Knowledge Framework for Emergency Services #discussion-starter


 

Hi all,

Down in Australia and New Zealand right now, the AFAC forum I am a part of is developing the latest update of the Knowledge Framework for Fire & Rescue Agencies.

As with anything built by a committee, the current draft is a bit of a hodge-podge of ideas, methods, approaches and recommendations and I have been wondering how to add value to the process.  This morning I sat down and sketched out a bit of an evaluation framework that we might be able to use as a sort of filter to ensure we are delivering on what a framework of this nature should be and do.  I would really appreciate your feedback on this line of thinking, both the approach to framework creation as well as the contents of the evaluation model below which is largely based on Milton & Lambe's work alongside the ISO30401 standard.


Thanks in advance for your advice.

Stu French,
stuart.french@...
Country Fire Authority, Victoria, Australia.


Richard Vines
 

Stuart,

Great thinking here. I like what I see very much indeed. 

One point I would add is something that I am not sure how, as yet, might impact your diagram. It relates to the whole issue of sector wide (if one regards AFAC as a key stakeholder in fire management sector) double loop learning and how to capture the essense of this type of learning into your diagram.

Here I am talking about the significant challenges that have been experienced in the relationship between fire agencies in Australia and New Zealand and the research and development sector. To understand a good news story about this, it is worth getting hold of a copy of Roger Underwood's book called Fire from the Sky (https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/fire-from-the-sky-by-roger-underwood). It tells the story of the 1961 (disastrous) fires in Western Australia, the royal commission that followed, the introduction of a comprehensive fire behaviour research program in partnership between the CSIRO and the Western Australian forest department. It is a great story because it tells of the extraordinary achievement of introducing aerial control burning from a standing start in less a decade. It is a wonderful story of effective knowledge-based diffusion of R and D well before the language of "knowledge management". 

Since hat time, one of the many issues that has emerged in fire management in Australia and globally, particularly in the relationships between the fire agencies and the researchers, is that the use of science research as evidence to inform resource allocation decisions has become highly controversial. An example in the relationship between monies available for control burning and monies available for aircraft fire fighting - an issue that is not simple to address. 

However, this problem has been exacerbated plenty fold now with the divide between those that argue that the forest fire disaster of the last season (2019-20 when 18 million ha has were burned) can be fully attributed to climate change compared to those that the disaster can be significantly attributable to the fact that fuel loads have increased to the extent that fire intensity has increased disastrously in the past 2 decades. The problem has increased to the the extent, for example, that two key of the people involved in the Western Australian R and D and fire prevention (now retired and in their 80s) were regarded by the mainstream press as old guard and could only get their voice heard on Sky News. An example of their arguments are  viewable at this URL ... https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/ferocity-of-bushfires-in-australia-will-experience-exponential-effect-without-intervention. I am not myself taking a position on these arguments in that I belong to teh camp that things that climate change and the physics of fuel loads are both to blame!!

My main point is this. A knowledge framework perhaps needs to allow for processes of double or triple loop learning (i.e. learning about and from things we simply do not understand as yet). Perhaps your diagram has the potential to include double loop learing associated with R and D. I would only bring this matter to your attention and consideration in that I did not see any explicit link in it. 

I would only also potential declare a potential conflict of interest in this as my father (now deceased) was one of the senior scientists who led the design of the Western Australian R and D program and the successful execution of transformative change required to implement new aerially based fire prevention methods.

Good luck with your efforts - it is really important work. 


Richard 


On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:53 AM Stuart French <stuart@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Down in Australia and New Zealand right now, the AFAC forum I am a part of is developing the latest update of the Knowledge Framework for Fire & Rescue Agencies.

As with anything built by a committee, the current draft is a bit of a hodge-podge of ideas, methods, approaches and recommendations and I have been wondering how to add value to the process.  This morning I sat down and sketched out a bit of an evaluation framework that we might be able to use as a sort of filter to ensure we are delivering on what a framework of this nature should be and do.  I would really appreciate your feedback on this line of thinking, both the approach to framework creation as well as the contents of the evaluation model below which is largely based on Milton & Lambe's work alongside the ISO30401 standard.


Thanks in advance for your advice.

Stu French,
stuart.french@...
Country Fire Authority, Victoria, Australia.



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


Dan Ranta
 

Stu - nice graphic.  I enjoyed looking at and imagining knowledge flows / processes.  In the "That Impact?" area you have "learning from experience."  I would also include explicitly "problem solving."  For your stakeholders, I can imagine, in fact, making problem solving a centerpiece.

Dan 

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 7:59 PM Richard Vines <richardvines1@...> wrote:
Stuart,

Great thinking here. I like what I see very much indeed. 

One point I would add is something that I am not sure how, as yet, might impact your diagram. It relates to the whole issue of sector wide (if one regards AFAC as a key stakeholder in fire management sector) double loop learning and how to capture the essense of this type of learning into your diagram.

Here I am talking about the significant challenges that have been experienced in the relationship between fire agencies in Australia and New Zealand and the research and development sector. To understand a good news story about this, it is worth getting hold of a copy of Roger Underwood's book called Fire from the Sky (https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/fire-from-the-sky-by-roger-underwood). It tells the story of the 1961 (disastrous) fires in Western Australia, the royal commission that followed, the introduction of a comprehensive fire behaviour research program in partnership between the CSIRO and the Western Australian forest department. It is a great story because it tells of the extraordinary achievement of introducing aerial control burning from a standing start in less a decade. It is a wonderful story of effective knowledge-based diffusion of R and D well before the language of "knowledge management". 

Since hat time, one of the many issues that has emerged in fire management in Australia and globally, particularly in the relationships between the fire agencies and the researchers, is that the use of science research as evidence to inform resource allocation decisions has become highly controversial. An example in the relationship between monies available for control burning and monies available for aircraft fire fighting - an issue that is not simple to address. 

However, this problem has been exacerbated plenty fold now with the divide between those that argue that the forest fire disaster of the last season (2019-20 when 18 million ha has were burned) can be fully attributed to climate change compared to those that the disaster can be significantly attributable to the fact that fuel loads have increased to the extent that fire intensity has increased disastrously in the past 2 decades. The problem has increased to the the extent, for example, that two key of the people involved in the Western Australian R and D and fire prevention (now retired and in their 80s) were regarded by the mainstream press as old guard and could only get their voice heard on Sky News. An example of their arguments are  viewable at this URL ... https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/ferocity-of-bushfires-in-australia-will-experience-exponential-effect-without-intervention. I am not myself taking a position on these arguments in that I belong to teh camp that things that climate change and the physics of fuel loads are both to blame!!

My main point is this. A knowledge framework perhaps needs to allow for processes of double or triple loop learning (i.e. learning about and from things we simply do not understand as yet). Perhaps your diagram has the potential to include double loop learing associated with R and D. I would only bring this matter to your attention and consideration in that I did not see any explicit link in it. 

I would only also potential declare a potential conflict of interest in this as my father (now deceased) was one of the senior scientists who led the design of the Western Australian R and D program and the successful execution of transformative change required to implement new aerially based fire prevention methods.

Good luck with your efforts - it is really important work. 


Richard 


On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:53 AM Stuart French <stuart@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Down in Australia and New Zealand right now, the AFAC forum I am a part of is developing the latest update of the Knowledge Framework for Fire & Rescue Agencies.

As with anything built by a committee, the current draft is a bit of a hodge-podge of ideas, methods, approaches and recommendations and I have been wondering how to add value to the process.  This morning I sat down and sketched out a bit of an evaluation framework that we might be able to use as a sort of filter to ensure we are delivering on what a framework of this nature should be and do.  I would really appreciate your feedback on this line of thinking, both the approach to framework creation as well as the contents of the evaluation model below which is largely based on Milton & Lambe's work alongside the ISO30401 standard.


Thanks in advance for your advice.

Stu French,
stuart.french@...
Country Fire Authority, Victoria, Australia.



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons



--
Daniel Ranta
Mobile:  603 384 3308


Richard Vines
 

Agreed Dan,

I would also include "problem identification" as often it is this that is at the heart of the politics of resource allocation decisions.


R

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 1:09 PM Dan Ranta <danieleranta@...> wrote:
Stu - nice graphic.  I enjoyed looking at and imagining knowledge flows / processes.  In the "That Impact?" area you have "learning from experience."  I would also include explicitly "problem solving."  For your stakeholders, I can imagine, in fact, making problem solving a centerpiece.

Dan 

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 7:59 PM Richard Vines <richardvines1@...> wrote:
Stuart,

Great thinking here. I like what I see very much indeed. 

One point I would add is something that I am not sure how, as yet, might impact your diagram. It relates to the whole issue of sector wide (if one regards AFAC as a key stakeholder in fire management sector) double loop learning and how to capture the essense of this type of learning into your diagram.

Here I am talking about the significant challenges that have been experienced in the relationship between fire agencies in Australia and New Zealand and the research and development sector. To understand a good news story about this, it is worth getting hold of a copy of Roger Underwood's book called Fire from the Sky (https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/fire-from-the-sky-by-roger-underwood). It tells the story of the 1961 (disastrous) fires in Western Australia, the royal commission that followed, the introduction of a comprehensive fire behaviour research program in partnership between the CSIRO and the Western Australian forest department. It is a great story because it tells of the extraordinary achievement of introducing aerial control burning from a standing start in less a decade. It is a wonderful story of effective knowledge-based diffusion of R and D well before the language of "knowledge management". 

Since hat time, one of the many issues that has emerged in fire management in Australia and globally, particularly in the relationships between the fire agencies and the researchers, is that the use of science research as evidence to inform resource allocation decisions has become highly controversial. An example in the relationship between monies available for control burning and monies available for aircraft fire fighting - an issue that is not simple to address. 

However, this problem has been exacerbated plenty fold now with the divide between those that argue that the forest fire disaster of the last season (2019-20 when 18 million ha has were burned) can be fully attributed to climate change compared to those that the disaster can be significantly attributable to the fact that fuel loads have increased to the extent that fire intensity has increased disastrously in the past 2 decades. The problem has increased to the the extent, for example, that two key of the people involved in the Western Australian R and D and fire prevention (now retired and in their 80s) were regarded by the mainstream press as old guard and could only get their voice heard on Sky News. An example of their arguments are  viewable at this URL ... https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/ferocity-of-bushfires-in-australia-will-experience-exponential-effect-without-intervention. I am not myself taking a position on these arguments in that I belong to teh camp that things that climate change and the physics of fuel loads are both to blame!!

My main point is this. A knowledge framework perhaps needs to allow for processes of double or triple loop learning (i.e. learning about and from things we simply do not understand as yet). Perhaps your diagram has the potential to include double loop learing associated with R and D. I would only bring this matter to your attention and consideration in that I did not see any explicit link in it. 

I would only also potential declare a potential conflict of interest in this as my father (now deceased) was one of the senior scientists who led the design of the Western Australian R and D program and the successful execution of transformative change required to implement new aerially based fire prevention methods.

Good luck with your efforts - it is really important work. 


Richard 


On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:53 AM Stuart French <stuart@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Down in Australia and New Zealand right now, the AFAC forum I am a part of is developing the latest update of the Knowledge Framework for Fire & Rescue Agencies.

As with anything built by a committee, the current draft is a bit of a hodge-podge of ideas, methods, approaches and recommendations and I have been wondering how to add value to the process.  This morning I sat down and sketched out a bit of an evaluation framework that we might be able to use as a sort of filter to ensure we are delivering on what a framework of this nature should be and do.  I would really appreciate your feedback on this line of thinking, both the approach to framework creation as well as the contents of the evaluation model below which is largely based on Milton & Lambe's work alongside the ISO30401 standard.


Thanks in advance for your advice.

Stu French,
stuart.french@...
Country Fire Authority, Victoria, Australia.



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons



--
Daniel Ranta
Mobile:  603 384 3308



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


 
Edited

Thank you so much Gents. 

Richard, your feedback is briliant and should work well with the team.  Three of them are from WA DFES and most are either researchers or Lessons Mgt practitioners.

I kind of see what we are doing with AFAC as the double-loop learning (in a small way what we are doing is triple loop too because we are challenging the way agencies do their double loop doctrine review).

We have take two key concepts as central to the framework:
1. The Victorian Government's Evidence Reform Statement widens the concept of evidence as all knowledge, information and data required to improve decision making. This includes a wonderful application of the old concept of Supply, Demand and Productive Use which is something we usually do badly, focusing management efforts on one of the three at any given time.
2. The concept of discretionary and non-discretionary decision making and how this radically changes the mix of personal knowledge versus information, documents and data.  "Nobody is reaching for a manual or the intranet when commanding a house fire response with two infants reported inside" at the same time "Using Dynamic Risk Assessment to evaluate high-cost, high-value, long term projects is equally irresponsible."

These both focus on problem solving and problem definition as key nexus points for the Productive Use of knowledge.

The big problem I see is that of nuance.  After last season's fires, I watched several people jump from "Burn-off" to "Climate Change" thinking after two of the fires reburnt forests last season that had burned just 5 weeks before.  If a forest can reburn after a recent, full bushfire, what good will low-temperature fuel reduction burns months before do? They might reduce energy levels from 57MJ/m3 down to 30-odd but we can't put out anything larger than 3-4 with trucks and aircraft, so Climate Change obviously played a part. Th problem is, as you say, "fully attributing" the events to one or the other. These are highly complex events over both time and location, but commanders on the ground want a simple cause-effect model they can make simple decisions with.  The very senior incident controllers seem to get this but it seems to me the learning curve to that level is not linear, with the understanding of complexity coming later at the Master (IMT Level 3) in the management journey than normal. I am wondering if KM can do something about that.

Thanks again for your feedback. It will raise a good discussion at our next meeting.


Richard Vines
 

Thanks Stuart

If one of those persons from WA is Lachie McCaw, say hello to him from me.  https://science.dpaw.wa.gov.au/people/?sid=77 

  Can you elaborate on this ... I do not understand your question?

The very senior incident controllers seem to get this but it seems to me the learning curve to that level is not linear, with the understanding of complexity coming later in the management journey than normal. I am wondering if KM can do something about that.

 If you are interested in some of the on-going questions of fire and climate, I could send you some slides off line about the climate change - fire history over time issue - I have picked up on the unfinished work of my father as a personal interest (not a professional interest) that flowed directly from his work with CSIRO fire research. See this web archive resource under the heading Aspects of rainfall patterns in Eastern Australia as an indication of a sort of summary of these interests. 

It is fascinating for those with interests in this, but not for the faint hearted. But I do not want to assume you have an interest in this particular aspect. 

All best .....






On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 1:51 PM Stuart French <stuart@...> wrote:
Thank you so much Gents. 

Richard, your feedback is briliant and should work well with the team.  Three of them are from WA DFES and most are either researchers or Lessons Mgt practitioners.

I kind of see what we are doing with AFAC as the double-loop learning (in a small way what we are doing is triple loop too because we are challenging the way agencies do their double loop doctrine review).

We have take two key concepts as central to the framework:
1. The Victorian Government's Evidence Reform Statement widens the concept of evidence as all knowledge, information and data required to improve decision making. This includes a wonderful application of the old concept of Supply, Demand and Productive Use which is something we usually do badly, focusing management efforts on one of the three at any given time.
2. The concept of discretionary and non-discretionary decision making and how this radically changes the mix of personal knowledge versus information, documents and data.  "Nobody is reaching for a manual or the intranet when commanding a house fire response with two infants reported inside" at the same time "Using Dynamic Risk Assessment to evaluate high-cost, high-value, long term projects is equally irresponsible."

These both focus on problem solving and problem definition as key nexus points for the Productive Use of knowledge.

The big problem I see is that of nuance.  I watched several people jump from "Burn-off" to "Climate Change" thinking after two of the fires reburnt forests last season that had burned just 5 weeks before.  If a forest can reburn after a recent, full bushfire, what good will low-temperature fuel reduction burns months before do? They might reduce energy levels from 57MJ/m3 down to 30-odd but we can't put out anything larger than 3-4 with trucks and aircraft, so Climate Change obviously played a part. Th problem is, as you say, "fully attributing" the events to one or the other. These are highly complex events over both time and location, but commanders on the ground want a simple cause-effect model they can make simple decisions with.  The very senior incident controllers seem to get this but it seems to me the learning curve to that level is not linear, with the understanding of complexity coming later in the management journey than normal. I am wondering if KM can do something about that.

Thanks again for your feedback. It will raise a good discussion at our next meeting.
After last season's fires. 



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


 

Yep, sure.

If you look at the Dreyfus Model Of Skills Acquisition, you will normally see a progression from task focus to people focus and from complicated to complex as people go from beginner to proficient to expert.  



Usually once people reach the proficient stage they are thinking whole systems, dynamic feedback loops, social constraints and are well on their way to learning to manage emergence. But my observations seem to show a different story in our emergency services. They have a strong focus on response and are (by quite a way) far more advanced in managing in the Chaos space than any managers I have worked with. That said, this seems to come at a cost as many hold a dichotomy of complete control through procedure and doctrine or managing chaos through novel action. This means they don't see the need to manage complex emergence until much later in their career (in fact many retire still at what I would call the Competent stage above with a HUGE focus on planning and anything you were unprepared for was simply a case of bad or insufficient planning and should be punished).

At level 3 incident management, something seems to happen. Maybe it is the requirement to manage inter-agency incidents, or the higher level of training it requires, or maybe they become so good at managing chaos that they start to see emergent patterns and figure complexity out from first principles. Either way, I would put some of these level 3 people up with the best leaders I have ever worked with.

So what can we do to help EM managers move over that big step from Competent to Proficient?  Maybe it is better access to nuanced stories and data. Or maybe it is removing some of the misconceptions (usually built on 20/20 hindsight) that the reductionist mindset is so strongly built on? Of course, all of this is from my own observations in the last 2 years, but either way I suspect KM may have a part to play.


Arthur Shelley
 

Stuart,

 

This is great work and will help guide your members though the complex maze that is KM. The key to success with this is including as many people in the process as possible and exploring the differences of opinion and why they exist. Involving others in the creation a framework as they walk their way through your “map”, helps keep the conversations in context (but remaining connected to the bigger picture). Your map allows them to follow the journey, but at the same time see the interdependencies between each of the conversations you will facilitate with them. These conversations on each topic will likely change the map as you go as participants bring in new knowledge and existing insights that are not currently represented on the map. I am sure that this will develop a strong framework and as they generate it themselves, it will have stronger ownership and deeper understanding of all involved.

 

I agree with Richards point of remaining cognisant of multiple loop learning as you proceed though the cycles of conversations (see attached image). Tactical people (not uncommon in emergency services for obvious reasons) often get stuck in the top
“Action/Task/Control/Rules” layer (level 1 in the attached diagram). Taking a step back and reflecting deeper will generate insights and inherent assumptions about the actions being taken (Level or Loop 2). This cycle of conversation/reflection enables us to see beyond the current “WHAT” is happening to view perhaps better possibilities (driving continuous improvement, innovation and even prioritisation). As useful as this is, ultimately you want to get to loop 3, which challenges why we doe the things we do and with whom we do that. This is critical for identification of sources of knowledge and understanding our underlying purpose. This identifies our principles  and key knowledge holders.

 

Best strategy creation looks like: Getting the right people (core knowledge holders) agreeing what principles are applied in what context to achieve what outcomes (Loop 3). With this as a foundation of your framework, the knowledge will flow up to the optimal actions (Loop 1) via optimised processes (Loop 2). However, you often need to work down from the tangible current actions of loops 1 to 2 though to 3 initially to challenge and understand the principles, THEN work back up to achieve the best outcomes.

 

We are all safer in our communities because of he work you are doing in Emergency Services - thank you for applying your passions for KM into this important sector.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne

Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

Earlier Books: The Organizational Zoo (2007) & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader (2009)

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au 

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/arthurshelley/

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

Creative-Melbourne-Banner_2018_Final_Smaller

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stuart French
Sent: Monday, 19 October 2020 1:51 PM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Framework for Emergency Services #guidelines #discussion-starter

 

[Edited Message Follows]

Thank you so much Gents. 

Richard, your feedback is briliant and should work well with the team.  Three of them are from WA DFES and most are either researchers or Lessons Mgt practitioners.

I kind of see what we are doing with AFAC as the double-loop learning (in a small way what we are doing is triple loop too because we are challenging the way agencies do their double loop doctrine review).

We have take two key concepts as central to the framework:
1. The Victorian Government's Evidence Reform Statement widens the concept of evidence as all knowledge, information and data required to improve decision making. This includes a wonderful application of the old concept of Supply, Demand and Productive Use which is something we usually do badly, focusing management efforts on one of the three at any given time.
2. The concept of discretionary and non-discretionary decision making and how this radically changes the mix of personal knowledge versus information, documents and data.  "Nobody is reaching for a manual or the intranet when commanding a house fire response with two infants reported inside" at the same time "Using Dynamic Risk Assessment to evaluate high-cost, high-value, long term projects is equally irresponsible."

These both focus on problem solving and problem definition as key nexus points for the Productive Use of knowledge.

The big problem I see is that of nuance.  After last season's fires, I watched several people jump from "Burn-off" to "Climate Change" thinking after two of the fires reburnt forests last season that had burned just 5 weeks before.  If a forest can reburn after a recent, full bushfire, what good will low-temperature fuel reduction burns months before do? They might reduce energy levels from 57MJ/m3 down to 30-odd but we can't put out anything larger than 3-4 with trucks and aircraft, so Climate Change obviously played a part. Th problem is, as you say, "fully attributing" the events to one or the other. These are highly complex events over both time and location, but commanders on the ground want a simple cause-effect model they can make simple decisions with.  The very senior incident controllers seem to get this but it seems to me the learning curve to that level is not linear, with the understanding of complexity coming later at the Master (IMT Level 3) in the management journey than normal. I am wondering if KM can do something about that.

Thanks again for your feedback. It will raise a good discussion at our next meeting.


Richard Vines
 

Stuart and Arthur,

I can see what you are getting at now. I have learned a lot about this sort of stuff having been seconded over to the COVID operations now under the leadership of 3 different departments!

I would make one very big and extra observation and claim. One of the core long term challenges (drivers of adaptive change) in emergency services is interoperability. And I mean all the very challenging aspects of interoperability - including semantic and syntactical  as well as the nuts and bolts of network interoperability. 

My sense is that even after XXXX no of Royal Commissiones, and disasters, we have still not got on top of these sorts of issues when it comes to inter-agency collaborations. So - yes, adaptive learning is critical. But sadly, I also think that this issue of long term challenges of data - network interoperability issues need to be given some room to enable new types of emergence both within and outside the domain hierarchies of emergency services. This is particularly the case given that emergency services is vitally connected with both spatial encodings as well as textual encodings. Even the very best people-based leaders lack basic insights into these transformative challenges. 

Cheers,


Richard

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 5:13 PM Arthur Shelley <arthur@...> wrote:

Stuart,

 

This is great work and will help guide your members though the complex maze that is KM. The key to success with this is including as many people in the process as possible and exploring the differences of opinion and why they exist. Involving others in the creation a framework as they walk their way through your “map”, helps keep the conversations in context (but remaining connected to the bigger picture). Your map allows them to follow the journey, but at the same time see the interdependencies between each of the conversations you will facilitate with them. These conversations on each topic will likely change the map as you go as participants bring in new knowledge and existing insights that are not currently represented on the map. I am sure that this will develop a strong framework and as they generate it themselves, it will have stronger ownership and deeper understanding of all involved.

 

I agree with Richards point of remaining cognisant of multiple loop learning as you proceed though the cycles of conversations (see attached image). Tactical people (not uncommon in emergency services for obvious reasons) often get stuck in the top
“Action/Task/Control/Rules” layer (level 1 in the attached diagram). Taking a step back and reflecting deeper will generate insights and inherent assumptions about the actions being taken (Level or Loop 2). This cycle of conversation/reflection enables us to see beyond the current “WHAT” is happening to view perhaps better possibilities (driving continuous improvement, innovation and even prioritisation). As useful as this is, ultimately you want to get to loop 3, which challenges why we doe the things we do and with whom we do that. This is critical for identification of sources of knowledge and understanding our underlying purpose. This identifies our principles  and key knowledge holders.

 

Best strategy creation looks like: Getting the right people (core knowledge holders) agreeing what principles are applied in what context to achieve what outcomes (Loop 3). With this as a foundation of your framework, the knowledge will flow up to the optimal actions (Loop 1) via optimised processes (Loop 2). However, you often need to work down from the tangible current actions of loops 1 to 2 though to 3 initially to challenge and understand the principles, THEN work back up to achieve the best outcomes.

 

We are all safer in our communities because of he work you are doing in Emergency Services - thank you for applying your passions for KM into this important sector.

 

Regards

Arthur Shelley

Producer: Creative Melbourne

Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion  Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects

Earlier Books: The Organizational Zoo (2007) & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader (2009)

Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au 

Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network

Mb. +61 413 047 408  Skype: Arthur.Shelley  Twitter: @Metaphorage

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/arthurshelley/

Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com

Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog

Creative-Melbourne-Banner_2018_Final_Smaller

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stuart French
Sent: Monday, 19 October 2020 1:51 PM
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Framework for Emergency Services #guidelines #discussion-starter

 

[Edited Message Follows]

Thank you so much Gents. 

Richard, your feedback is briliant and should work well with the team.  Three of them are from WA DFES and most are either researchers or Lessons Mgt practitioners.

I kind of see what we are doing with AFAC as the double-loop learning (in a small way what we are doing is triple loop too because we are challenging the way agencies do their double loop doctrine review).

We have take two key concepts as central to the framework:
1. The Victorian Government's Evidence Reform Statement widens the concept of evidence as all knowledge, information and data required to improve decision making. This includes a wonderful application of the old concept of Supply, Demand and Productive Use which is something we usually do badly, focusing management efforts on one of the three at any given time.
2. The concept of discretionary and non-discretionary decision making and how this radically changes the mix of personal knowledge versus information, documents and data.  "Nobody is reaching for a manual or the intranet when commanding a house fire response with two infants reported inside" at the same time "Using Dynamic Risk Assessment to evaluate high-cost, high-value, long term projects is equally irresponsible."

These both focus on problem solving and problem definition as key nexus points for the Productive Use of knowledge.

The big problem I see is that of nuance.  After last season's fires, I watched several people jump from "Burn-off" to "Climate Change" thinking after two of the fires reburnt forests last season that had burned just 5 weeks before.  If a forest can reburn after a recent, full bushfire, what good will low-temperature fuel reduction burns months before do? They might reduce energy levels from 57MJ/m3 down to 30-odd but we can't put out anything larger than 3-4 with trucks and aircraft, so Climate Change obviously played a part. Th problem is, as you say, "fully attributing" the events to one or the other. These are highly complex events over both time and location, but commanders on the ground want a simple cause-effect model they can make simple decisions with.  The very senior incident controllers seem to get this but it seems to me the learning curve to that level is not linear, with the understanding of complexity coming later at the Master (IMT Level 3) in the management journey than normal. I am wondering if KM can do something about that.

Thanks again for your feedback. It will raise a good discussion at our next meeting.



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


 

OK, the model is evolving, thanks for your feedback and a chat with AFAC today. Not sure if @PatrickLambe is about but I'd love his thoughts too.

I agree Richard that the ability for us to network in an interoperable way is probably caused by our massive reliance on interpersonal relationships rather than massively interconnected social and data systems. EMV has gone some way to improving this and Lisa and Claire's work on the Lessons program has been exceptional for our sector. Even so, I am trying to index simple information (JSOPs) from EMV's website into our enterprise search engine and haven't had a call back for months. I am sure this is just because of COVID busyness but a few other situations of data silos and lack of system integration suggest it might be as bad as you assume. We certainly don't share knowledge naturally unless it is inside the confines of an Incident Control Centre.

Arthur, thanks for your slide, it is excellent. I like the idea or running up and down the loops. I also really like the three labels across the bottom. Part of the issue I am running into here, I think, is the McNamara fallacy. Brigades, stations and regions have run on quantitative metrics for so long, with their simple numbers and easy to read trend-graphs, that while they think this other stuff is important, it comes a distant third when it comes to business plans or budgets. They stay at loop 1 and leave the other two for interesting coffee-room conversations. I am massively over-generalising now, of course, but helping change this culture is a key requirement of the knowledge framework.


Murray Jennex
 

I've kept quiet but Simon you said something I think you know is not quite true.  Interoperability is caused by personal relationships true, but also differences in organizational infrastructures from networks to communication protocols to organizational response procedures, leadership and decision making differences, etc.  We've (crisis response researchers) have presented these at ISCRAM conferences where I believe we have met.  We also published some research on this in the old International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management.  I also believe this was a big finding coming out of various crisis response exercises like Strong Angel III and the exercise 24 events as well as from practical experience going as far back as Y2K and seen in Afghanistan, Katrina, and other crises.  For what its worth its still one of the main crisis failure mechanisms that I teach students.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart French <stuart@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Sun, Oct 18, 2020 11:55 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Framework for Emergency Services #guidelines #discussion-starter

OK, the model is evolving, thanks for your feedback and a chat with AFAC today. Not sure if @PatrickLambe is about but I'd love his thoughts too.

I agree Richard that the ability for us to network in an interoperable way is probably caused by our massive reliance on interpersonal relationships rather than massively interconnected social and data systems. EMV has gone some way to improving this and Lisa and Claire's work on the Lessons program has been exceptional for our sector. Even so, I am trying to index simple information (JSOPs) from EMV's website into our enterprise search engine and haven't had a call back for months. I am sure this is just because of COVID busyness but a few other situations of data silos and lack of system integration suggest it might be as bad as you assume. We certainly don't share knowledge naturally unless it is inside the confines of an Incident Control Centre.

Arthur, thanks for your slide, it is excellent. I like the idea or running up and down the loops. I also really like the three labels across the bottom. Part of the issue I am running into here, I think, is the McNamara fallacy. Brigades, stations and regions have run on quantitative metrics for so long, with their simple numbers and easy to read trend-graphs, that while they think this other stuff is important, it comes a distant third when it comes to business plans or budgets. They stay at loop 1 and leave the other two for interesting coffee-room conversations. I am massively over-generalising now, of course, but helping change this culture is a key requirement of the knowledge framework.


Murray Jennex
 

sorry Stuart, I've met Simon French


-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart French <stuart@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Sun, Oct 18, 2020 11:55 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Framework for Emergency Services #guidelines #discussion-starter

OK, the model is evolving, thanks for your feedback and a chat with AFAC today. Not sure if @PatrickLambe is about but I'd love his thoughts too.

I agree Richard that the ability for us to network in an interoperable way is probably caused by our massive reliance on interpersonal relationships rather than massively interconnected social and data systems. EMV has gone some way to improving this and Lisa and Claire's work on the Lessons program has been exceptional for our sector. Even so, I am trying to index simple information (JSOPs) from EMV's website into our enterprise search engine and haven't had a call back for months. I am sure this is just because of COVID busyness but a few other situations of data silos and lack of system integration suggest it might be as bad as you assume. We certainly don't share knowledge naturally unless it is inside the confines of an Incident Control Centre.

Arthur, thanks for your slide, it is excellent. I like the idea or running up and down the loops. I also really like the three labels across the bottom. Part of the issue I am running into here, I think, is the McNamara fallacy. Brigades, stations and regions have run on quantitative metrics for so long, with their simple numbers and easy to read trend-graphs, that while they think this other stuff is important, it comes a distant third when it comes to business plans or budgets. They stay at loop 1 and leave the other two for interesting coffee-room conversations. I am massively over-generalising now, of course, but helping change this culture is a key requirement of the knowledge framework.


Nick Milton
 

Looks good to me Stuart!

 

It might be worth adding a branch about alignment to the current Emergency Services values, priorities and directives, and also an explicit branch about Leadership might be useful (meaning the involvement, commitment and backing of the leaders of the emergency services)

 

Nick Milton

 

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Stuart French
Sent: 19 October 2020 01:54
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Subject: [SIKM] Knowledge Framework for Emergency Services #guidelines #discussion-starter

 

Hi all,

Down in Australia and New Zealand right now, the AFAC forum I am a part of is developing the latest update of the Knowledge Framework for Fire & Rescue Agencies.

As with anything built by a committee, the current draft is a bit of a hodge-podge of ideas, methods, approaches and recommendations and I have been wondering how to add value to the process.  This morning I sat down and sketched out a bit of an evaluation framework that we might be able to use as a sort of filter to ensure we are delivering on what a framework of this nature should be and do.  I would really appreciate your feedback on this line of thinking, both the approach to framework creation as well as the contents of the evaluation model below which is largely based on Milton & Lambe's work alongside the ISO30401 standard.


Thanks in advance for your advice.

Stu French,
stuart.french@...
Country Fire Authority, Victoria, Australia.


 

Good ideas, thanks Nick.


Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Stuart

I’m responding with just some first level reactions, bearing in mind some of the other contributions people have made, and your aim in trying to change perceptions and habits of thought.

1. My first reaction was to look for the sequencing. I know this is mainly a components catalogue, but the form of the map invites sensemaking, and so I would like to see it stretched horizontally to give some sense of sequence and phasing (Arthur’s “journey”). For example, Defining terms/concepts is going to be iterative with a first cut at the start and then a refinement after capabilities have been clarified. I would actually incorporate the “defines key terms and concepts” piece into the “It should” element.

2. Tools and methods would follow capabilities in my mind. (see comment 7)

3. I’m missing Define short, medium and long term goals/priorities/challenges near the start and before knowledge levers and metrics (is this what you meant by Problem Identification, Richard?). 

4. In your definition of the Knowledge Framework “It should..” I would add “be periodically reviewed” with a loop back from capabilities (Richard’s learning loop).

5. Given your comments on how the organisation works, and Murray’s contributions, I would separate out “Governance and Structure” and place before People Process and Technology.

6. Some elements have clear linkages/overlaps (clear to us, but not necessarily to your audience): Eg. Coordination with Connecting People (informal) and with Governance and Structure (formal). Governance and Structure has links with measurement and impact, with Leadership (thanks Nick) and with Vision and Direction. This is at risk of adding visual complexity, so I understand you’ll have to be parsimonious.

7. Alternatively, I might use the sequence: 
Focused on building a knowledge capability… Providing Tools and Methods… In the areas of… Coordination, Memory, Learning … That impact… Connecting people, Learning form experience… etc. The tools and methods do actually support the Coordination Memory and Learning functions/capabilities.

8. I would amplify “creation of best practices” to something like “identify and share best practices”. 

I hope this helps, despite it being an outsider’s view for a very “insider” organisation.. and thanks for sharing!

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 20 Oct 2020, at 12:08 PM, Stuart French <stuart@...> wrote:

Good ideas, thanks Nick.


Richard Vines
 

Patrick,

You asked ...  I’m missing Define short, medium and long term goals/priorities/challenges near the start and before knowledge levers and metrics (is this what you meant by Problem Identification, Richard?).   

What I meant by "problem identification" is the complex process of:
  • observing an emergent challenge ... and the context of this challenge;
  • Creating a social agenda in order to begin a process of reaching negotiated agreements regarding this so called challenge and whether it is worthy of attention, scoping, preliminary problem analysis;
  • Further engaging in negotiated agreements as to whether this challenge warrants further allocation of resources to address these challenges in short or long term ways versus whether particular challenges are lower order priorities;
  • Interactive feedback loops through the journey of knowledge evolving into different levels of focus (individual, group, formal, societal type of knowledge and knowlegde hierarchies etc)
Noting that AFAC has a role in supporting these negotiated agreements ... and in so doing it is not netural. It shapes the nature of the problem identification because of the governance structures and search for funding. Some would argue that the fire agencies have changed their spots over teh past few decades in relation to the arguments between suppressing fire intensity via control burning, versus the impact of climate change. Thus, a political imperative emerges for AFAC agencies to potentially argue on the basis of climate change because it assumes more intensive fires are the norm because of climate change ... and thus there is a need for greater investments including in aerial water bombing. These political dynamics have played out in Australia over the past 18 months in ferocious ways - especially in light of the worst fire season in recorded Australian history in the summary of 2019-20.

This is summarised in diagramatic form as follows .... problem identification is an emergent property of social interactions and reflexive activities of analysing data and information. Of course, complexity as at the heart of this type of thinking!

Hope this helps a little.

image.png

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 3:57 PM Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:
Hi Stuart

I’m responding with just some first level reactions, bearing in mind some of the other contributions people have made, and your aim in trying to change perceptions and habits of thought.

1. My first reaction was to look for the sequencing. I know this is mainly a components catalogue, but the form of the map invites sensemaking, and so I would like to see it stretched horizontally to give some sense of sequence and phasing (Arthur’s “journey”). For example, Defining terms/concepts is going to be iterative with a first cut at the start and then a refinement after capabilities have been clarified. I would actually incorporate the “defines key terms and concepts” piece into the “It should” element.

2. Tools and methods would follow capabilities in my mind. (see comment 7)

3. I’m missing Define short, medium and long term goals/priorities/challenges near the start and before knowledge levers and metrics (is this what you meant by Problem Identification, Richard?). 

4. In your definition of the Knowledge Framework “It should..” I would add “be periodically reviewed” with a loop back from capabilities (Richard’s learning loop).

5. Given your comments on how the organisation works, and Murray’s contributions, I would separate out “Governance and Structure” and place before People Process and Technology.

6. Some elements have clear linkages/overlaps (clear to us, but not necessarily to your audience): Eg. Coordination with Connecting People (informal) and with Governance and Structure (formal). Governance and Structure has links with measurement and impact, with Leadership (thanks Nick) and with Vision and Direction. This is at risk of adding visual complexity, so I understand you’ll have to be parsimonious.

7. Alternatively, I might use the sequence: 
Focused on building a knowledge capability… Providing Tools and Methods… In the areas of… Coordination, Memory, Learning … That impact… Connecting people, Learning form experience… etc. The tools and methods do actually support the Coordination Memory and Learning functions/capabilities.

8. I would amplify “creation of best practices” to something like “identify and share best practices”. 

I hope this helps, despite it being an outsider’s view for a very “insider” organisation.. and thanks for sharing!

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 20 Oct 2020, at 12:08 PM, Stuart French <stuart@...> wrote:

Good ideas, thanks Nick.



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


Patrick Lambe
 

Thank you Richard, that is a much richer process than I had associated it with.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 20 Oct 2020, at 3:37 PM, Richard Vines <richardvines1@...> wrote:

Patrick,

You asked ...  I’m missing Define short, medium and long term goals/priorities/challenges near the start and before knowledge levers and metrics (is this what you meant by Problem Identification, Richard?).   

What I meant by "problem identification" is the complex process of:
  • observing an emergent challenge ... and the context of this challenge;
  • Creating a social agenda in order to begin a process of reaching negotiated agreements regarding this so called challenge and whether it is worthy of attention, scoping, preliminary problem analysis;
  • Further engaging in negotiated agreements as to whether this challenge warrants further allocation of resources to address these challenges in short or long term ways versus whether particular challenges are lower order priorities;
  • Interactive feedback loops through the journey of knowledge evolving into different levels of focus (individual, group, formal, societal type of knowledge and knowlegde hierarchies etc)
Noting that AFAC has a role in supporting these negotiated agreements ... and in so doing it is not netural. It shapes the nature of the problem identification because of the governance structures and search for funding. Some would argue that the fire agencies have changed their spots over teh past few decades in relation to the arguments between suppressing fire intensity via control burning, versus the impact of climate change. Thus, a political imperative emerges for AFAC agencies to potentially argue on the basis of climate change because it assumes more intensive fires are the norm because of climate change ... and thus there is a need for greater investments including in aerial water bombing. These political dynamics have played out in Australia over the past 18 months in ferocious ways - especially in light of the worst fire season in recorded Australian history in the summary of 2019-20.

This is summarised in diagramatic form as follows .... problem identification is an emergent property of social interactions and reflexive activities of analysing data and information. Of course, complexity as at the heart of this type of thinking!

Hope this helps a little.

<image.png>

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 3:57 PM Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:
Hi Stuart

I’m responding with just some first level reactions, bearing in mind some of the other contributions people have made, and your aim in trying to change perceptions and habits of thought.

1. My first reaction was to look for the sequencing. I know this is mainly a components catalogue, but the form of the map invites sensemaking, and so I would like to see it stretched horizontally to give some sense of sequence and phasing (Arthur’s “journey”). For example, Defining terms/concepts is going to be iterative with a first cut at the start and then a refinement after capabilities have been clarified. I would actually incorporate the “defines key terms and concepts” piece into the “It should” element.

2. Tools and methods would follow capabilities in my mind. (see comment 7)

3. I’m missing Define short, medium and long term goals/priorities/challenges near the start and before knowledge levers and metrics (is this what you meant by Problem Identification, Richard?). 

4. In your definition of the Knowledge Framework “It should..” I would add “be periodically reviewed” with a loop back from capabilities (Richard’s learning loop).

5. Given your comments on how the organisation works, and Murray’s contributions, I would separate out “Governance and Structure” and place before People Process and Technology.

6. Some elements have clear linkages/overlaps (clear to us, but not necessarily to your audience): Eg. Coordination with Connecting People (informal) and with Governance and Structure (formal). Governance and Structure has links with measurement and impact, with Leadership (thanks Nick) and with Vision and Direction. This is at risk of adding visual complexity, so I understand you’ll have to be parsimonious.

7. Alternatively, I might use the sequence: 
Focused on building a knowledge capability… Providing Tools and Methods… In the areas of… Coordination, Memory, Learning … That impact… Connecting people, Learning form experience… etc. The tools and methods do actually support the Coordination Memory and Learning functions/capabilities.

8. I would amplify “creation of best practices” to something like “identify and share best practices”. 

I hope this helps, despite it being an outsider’s view for a very “insider” organisation.. and thanks for sharing!

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 20 Oct 2020, at 12:08 PM, Stuart French <stuart@...> wrote:

Good ideas, thanks Nick.





-- 
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons


 

Hi Murray,

Thanks for your feedback. You are absolutely correct. I am focusing here on the little piece of the puzzle that I think I can address in Victoria (and maybe Australasia a bit). There are many operational, communications and doctrinal links between organisations, but they are held in tight control by operations and changes are sometimes influenced by unions and industry groups. Any change to these would take years of consultation and is outside my remit at this point.  The focus for the Knowledge Framework is on the generation, provision and application of evidence (in the form of knowledge, information ,data, research, etc) to improve these pre-existing systems and learning loops.  One step at a time.


 
Edited

Thank you gents.

Richard, there is some good stuff about problem definition here. Not sure I want to get that specific in the evaluation, but in the framework itself, this might sit more in the the Tools and Methods part, maybe. I was previously considering it as more of a connection, or impact point that creates demand side knowledge creation.  FYI, Stephen Bounds makes some points about this in his latest article in RealKM magazine about moving to a clinical approach to KM. https://realkm.com/2020/10/15/towards-a-clinical-approach-to-knowledge-management/

Patrick thanks so much for your feedback.  I have been considering it for the last hour or more and have updated the model as shown below. Some of you ideas I just implemented, others got me thinking on a new track.  Hopefully this shows more of a flow now, although I must remind myself that this is to evaluation the framework, not be the framework itself.  I really appreciate the time both of you put into assisting me.

Stu.


Richard Vines
 

Great work Stuart,

I am not sure how much I practically assisted with your diagram.  But this AFAC work is pretty significant ... and the more the fire agencies are networked into diverse perspectives, the better. 

Why would there not be also a focus on inter-agency collaboration capability development, rather than just agency knowledge capability? Would there not be a need to ensure impact encompasses some sort of evaluation of inter-agency collaboration, if you are evaluating a knowledge framework? Good processes to support high quality problem identification is surely an outcome of inter-agency collaboration. is it not? Fires cross any boundary that is jurisdictional in nature. 

On the other hand, in the end, agencies focus primarily on themselves unless their funding masters make them act differently?

Onwards and upwards with your endeavours. 


R

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 4:23 PM Stuart French <stuart@...> wrote:
Thank you gents.

Richard, there is some good stuff about problem definition here. Not sure I want to get that specific in the evaluation, but in the framework itself, this might sit more in the the Tools and Methods part, maybe. I was previously considering it as more of a connection, or impact point that creates demand side knowledge creation.

Patrick thanks so much for your feedback.  I have been considering it for the last hour or more and have updated the model as shown below. SOme of you ideas I just implemented, others got me thinking on a new track.  Hopefully this shows more of a flow now, although I must remind myself that this is to evaluation the framework, not be the framework itself.  I really appreciate the time both of you put into assisting me.

Stu.



--
Richard Vines
Mob: 0467717431
Email address: richardvines1@...
Skype: projectlessons