9.1 Standard Methods
123
set, etc.). We task each group to perform hazard identification on the system after it has
been modelled and after delivering a detailed explanation of the hazard terminology.
As each participant in each group has previously selected his/her avatar, we engage
the individuals and the groups based on their statements and avatars. We also ask the
groups to discuss their findings. Organizational “currents of though” emerge. Alpha
representatives become visible independent of their hierarchical status. Concerns and
hazards are sorted out (we are not really interested in concerns, unless they prove to
have the potential to generate risk exposures).
(3) The “Alternative Buddies Hazard Identification Role Play”
This is very similar to the previous exercise (point 2), but here delegates evaluate
themselves in terms of their audacity and appetite for change using a scoring system
before splitting in groups as they see fit. The rating system delivers a finer evaluation
than the avatar deck of cards. It opens the door to a specific test (see point 4 below)
that is run during the second part of the hazard identification. In some cases we
may ask delegates to use the deck of cards, then auto-evaluate and discuss blatant
divergences.
(4) The “Well Balanced Groups Hazard Identification Role Play”
In order to help us in deriving a personal objective audacity and appetite for change
rating and related “talents”, we present a questionnaire for participants to fill in.
Delegates can now discuss the gap between their self-evaluation and the test rating,
in view of understanding how this can impact their hazard awareness and mind-set.
We then create working groups with “equilibrated” teams (in terms of audacity and
change appetite).
As in points 2 and 3 above, we now task each group with performing hazard
identification on the system. That is, of course, after we have modelled the system
and provided a detailed explanation of what constitutes a hazard. As above, we
engage the individuals and the groups, and ask the groups to launch into discussing
on their findings. Organizational “currents of thought” emerge. Alpha representatives
become visible independent of their hierarchical status. We sort out concerns and
hazards (again, we are not really interested in concerns, unless they prove to have
potential to generate risk exposures).
These four points summarize techniques that we find useful during hazard identification interviews. One does not need to perform each the four approaches. The
selection is made on the spot, based on the preliminary interactions with the participants and the degree of willingness to participate.
9.1.2 Monitoring
Standard methods to acquire information on a dam system include the whole set
of geological, climatological, meteorological, geotechnical and environmental tech-
123
set, etc.). We task each group to perform hazard identification on the system after it has
been modelled and after delivering a detailed explanation of the hazard terminology.
As each participant in each group has previously selected his/her avatar, we engage
the individuals and the groups based on their statements and avatars. We also ask the
groups to discuss their findings. Organizational “currents of though” emerge. Alpha
representatives become visible independent of their hierarchical status. Concerns and
hazards are sorted out (we are not really interested in concerns, unless they prove to
have the potential to generate risk exposures).
(3) The “Alternative Buddies Hazard Identification Role Play”
This is very similar to the previous exercise (point 2), but here delegates evaluate
themselves in terms of their audacity and appetite for change using a scoring system
before splitting in groups as they see fit. The rating system delivers a finer evaluation
than the avatar deck of cards. It opens the door to a specific test (see point 4 below)
that is run during the second part of the hazard identification. In some cases we
may ask delegates to use the deck of cards, then auto-evaluate and discuss blatant
divergences.
(4) The “Well Balanced Groups Hazard Identification Role Play”
In order to help us in deriving a personal objective audacity and appetite for change
rating and related “talents”, we present a questionnaire for participants to fill in.
Delegates can now discuss the gap between their self-evaluation and the test rating,
in view of understanding how this can impact their hazard awareness and mind-set.
We then create working groups with “equilibrated” teams (in terms of audacity and
change appetite).
As in points 2 and 3 above, we now task each group with performing hazard
identification on the system. That is, of course, after we have modelled the system
and provided a detailed explanation of what constitutes a hazard. As above, we
engage the individuals and the groups, and ask the groups to launch into discussing
on their findings. Organizational “currents of thought” emerge. Alpha representatives
become visible independent of their hierarchical status. We sort out concerns and
hazards (again, we are not really interested in concerns, unless they prove to have
potential to generate risk exposures).
These four points summarize techniques that we find useful during hazard identification interviews. One does not need to perform each the four approaches. The
selection is made on the spot, based on the preliminary interactions with the participants and the degree of willingness to participate.
9.1.2 Monitoring
Standard methods to acquire information on a dam system include the whole set
of geological, climatological, meteorological, geotechnical and environmental tech-