be commercially viable without community
support.)
Secondly talk in the language of the people with whom they are trying to communicate. (I have
heard scientists say 'people are stupid because they do not understand what I say' when clearly they
are showing their failings as communicators.)
Thirdly listen to and heed the concerns of the community, including feelings, values, beliefs and
attitudes.
Fourthly answer the concerns of the community in a way in which the community can understand.
If they can not; to ask themselves "should I be doing what I am doing?"
Lastly maintain the dialogue, we may never get everyone to agree with what we are doing but
hopefully we can achieve a general acceptance through our full, open and honest disclosure and
communication.

Conclusions
Planning was formally described as General Principle of Management by Henri Feyol in 1916, since
that time much planing has taken place. We still have much to learn about reaping the full benefits of
planning. There has been significant development in the mechanics of planning eg critical path
analysis, project management etc but the hard science alone has not delivered the benefits that we
hoped and there is a need to recognise and implement the soft science as well.
We can not reduce innovation to only technological advances; it should also include sociological and
organisational advances. Human Science is more and more important as technological advances are
accomplished and we wish to optimise the benefits.
The hard sciences can be characterised by material world, large resources, technology, problems can
be resolved by technological solutions, but in the end they also need sociological initiatives. The soft
sciences can be characterised by social world, scarce resources; social problems may need some
technological solutions, but always need sociological initiatives if we are to enjoy the benefits of our
scientific planning.
Key Concepts for reaping the benefits of planning:

People who have to implement the plan should be part of the planning process so they know what
they have been committed to doing;

The community/organisation for which the plans are being developed should be part of the
planning process, so that they have a sense of ownership of their plan, and are committed to the
success of the plans implementation;

It is the process of planning that produces the real benefits, not the bits of paper that constitutes the
plan. It is the communication that exists in the planning process that provided the shared
understanding and acceptance of responsibilities, authority and accountability.

Author:
Mr John Lunn
Emergency Management Courses Coordinator
School of Public Health
Charles Sturt University
Panorama Avenue
Bathurst
New South Wales
Australia 2795
Tel: National 02 63384639
International 61 263384639
Fax:
02 63384993
E-mail: jlunn@csu.edu.au

References:
Feyol H. 1916. General Principles of Management. In Jay M. Shafritz and J, Steven Ott. 1996 Classics
of Organisational Theory (fourth edition) Wadsworth Publishing Belmont, Ca, U.S.A.
Lunn.J. 1996 (October). Tasmanian Engineering Lifelines Project. Natural Disaster Reduction
Conference. Institute of Engineers and Emergency Management Australia. Gold Coast Queensland.
Lunn J. 2003. Community Consultation: The foundation of effective risk management Journal of
Emergency Management. Prime national Publishing Corporation Weston, MA 02493 U.S.A.
Nelkin D. 1992. Survival skills and Ethics Program John Wiley and Sons. New York.