Preparing a large-scale event can sometimes lead to heated discussions. The interests and perspectives can sometimes differ considerably. Our advice: bring all stakeholders to the table and organize a risk analysis meeting so that all clocks are set. A method that is ideally suited for such a session is RISKOM.
Organizing safe events requires a lot of attention from both the organizers and the local authorities and their advisors. Intensive coordination usually takes place in the preparation for major events. Safety plans are submitted to the local government for assessment. They will forward these to the police and other services for assessment. Based on oral and written advice, the necessary changes are processed, after which the event can be permitted. However, this process does not guarantee that an event will proceed completely safely and as expected. How is that possible?
Difference in perspective
The many stakeholders involved in events all have their own perspective. The organizer often knows their event well and may also have many years of experience in organizing events. From their perspective, it can be experienced as a nuisance that they has to explain their entire working method in an extensive safety plan. After all, they know what they’re doing, right? This feeling may lead them to keep their safety plan so concise that it raises as few questions as possible from the local authorities.
The task of the municipality or city that processes the permit application is to assess whether the applicant has identified all his risks and is taking the necessary measures to adequately manage these risks. But often the permitters themselves are not trained in such a way that they can fully assess the risks and safety measures of a major event. They rely largely on substantive advice from services such as the police. For the local government, an event can also pose a conflict of interest: while the local economy can receive a boost from the event, the event can simultaneously damage public order, road safety or the quality of life.
The police and other safety services have an advisory role, with no other interest than safety. Each service has its own specific task, which also determines the lens through which they view an event. For example, the police will assess an event based on, among other things, the risks of disturbances and crime. From this perspective, the tendency can quickly arise to want to be prepared for the worst-case scenario, especially if it concerns an event with negative experiences from the past.
Conflict of interest
When local authorities bring together the plans and advice they receive, a situation may arise where the views of different stakeholders conflict with each other. For example, the organizer’s safety plan may indicate that all risks are under control (without becoming specific), while there is a police advice expressing concerns about serious incident scenarios. If the stakes are high in allowing an event to go ahead, this difference in perspective may lead to an administrative decision by the local government to permit the event despite the concerns from the services. This can feel like a defeat for the services. It can also be exactly the other way around: based on limited substantiated concerns from safety services, the local government forces the event organizer to take (much) more safety and security measures than it deems necessary. The organizer may get the feeling that measures have been devised from behind a desk, without knowledge of the event or visitor behavior as they know it. In both cases, there may be frustration, disappointment, and a negative aftertaste about the whole permit process. This probably does not contribute to good cooperation during the event itself.
Forming a common picture
The many events that we have managed in recent years have shown us that it is crucial to form a common picture of the event, its characteristics and the risks that may arise from it, early in the preparation for a major event. You cannot form a common picture by having everyone draw up a risk assessment from behind their own desk. We have therefore started to organize and lead joint risk analysis meetings. The police, fire brigade, medical services, the organizer, its safety officer, a representative of the security company and any other important stakeholders participate in these risk analysis meetings. The session is carried out according to a methodology that we call RISKOM and which consists of three simple steps: 1) forming a common picture, 2) assessing the risks and indication of the severity of the risks in green, orange or red and 3) analysis of the most complex risks highlighted in red. This happens in a physical meeting chaired by the local authorities. During the meeting, the organizer will have the opportunity to explain the characteristics of his event and as soon as certain parties at the table have a different view about this, this can be expressed. The aim of the session is to coordinate these images as much as possible. There is room to convince each other with arguments and the chairman at the table aims for as much agreement as possible on the image.
Determining and weighing risks
After the common picture of the event has been formed, the next goal is to form a common picture of the risks. The aim is to assess the risks that are reasonably foreseeable. A risk can always be explained in terms of an “event” that takes place: it has a certain severity and a certain impact. It is therefore important that all parties at the table know how to identify the risks they see in terms of “events”. Why is a certain event that is referred to as a risk foreseeable? The participants must be able to convince or correct each other with arguments. Is there a real chance that a certain incident could occur? That’s what it’s about. If the risk is reasonably foreseeable, all those involved are expected to do what is necessary to prevent these risks or prepare for their consequences. In this way, a risk of overcrowding can perhaps be prevented by taking the right measures. And so, the risk of severe weather at the event cannot be prevented, but it can be worked out in terms of decisions and responses. The group discusses what the specific risks to this event are, which of these risks are already sufficiently controlled with the measures that the organizer is already taking and which risks require additional measures. The most complex risks will require further elaboration and further arrangements can be made about this at the end of the meeting. After the risk analysis meeting, one or more joint meetings usually take place, in which it can ultimately be determined whether the safety plan includes the correct approach to all foreseeable risks.
Setting the clocks
Our experience shows that carrying out such a risk analysis, physically at the table under the direction of the local government and with the presence of the organizer and the advisory services, can really make a difference. By doing this in a timely manner, all clocks are set and there is insight into what still needs to be done to ensure that the event takes place safely. The results of the risk analysis are also a good basis for the police, security, and other operational partners to base their own task instructions and briefings on. Shortly before the event, a tabletop exercise can be held based on one or more scenarios derived from the risk analysis. This way, all stakeholders involved know where the points of interest are before the implementation and there is much less discussion and conflict about the expectations of the course of the event. This will certainly benefit the collaboration!
Would you like to know more about the risk analysis according to the RISKOM-method? Contact us.