Text: Alf Inge Molde
“When does a crisis actually end?” professor Odd Einar Olsen asks, rhetorically.
For those affected, it may never end. For those who have an operative role in handling the crisis, the answer is: When the fire is extinguished and everyone’s gone home.
But putting out the fire does not necessarily mean that the crisis is over.
“Politically speaking, the crisis is not over until trust is restored. Which implies that people must have faith in the crisis management, accept what has happened, and believe in the involved parties’ representation of the events. It also means that people are willing to accept the findings of the investigations,” Olsen says.
A credible ending may therefore be the result of a long-lasting process.
A neglected topic in the literature on crisis management
On February 23, OFFB assembled emergency response personnel, from the second-line operational and third-line strategic levels, for a workshop on strategic emergency management beyond the initial phases of a crisis. The workshop took place at the OFFB’s offices at Forus outside Stavanger, and was initiated and chaired by the Competence Centre’s staff.
Odd Einar Olsen gave a though-provoking presentation of the political dimension of crisis management, and the art of ending a crisis. He was followed by Øistein Johannessen, vice president of communications at Equinor, who shared Statoil’s learnings from the handling of the helicopter accident near Turøy island, North-East of Bergen, in 2016.
Olsen is a professor of risk management and societal safety at the University of Stavanger, and has researched and written a number of textbooks on crisis management and media coverage of crises. In addition to this, he has 20 years of experience from relief work, crisis handling, development aid and technology transfer in 18 countries, working for the United Nations and the Norwegian Refugee Council.
He believes the closing of a crisis is a neglected topic, both in textbooks and political documents - despite the fact that it will affect how the crisis is understood and explained in the future, and the reputation of those responsible for handling the events.
“The focus of the literature on crises, is first and foremost on preparedness and the handling of a crisis itself. When it comes to ending a crisis, it mostly concerns the debriefing of staff and the learning afterwards. Very little is written about the political closing of crises, and the risks involved when this is handled in a poor manner,” Olsen says.
Clear and well-considered strategies wanted
This is a subject that should be addressed, he believes. Big crises do not end by themselves. Someone will have to declare them being over. By then, both operational and political tasks should be completed, preferably in parallel. At the same time, the public – the media included – should perceive the crisis to be over. When an ending is declared too soon or in the “wrong” manner, big problems will loom in the aftermath.
Classic examples include the offshore platform Alexander Kielland capsize in 1980, the plane crash near Mehamn in 1982, and the ferry disasters Scandinavian Star in 1991 and Estonia in 1994, he argues.
“The common features of these incidents were: Many casualties and massive attention at the time. Many were left with the impression that not all the facts were included in the investigations, and new information not taken into consideration later on. The identification of scapegoats was disputed, and the events attracted a lot of media attention,” Olsen points out.
Could these discords and problems afterwards have been avoided? It is difficult to say for certain. It is also difficult to produce a consistent scenario for how to achieve an acceptable ending, he admits. Each incident will have its own distinctive characteristics and challenges.
Doing the right things is not enough, Olsen adds. Credibility is also about form, content and trust. The closing process also involves other actors than those engaged in operational tasks. The real acid test is whether the general public accepts that the crisis is over.
“I would like to see a clear and well-considered strategy for how this can be achieved,” the professor says.
“Do not underestimate the follow-up work”
Øistein Johannessen, vice president of communications at Equinor, was invited to share experiences from the way Statoil’s emergency response organisation handled the helicopter crash at Turøy, which happened on April 29 in 2016. Two pilots and eleven passengers lost their lives in the most serious accident within the Norwegian oil and gas industry since the turn of the millennium.
“Do not underestimate the follow-up of next of kin,” he advises.
Be sure to have clearly defined roles, tasks and reporting lines. Prioritise those directly affected, and the people closest to them. Do not underestimate their insecurity. Have sufficient staff available. Put internal resource personnel to use. Be consistent in your communications. And exercise!
“Crises and serious incidents will leave a deep imprint on the organisation for a long time afterwards, both on a human level and on the company’s security efforts. Serious incidents are both epoch-making and defining events,” Johannessen says.
Continuous improvement and progress
The Operator´s association for emergency response (OFFB) is working continuously to improve and develop itself. It is constantly seeking new knowledge – both from academia and from other organisations’ handling of real incidents.
The workshop is part of a goal-oriented effort to further develop work tools and training- and exercise concepts for crisis management beyond the initial phases. This is a focus area for OFFB in times to come.
