 |
| photo: snowgroomingmag.com |
This fall I’ve sat in on three different and extensive
conversations on a technical program risk management detail that very few in the mainstream world would find relevant. I guess a total of 6 hours of
time sitting in on debates on this and a related topic: What should I write
down and what should I not?
Item 1: The U.S.’s most vocal outdoor rec legal opinionator
named Jim Moss (who keeps the Recreation-Law.com site) critiques a Climbing
Business Journal article and states flat out programs should not be recording
anything because it will be used against you in court. His article is here.
I agree that what is written down can be used against you in
court, but to not write it down makes some massive assumptions about how a
company works (or more likely does not work). Fairly regressive view on risk
management, but typically American which always takes the route of ‘least
likely to be sued’. More below.
Item 2: I attended the ParkScapers one day training this
fall. ParkScapers is the Canadian ski/snowboard terrain park management course
and is full of good stuff on park design, jump shaping, and user safety system approaches.
There was significant debate on what gets recorded and what should not.
There is really only one issue here. Disregard Moss’ opinion
as it is an outlier, but ParkScapers saw some real application of what gets
written down and what doesn’t and the pitfalls of each.
Terrain parks are generally going towards a ‘record
everything’ model. It is both ambitious, impressive and full of traps. As in every morning each feature in the park is inspected for signage, dyed borders and lips, measured
(i.e. angle of take off, width of lip, length of landing ramp – super detail), is photographed from three angles, test ridden and only then is officially signed off as ‘open’. This happens for every rail, box and jump in a park. Consider that a mid-size park has over 20 features (and some resorts have several parks) this is an ambitious and time consumer process.
This inspection typically happens via a paper checklist, or more progressively with the iAuditor app on an iPad (very cool - see details below***). What is going on here is that parks are trying to nail down the fact that their features were to spec that day. If anyone injures themselves, the park can fall back on concrete proof that it was not the feature that was the issue. Every rake out, adjustment, filling in bomb-holes etc during the day gets recorded. If the takeoff angle or landing ramp are off spec, then the feature is closed and repaired that night by a maintenance crew. Some places even do these inspections at opening and again at mid-day. The paper/digital trail is ominous, which is where the app makes life cleaner. Insurance providers like the record everything model, and it is endorsed by the CanWest Ski Areas Association and U.S. National Ski Areas Association.
The app is an important step here because of the large amount of errors found on paper reports. Sections are left unfilled, printing is illegible, an item is misnamed or recorded in error. For a legal case involving a mountain bike trail, I saw a resort inspection form that was basically useless. It was unclear exactly what was being assessed and on what criteria. Insurance guys pull their hair out over these small errors, as it is easy food for a plaintiff attorney to prove you don't know what you are doing. The app is based on drop down options, so no box is left unfilled and the entered data is uniform. No shortcuts are allowed. The report gets emailed to the manager on the spot. Good stuff.
There is an implied assumption in this approach that safety is all about design, and expertise lies with the designers. The park staff are not expected to have any expertise other than to document against design spec, a tedious data collection existence (is this what you thought you were signing up for when you scored a park staff job?).
This inspection typically happens via a paper checklist, or more progressively with the iAuditor app on an iPad (very cool - see details below***). What is going on here is that parks are trying to nail down the fact that their features were to spec that day. If anyone injures themselves, the park can fall back on concrete proof that it was not the feature that was the issue. Every rake out, adjustment, filling in bomb-holes etc during the day gets recorded. If the takeoff angle or landing ramp are off spec, then the feature is closed and repaired that night by a maintenance crew. Some places even do these inspections at opening and again at mid-day. The paper/digital trail is ominous, which is where the app makes life cleaner. Insurance providers like the record everything model, and it is endorsed by the CanWest Ski Areas Association and U.S. National Ski Areas Association.
The app is an important step here because of the large amount of errors found on paper reports. Sections are left unfilled, printing is illegible, an item is misnamed or recorded in error. For a legal case involving a mountain bike trail, I saw a resort inspection form that was basically useless. It was unclear exactly what was being assessed and on what criteria. Insurance guys pull their hair out over these small errors, as it is easy food for a plaintiff attorney to prove you don't know what you are doing. The app is based on drop down options, so no box is left unfilled and the entered data is uniform. No shortcuts are allowed. The report gets emailed to the manager on the spot. Good stuff.
There is an implied assumption in this approach that safety is all about design, and expertise lies with the designers. The park staff are not expected to have any expertise other than to document against design spec, a tedious data collection existence (is this what you thought you were signing up for when you scored a park staff job?).
However, there is an opposing view, one that says either a feature
is open or closed. Open implies it is safe and to spec (without actually
documenting every detail) and closed means it is not. Specifications live elsewhere in a
design doc and one presumes that all inspection staff are trained extensively on what is passing criteria. This approach recognizes that collecting so much data invariably
will lead to minor errors here and there. Mis-recorded info, a feature missed, photos
that can’t be viewed – and the one little error may happen on a day someone
gets injured and now you look like you don’t live up to your own standards – a basic
test within considering the standard of care legally expected. (Normal Accident
Theory says that make anything complex enough and it is ‘normal’ for there to
be errors and failures – scroll down in this blog to find previous posts on Normal
Accidents). The inspection itself is no less onerous (when done right) but the report and recorded information is pass/fail. One has to be prepared to answer the question 'But how did you know it was to spec if you did not write down the data to prove it?'. The answer is to point to a documented training system that proves competency with design spec and inspection procedures, and has some test outcome to prove it. The answer to the 'but how did you know' becomes 'I wouldn't have the job if I didn't know'. This ups the staffing game considerably for terrain parks. It turns the expertise assumption on its head and says that staff need to have expertise to assess any aspect of their park for its user safety. The staff on the ground consider the whole context of the park and not just tick boxes against a design. Design matters, but it cannot be considered the magic safety formula. Staff need to be able to see the park from the perspective of the user and have documented training to back up their knowledge.
So where does this all stand?
So where does this all stand?
Resorts are pushing for more recording and reliance upon Design. Management does not
hang out in the park, so the paper trail assures management that care is being
taken. Importantly, documentation is serving as a proxy for supervision. More on this
in Part 2 to follow. I predict resorts will continue and likely expand this record everything model until it eventually works against
them in court, but that is many years down the road (and maybe by that time
recording systems will be quite good). This reliance upon design allows for less training of staff, unfortunately. I also consider the reality that resort managers know very little about terrain parks, and likely don't really understand them. All the easier to point to Design rather than have to build systems in house.
Conversely, I support the open/closed approach, backed up with a solid training system that proves competency. Relying upon a paper checklist is dangerous given the difficulty in consistently filling the things in plus having to file and manage the paper itself - asking for failure. iAuditor is promising on this front, but it too can be set up for pass/fail criteria. My Managing Risk books discusses at length the pass/fail trigger approach. At present, industry practice is all over the map. The larger legal issue of today is the manager not being able to confidently say he/she knew what was going on in the terrain park at any given time.
Conversely, I support the open/closed approach, backed up with a solid training system that proves competency. Relying upon a paper checklist is dangerous given the difficulty in consistently filling the things in plus having to file and manage the paper itself - asking for failure. iAuditor is promising on this front, but it too can be set up for pass/fail criteria. My Managing Risk books discusses at length the pass/fail trigger approach. At present, industry practice is all over the map. The larger legal issue of today is the manager not being able to confidently say he/she knew what was going on in the terrain park at any given time.
We are also seeing a classic ‘comparison trap’ where the
industry leading resorts have full time dedicated managers, staff and groomers
and put time and resources into locking in a system. And then there is the ‘typical’
terrain park essentially put in place in December and somewhat supervised and
only loosely maintained. Small hills build features and don't look at them again (for the record, groomers hate terrain parks because they are difficult to work around - groomers like nothing better than a perfectly rectangular run, kind of like mowing a nice lawn). These minor league players will be assessed against the
big players if something were to go wrong, and the onerous management of a
terrain park done-right dissuades a mid size resort from investing further in
it, or at the least makes it difficult to defend in court.
I think terrain parks are the future for small ski areas,
especially in Ontario and Quebec. But it has to be done right. At present, I
would guess that 20% of terrain parks have got it together from a systems perspective.
There is a ways to go. The reliance upon Design as safety has some inherent traps but it unfortunately allows for short cutting staff expertise. Documentation, done in the name of legal protection, is really a proxy for supervision. Weak. Train staff. Give them tools to assess safety and test them on it. Go pass/fail.
Continued in RM Documentation Part 2: What is a near miss? What gets written down?
***iAuditor app available on iTunes for free. Create a free account and then search for free templates 'SSV Terrain Parks Daily Inspection Log' or the 'Beaver Valley Parks Log'.
***iAuditor app available on iTunes for free. Create a free account and then search for free templates 'SSV Terrain Parks Daily Inspection Log' or the 'Beaver Valley Parks Log'.