Event Post Mortem

GDA-take-2

By Greg Allshouse

As stated in my last blog, "What Does Your Emergency Plan Look Like," one of the tenets of a good emergency response plan is a system for continually updating the plan. One of the ways to do this is to conduct an event after-action analysis, often called a "post mortem." These discussions can be used for more than just emergencies or natural disasters; they can also be used for prolonged outage reviews, equipment failure, and project reviews. It's a safe bet that service providers affected by Hurricane Sandy have such analyses planned if they haven't conducted them already.

Though it sounds morbid, it's vital to view the post mortem as a positive action. It must not be viewed or treated as a "blamestorming" session. Both managers and staff need to listen openly to input. An event post mortem's goals should be to inform other teams of the obstacles and best practices encountered during the event and make changes to the plan or process as needed. A post-mortem meeting/call should be a scheduled meeting that gives everyone time to prepare for it. It should have a set time limit.


The following list, while not all-inclusive, provides a general idea of items to be captured and documented:



  • The event start date and time


  • The event end date and time


  • Location of the event


  • Departments involved, including contractors


  • Description of the event, including equipment involved


  • What went right


  • What went wrong


  • Recommendations for changes, including a timeline for implementation




These items should be documented, maintained and followed up to ensure that any action items were completed. If the recommendations from the post mortem include changes to standard operating procedure, those need to be updated as well. Post mortem documents need to be accessible for review and reference. In this digital age, storing them on a shared drive or a SharePoint is a great idea.

There is no "one size fits all" post mortem review; the larger the event, the more in-depth the review should be.

Greg Allshouse is a consultant for opXL and a 32-year cable veteran. Reach him at greg@opxl.net.


Easily post a comment below using your Linkedin, Twitter, Google or Facebook account.

Related Articles

Cloud WFM to Near $1 Billion by 2018

May 24, 2014 According to IHS (NYSE:IHS), the growing adoption of soft...
Firmware Updates Updated

Solid Reasons for Modernizing Firmware Upgrades

May 14, 2014 It’s understandable that cable operators’ attention is la...
What Do Subs Want?

Survey Sez: Consumers Still Like Cable

May 14, 2014 In the eyes of consumers, cable operators offer value com...

BTR Blogs

Carl Weinschenk

MSOs and OTT: Best of 'Frien-emies'

July 30, 2014 The general sense is that the intense competition between cable operator...
Mark Johnson, Alticast

Guest Blog: RDK Application Framework Considerations

June 18, 2014 Cable operator enthusiasm for the Reference Design Kit (RDK) is growing ...
Tim Hermes, BTR Founder and Publisher

I'm a Believer

June 11, 2014 I guess it was 3D that made me sketchy. 3D's quiet fade-to-black was not...

White Papers & Special Reports

Transport & Ethernet Solutions

August 2014 VeEX offers a complete test and measurement solution portfolio for Core, Tran...

Blazing a Trail to DOCSIS 3.1

July 2014 Cable operators can never rest on their laurels – or their old standards. DOC...

Revolutionizing Metro Ethernet Networks

July 2014 The increased adoption of cloud technology and applications is having a signi...

Sponsored Video

"Click to view the LTE Express"

CONNECT WITH US

Webcasts

There is no current content available.

Featured Hangout

Leakage, Ingress and Interference in Digital Cable Networks

March 13, 2014

Join us for BTR’s fourth Google Hangout – this time on UHF leakage and LTE interference – with Nick Segura (Charter) and Ron Hranac (Cisco).
Sponsored by Trilithic.