Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

Continuous Improvement in Decision Making for Large Fire Management Additional

Continuous Improvement in Decision Making for Large Fire Management Additional information pertaining to the elements of this guide can be found on the Lessons Learned Center website at: http://www.wildfirelessons.net 3 Introduction T he fire environment is a dynamic, continually changing system influenced by climate change, weather, fuels, vegetation and humans. The intersection of these factors drives wildland fire impacts, responses and reactions. Recent years have seen an emerging phenomenon referred to in variety of ways including “Mega Fire”, “0.25% Fires” and “Fires of National Significance”; regardless of the moniker, the trend is real and has dire consequences. These fires are larger, more dangerous and more expensive than ever before. This small number (20-30) of “mega” fires was the scene of all the fatalities on U.S. Forest Service jurisdiction in 2008. This percentage of fatalities has steadily climbed since 2005 when there were no fatalities on these types of fires. In addition to the increase in lives lost, the average suppression cost for these fires now exceeds $500 million annually. Other trends are emerging as well. Overall, fatalities and acres burned are increasing, and the number of fires exceeding 100,000 acres is five times more than it was just ten years ago. The wildland fire community has at times employed the principle of over- whelming mass, (the precautionary principle) which assumes there will be adequate resources to fully execute the chosen strategies on all fires. The notion that each fire is a separate and independent event is one of the most deeply engrained mental models. The precautionary principle drives many decisions and basically states: in the absence of science and an expectation of differing outcomes, leaders will choose the most conservative approach to a problem. Another way to view this would be - managers will order resources ‘just in case’. Forest Service leadership at all levels, along with partners, stakeholders and cooperators has taken up the challenge of improving both decisions and management of these colossal fires. This should be viewed as a journey and not a destination. Like any journey there are a number of steps. The first step in the process was to deconstruct and study fires to discover opportunities to change outcomes. It was recognized decisions were driving outcomes and with improved decisions, leaders could expect better outcomes in safety, fires impact on the land and cost. Science-based, decision support tools have been improved and will be deployed to assist leaders in making better and more informed decisions. These tools do not replace leadership or excellent judgment. A select group of forests were chosen for the test bed or to pilot this improved management model. These forests, sometimes referred to as “at risk” forests, display several unique characteristics which led to their selection. High quality, local leadership with the ability and determination to be on the cutting edge of new technology was a prime consideration. Other factors included climatology and fire history. Ideally, the opportunity to pilot an improved set of tools and actions on these dangerous and expensive fires will be embraced on these units. This guide is designed to assist you in the journey of leading wildland fire complex incident management into the 21st century. 4 NOTES: 5 Common Approach Mental Models Mental models predispose people to act or react a particular way. Another way to think about mental models is that they are perceptions. They do not have inherent value and, at times, keep people safe; at other times they may cause a reaction or action that is viewed as negative. An example would be: strangers can’t be trusted. This model likely keeps people out of harm’s way; sometimes it also precludes people from meeting an interesting or helpful person. When mental models are not based on fact or reality, they can lead to undesirable outcomes. Fear often arises out of mental models and fear begets strong reactions. Wildland Fire Disaster Mental Model In wildland fire, a number of common mental models drive decisions. Some of the most common are: Fire is bad; • Airtankers put fires out; • All fires can be put out if you just try; • There are unlimited fire fighting resources; • An incident management team has 50 members; • Line officers don’t know fire; • Incident management teams don’t listen; and • The community will not tolerate any more smoke. • This short list of mental models was captured at various locations and with a wide variety of groups around the country. This list, by no means, should be considered exhaustive, but rather representative. Breaking the Cycle Creating a “shift” in mental models will often be necessary in order to affect a change in the approach to wildland fire. This will require explicit action to engage people and their mental models. One way to accomplish this would be through an exercise designed to identify and address mental models. Once these models are identified, and the root or basis is determined, a shift becomes possible. 6 NOTES: 7 Common Approach Converting Fears to Risks Every change brings risk. No matter what we do, whenever we take action we cause things to change, and change, of course, moves us from the familiar to the unknown. Some actions - deciding where to deploy resources on a large, fast-moving fire, for example - set in motion complex chains of events that are easy to recognize as carrying risk. Other, smaller actions - like pressing the “send” button on an email - may not seem to carry as much risk. However, depending on the content of the message or even its context, the risk can be just as great. So the risks of a situation are often less related to how large or small they appear, and much to do with their content and context. It’s important to draw a distinction here between fear and risk. Fear is an emotion, an uneasy feeling about something that might happen in the future. Risks, by contrast, are the possible outcomes of current actions. For example, a person about to give a presentation to a large group may feel a general sense of fear, but the risks of “what could happen” are a lot more specific: people could laugh (for all the wrong reasons!), the speaker could lose credibility, he or she could forget what they wanted to say, and so on. A general (and normal) sense of fear that individuals and groups experience in the face of a new direction or change can almost always be converted into risks, and it’s worth the time to do so. This is because fear, living generally below the surface of people’s thoughts, is very difficult to access and deal with “head on.” Acknowledging risks, however - because they are specific - is a useful starting point for change that can be conducted safely, anticipating possible unwanted outcomes. Just as there are possible hazards associated with taking a new direction, so also are there risks to keeping things the way they are. Usually the longer something has been done the same way, the less likely it is that people will remember why the actions were originally taken, or what problems were being addressed when the (then-new) direction was being proposed. For example, many checklists have been put together over the decades to free up decision-makers to concentrate on a larger picture and make sure that no essential step has been forgotten. However, when checklists proliferate they tend to block the very awareness they were once developed to facilitate. The practice of converting fear to risk can be developed individually or in a group context. By applying the same process used in your field session, you can go underneath almost any fear and make it actionable, transforming the power of fear into a resource that will help you make clear decisions and give you a range of options that might not be seen otherwise. 8 Common Approach Operational Risk Management Operational risk management is very specific, science-based process for defining, analyzing and managing risk. Risk management is a profession and has more “depth” than the typical techniques used by the wildland fire community to identify and mitigate hazards. This system relies on a shift in culture(s), from rules and punishment, to operational resilience. The risk management element of this safety culture system uses: Risk Assessment • – where all risks are determined. This determination not only identifies the risks, but quantifies them in terms of probability and consequences. Risk/Benefit/Analysis • – once the risks are clearly identified, analysis is performed to assess the potential trade-offs between risk and benefit. Operational Risk Management • – a continuous feedback loop occurs once the activity begins, questioning the assumptions and analysis, reporting near misses, and attuned to error detection. This type of system enables leaders to overcome potentially dangerous mental models such as the continuation of efforts, i.e. there has been an “investment” in this operation therefore the action must continue. The current system in use does not often assess the activity in terms uploads/Management/ work-guide.pdf