Use the arrow keys on your keyboard to navigate this demonstration

PREDICTION & MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PREDICTION & MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Software package for Microsoft Windows R TM

This is a demonstration disk Copyright 1998 C Peter M. Sandman LLC and Q EST Consulting Engineers For pricing or further information: Website: Telephone: Facsimile:

There are three parts to this demonstration...

Controversies are no longer seen as natural disasters. You don't have to batten down and wait for the storm to pass any more. Controversies are no longer seen as natural disasters. You don't have to batten down and wait for the storm to pass any more. Controversies can be predicted, then averted or minimized. Controversies can be predicted, then averted or minimized. Reputation management is part of normal due diligence activities. Reputation management is part of normal due diligence activities. It can be statistically demonstrated that we predict human reactions more precisely than we predict safety, environmental and financial upsets. We calculate the others… why not outrage? It can be statistically demonstrated that we predict human reactions more precisely than we predict safety, environmental and financial upsets. We calculate the others… why not outrage?

$ Regulators get tougher New permits are denied Business opportunities are missed Recruitment becomes difficult Morale falls Productivity falls Share price falls

Your company does a good job of running efficiently and safely...

... but you forgot to manage the outrage!

Faced with a typical risk controversy, first make sure youre right technically. Then since you are right: Ignore your opponents Ignore your opponents Bury them in data Bury them in data Attack their motives Attack their motives And when its all too late... And when its all too late...

Manage your technical problem... And manage the outrage too.

In other words...

If you have a hazard problem, reduce the hazard. If you have a hazard problem, reduce the hazard. If you have an outrage problem, reduce the outrage. If you have an outrage problem, reduce the outrage. Better yet: Address the potential for outrage…. Better yet: Address the potential for outrage….

PREDICTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PREDICTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Peter Sandman is famous for his formula, Risk = Hazard + Outrage. Could Sandmans advice to companies on how to manage outrage be captured in a system? The gurus initial reaction was Interesting concept but NO WAY! A risk management consultancy thought otherwise and hired Sandman by the hour to advise on a pilot program. His assessment of the first pilot: AWFUL - but the concept will work....

Step Questions Step 2 Answers & Formatting Step 3 Math Modelling The Task......How to model a guru Step 4 Explanations & Examples

Peter had to probe his decades of experience (and even some data!) more than he had ever done before in order to rebuild from fundamentals a suite of 190 questions. The work was challenging but after a great deal of time, perspiration and inspiration he delivered: the components of outrage in bite-size chunks. Step Questions

Step Questions Step 2 Answers & Formatting Step 3 Math Modelling The Task......How to model a guru Step 4 Explanations & Examples

The next step was to draft answers - not just the right answers to each question, but also wrong answers that captured the misjudgments Peters clients tended to fall prey to. Then the questions had to be formatted and ordered in a way that captured the complexity of the process. Step 2 Answers & Formatting

Step Questions Step 2 Answers & Formatting Step 3 Math Modelling The Task......How to model a guru Step 4 Explanations & Examples

Surely the work was complete now… or so we thought. We were wrong. Not all questions are equally important in scoring an outrage factor, and not all outrage factors are equally important in making up a total outrage score. Having weighted the questions and factors, all that was left to do was some simple arithmetic, right? Wrong. When we tested our mathematical models on a range of cases, they didnt always match Peters intuitions. He wasnt about to change his intuitions. So it was back to the drawing board for the model. The weeks turned into months and the months felt like years, but we got there: A set of formulas that reliably replicated Peters intuitive outrage assessments. Step 3 Math Modelling

Step Questions Step 2 Answers & Formatting Step 3 Math Modelling The Task......How to model a guru Step 4 Explanations & Examples

An explanation...

and an example

Outrage Assessment Outrage Management Issues Definition Stakeholder Analysis

The definition of the situation may seem both obvious and unnecessary… it isnt. For example, if you are about to put a new chemical factory in a fairly densely populated area it is very important to be clear whether you are assessing the outrage due to the announcement of the new plant (probability of occurrence = 1) and having a major toxic release (much smaller probability, higher outrage).

Before we can assess the outrage, we need to determine who it is that might get upset. Historically, corporations dont do this well so Peter Sandman helps with a series of prompts like.... Whos given you problems before? Whos given you problems before? Who have you forgotten in the past? Who have you forgotten in the past? Who lives over some physical or conceptual line? Who lives over some physical or conceptual line? Who do you hate talking to most? Who do you hate talking to most? Who may think they are a stakeholder even if they Who may think they are a stakeholder even if they arent? arent? Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

One of Peters many available prompts...

Now that youve done the work in identifying potential outrage subjects, Dr. Sandman offers you a proforma list as a final check. This is at the rear of the identification process just to make sure that you are making issue specific decisions and not leaning on the check list.

Its not enough for us to list the stakeholders, we need to identify the more important ones and build up a character profile of them. How well do we know them? How well do we know them? How much power, passion do they have and how much do they stand to lose? What drives them?

Its not enough for us to list the stakeholders, we need to identify the more important ones and build up a character profile of them. How well do we know them? How much stake, power and passion do they have How much stake, power and passion do they have and how much do they stand to lose? and how much do they stand to lose? What drives them?

Its not enough for us to list the stakeholders, we need to identify the more important ones and build up a character profile of them. How well do we know them? How much power, passion do they have and how much do they stand to lose? What drives them? What drives them?

Peter guides you through the main drivers.

If your stakeholder has great power but little passion it is often possible to acknowledge their power by offering them something else that they want but which doesnt cost your company so badly. If your stakeholder has great power but little passion it is often possible to acknowledge their power by offering them something else that they want but which doesnt cost your company so badly. If your stakeholder has lots of passion but little power (be careful, power can sometimes be indirect) then you can defeat them if you choose (assuming there is no real hazard). Whilst this is a valid option, be careful that you consider its effect on other corporate issues before proceeding. If your stakeholder has lots of passion but little power (be careful, power can sometimes be indirect) then you can defeat them if you choose (assuming there is no real hazard). Whilst this is a valid option, be careful that you consider its effect on other corporate issues before proceeding. If they have power and passion, get ready to bend or you might just break. If they have power and passion, get ready to bend or you might just break.

Some strategy options are available..but make sure they dont exacerbate other issues

This is the core of the system, where the essence of Peter Sandman is captured. This is where intuition has been melted down and reconstructed in 190 carefully formulated questions on the twelve Sandman Factors. How well did we succeed? Lets say we delivered about 70% to 80% of the man himself PLUS A level of repeatability and transparency that even Dr. Sandman concedes he cant match.

Voluntary v Coerced Natural v Industrial Familiar v Exotic Dreaded v Not Dreaded. Chronic v Catastrophic Knowable v Unknowable Controlled by them v us Fair v Unfair Moral v Morally. Irrelevant Trusted v Not trusted Responsive v Unresponsive 11 Questions 6 Questions 11 Questions 20 Questions 11 Questions 22 Questions 11 Questions 51 Questions 21 Questions 15 Questions 25 Questions 23 Questions Current Antecedent Space & Time Of the Situation Attitude toward Govt. control Community control Activist control Stakeholder control Fundamental Management Honesty Relationship building Worst case Other aspects Openness Acknowledgment Memorable v Not mem.

Question formats include: Simple multiple choice,... Continuous Monitoring of performance. Red is bad

drop down menus... Thin line indicates less critical factor

And, pick as many as apply. Green is good. Wide line shows importance of factor

Finished the questions?.. Finished the questions?.. – How well did we go? – Is this acceptable? – What are our main problems?

This is a marginal risk. Not obviously unacceptable (red) or obviously insignificant (green). Peters Boundaries How well did we go? How well did we go?

Whilst Peter ranks the score as marginal, you may wish to apply tighter (or more loose) standards in your organization. (Some companies have harsh upper boundaries which call for site assessors to contact corporate affairs when in the Red ) Users Boundaries (Note: see how the column has turned red even though the score hasnt changed.) Is this acceptable? Is this acceptable?

What are our main problems? What are our main problems?

Note that overall rating is marginal but the honesty component needs serious attention

If we help you confirm that you have an outrage problem and then walk away… you may well be OUTRAGED. On the other hand, we cant tell you specifically what to do in an individual situation to lower outrage, if we did youd (correctly) call us charlatans or fools. Our approach to helping you manage outrage is to let you know where your most damaging characteristics are and help you experiment with different levels of change so that you can decide the cost effective solution that can work within your organization

The first thing the program does is ask two questions: Which answers hurt us most? Which answers hurt us most? Can we do anything about it? Can we do anything about it? From the answers it receives from the data youve already provided, the software will highlight the questions to you starting with the most damaging factor...

Targets identify the problem questions

A simulated improvement will be reported in red text.

We monitor the outrage falling as we consider potential improvements.

Now lets review the options for outrage management: Jeans recommendations cost $100,000 to implement whereas the comprehensive solution cost nearly $500,000. The estimated improvement for the additional $400,000 is simply not enough to justify the additional expenditure. Base Case Jean Comprehensive

We can drift through the individual factors to show the different effects of our changes. Lack of a responsive process was our worst factor and yet Jean didnt fully address this because she saw difficulties in implementing the change in her company. Base Jean Comprehensive

The OUTRAGE report will allow you to:The OUTRAGE report will allow you to: –Prioritize actions –Integrate with other risk management processes –Make results accessible and understandable to operational and financial management –Let them see that it is transparent, repeatable and non-threatening

This is a demonstration disk Copyright 1998 C Peter M. Sandman LLC and Q EST Consulting Engineers For pricing or further information: Website: Telephone: Facsimile: