map. what is map?
>This document in Word format
>Aged Care MAP example (ABC Lateline, Jan 2006)
>Other Typical Case Studies
>MAP Testimonials
"The managing of critical information through memory, good intentions and niceties is no longer valid. This process leads to litigation and rightly so. A foolproof process is needed whereby facts are recorded enabling resolving mechanisms and fact-finding to produce solutions in black and white. This empowers all involved - to not only have a process that is based on fundamental requirements but also to ensure legal requirements are being met, therefore reducing risk of errors immediately and in the future."
Enter the Manager’s Assistant Process or MAP.
Workplace bullying costs Australian business between $17-$36 billion per year according to a Griffith University report published in 2001. Many teachers "spend more time dealing with discipline than teaching" according to an Australian Education Department report. Up to 60% of a supervisor’s time is now spent dealing "with anger" say three studies in 2004.
This is not to mention the time that is spent on other critical issues such as perceived harassment, racial innuendo, safety issues and behavioural and developmental issues. Finally there are the standard but still very important issues, such as planning and allocating resources, scheduling, liaison and so forth that supervisors and coordinators are responsible for.
Collectively these add up to between 95% to 100% of the effective time of supervisors and coordinators.
Yet, in spite of the fact that systems have existed for quite some time to provide contact, activity and scheduling for, say a salesman, we have historically failed to develop systems for supervisors, mentors or coordinators that would assist them in dealing with, recording and resolving the issues that make up almost the entirety of their job descriptions!
What are the special needs for managers, supervisors and coordinators?
These people deal with the broader issues of people, students, interactions and resources.
Usually they are legally answerable for their own decisions and actions, and often for the decisions and actions of others. They usually have a direct responsibility for the maintenance and development of some sort of physical environment and interpersonal environment.
One day they may be dealing with a leaky pipe that has created a safety problem, another day they could be dealing with policies relating to attendance or supply of a resource.
And, most importantly they deal a great deal with people issues – including behaviour development, coordination, and critical issues such as bullying, abuse, racial innuendo and harassment.
Traditionally there have been no centralised, much less electronic, systems in place for these people to use. Important information and notes have usually been arbitrarily distributed between diary entries, notes on bits of paper, minutes of meetings and memory.
Not only does this make important information difficult to find, access and assess, but it makes the roles and lives of managers, supervisors and coordinators inefficient and clumsy. Most importantly, it makes it difficult, and often impossible, to deal with and resolve important and critical issues - or to substantiate their resolution at a later date.
Jeremy Feiglin, of Keelins Lawyers puts it this way:
"The problem is that the people responsible for risk management in most organisations are never provided with sufficient information about what is actually happening within their organisation to be able to properly identify, analyse or evaluate the risks. This is usually due to a combination of a poor reporting culture and the absence of an efficient reporting and data management system. Despite not having the information available to fulfil their roles properly, it is people with authority within organisations that are legally liable if the risks are not managed effectively. For this reason, it is very important from a legal perspective that an efficient reporting and data management system be implemented, and that a strong reporting culture be built around it. The days of people in positions of authority burying their heads in the sand and ignoring incidents of which they should be aware are over. People in positions of authority are increasingly being held strictly liable for incidents that they should have known about or should have done something about. In this regard, proper record keeping and risk management systems are essential."
Especially when it comes down to ‘my word against your word’ scenarios, we need to establish a single system which can encapsulate each input, as they happen, chronologically, and in a manner that cannot be manipulated or questioned at a later date. There can be no doubt when and where an issue occurred, what it was, and how and when it was resolved and by whom.
The system does not have to blacklist anyone immediately. Yet it is visible and meaningful to all and can be called upon to identify, define and resolve issues before they become problems. If, in the worst case, an issue does escalate, the MAP system can act to contain it, put it into perspective and provide a legal safeguard to second and third party accusations and litigation.
Whether dealing with staff, students, maintenance of equipment, angry clients or parents, safety or procedures, such a system has a huge merit.
The system can be used dealing with parent issues, or organising a concert or camp. But it is in regard to critical issues such as bullying, perceived abuse or in the areas of safety that such a system can prove invaluable - during an issue, in resolving the issue, and then later to keep the issue resolved and for legal recourse.
What constitutes a MAP system?
A MAP based Risk Management System is a type of process, combining local procedures with an electronic application, specifically designed to assist supervisors and coordinators track and deal with issues, particularly critical issues.
A MAP system differs from other record keeping systems in the following ways:
- Validation of information
Records must be beyond question. Evidence is serious only if it cannot be tampered with and its source can be established. This means that a MAP Risk Management System must:
- Provide information regarding the person adding a record, the date and time of the addition
- Records should not be able to be deleted or altered. A correction to a record should be by entering another record
- Information must be locked in sequence. This prevents questions arising of sequence of events or addition of misleading or erroneous dates
- Sign off should be possible, preferably via voice records linked to the issues. This means that, as is now becoming common, audio recording of voices can replace hand written signatures. Such signatures can then be stored alongside the relevant information in the MAP system
Validation of information means that the MAP system functions somewhat like a flight recorder.
Again, Jeremy Feiglin, of Keelins Lawyers:
"A document that is easily editable by anyone without any controls is of dubious evidence as to its contents. Conversely, database records that are "locked off" after their creation, "signed" by their author, date stamped, verifiable, sequentially numbered and un-editable provide very strong evidence of their contents.
For this reason, a system like MAP would provide very strong evidence for any investigation or litigation surrounding any incidents."
Open process / transparency
Records need to be accessible to all affected parties. Without open process there will always be issues of disclosure.
Records should be accessible and addable from several locations via authorised supervisors/coordinators. Questions regarding lack of disclosure or open process can be equally harmful to those concerned and lead to legal and media ramifications
Privacy
Information within the system must not be available to everybody. Information must be available only to those specifically charged with this privilege, within the confines of existing procedures.
Centralisation
Information must be in one agreed spot (eg a Server) to avoid questions of completeness
A MAP system does not need to retain every email, letter or conversation that has occurred. It is an agreed, validated repository of summaries of actions, resolutions, in chronological order. Ideally a MAP system will also link to the appropriate documents, notes and procedures relating to an issue.
Qualitative and quantitative data
Storing quantitative information means action can be taken if, for example, an individual is late or sick more than a specific number of times
Linking to procedures
A MAP system should be able to link a user to the appropriate procedures. Ideally it can provide procedure templates directly into it’s own text that can form part of the documentation, which can then be ‘ticked off’ and signed.
It is important to note that a MAP Risk Management System is not like a reporting or student management system in school, or like medical records at a hospital or care centre.
How a MAP Risk Management System works
Consider the following case study:
Recently at a childcare centre that has been in business for over 20 years, an employee casually mentioned to the 2 IC that they were having problems lifting a particular child. This was causing them considerable back pain that was starting to effect their job and causing them problems at home (not sleeping etc).
The 2 IC listened but did nothing - she felt that the employee was being annoying or lazy. It was not until she casually remarked about it in general conversation a week later with the managing director and project manager that she was made aware of a grave error in her approach and response to such a situation. They started MAP (Managers Assistant Process) immediately.
The system helped them define the risk, plan for the worst case scenario, log the whole process and analyse the response, the result, the errors and the corrective procedures that were put into place to solve them. It allowed the 2 IC to see that it was unacceptable to not report all that is brought to her attention and allowed her to see that mistakes are not the end of the world as long as she dealt with them.
The child care centre followed through and used MAP everyday to ensure this issue was continuously handled; adding to this they found an area lacking in the organisation and followed through with case study at their next staff meeting.
RESULT
MAP allowed for an employee who was alleviated of pain and better handling techniques, a 2IC who is better versed in recording accurately so as to minimise risk for herself the employee and the organisation. A whole version of the situation that will satisfy work cover, Unions, litigation (if there was to be any now or in the future) and a better run business with a healthy and better work environment for all.
FAQ
Do individuals and organisations leave themselves open by recording information?
There are some that believe it expedient to not record, hide or shred elements of information that might prove damaging. However this can, and often does, end up in disaster since invariably others are party to all or some of the information you may be trying to hide. Accusations of cover up or lack of transparency are likely to follow which can be more damning then the original information. The very fact that one has no records when one should, or the question of why records may have gone missing, or why nothing was done and therefore there are no records will land one in hot stew indeed.
To make matters worse, lack of your own records simply means that others can produce their own versions of events, to which you have no answer or recourse. Not only is one at the mercy of others, but one loses their ability to protect one’s self, one’s staff, students and organisation.
The MAP risk management approach offers peace of mind for students, teachers and parents.
But we already have a system?
Most establishments have procedures and paperwork in place to handle issues such a bullying once an issue becomes a problem. Many supervisors and coordinators don’t wish to blacken a staff member’s or student’s record by using these formal systems. Unfortuately this means that rather than helping the issue, current situations usually aggravate it by leaving things go. Above all, they do not help in preventing issues from becoming problems, in resolving issues and keeping them resolved or in protecting the individuals concerned.
How would a MAP system empower an individual in their position?
A MAP based Risk Management System gives one the teeth to deal with difficult issues or people, rather than feeling helpless within a system.
Once individuals realise that their behaviours or actions are being tracked and taken seriously, there is every reason for them to back off or not to cause trouble in the first place. It is akin to having your name taken down by the police for speeding, but not receiving a fine…yet!
If for some reason individuals choose not to back off, one may choose to act to resolve the issue with the people involved and document that resolution. Following this, it will be difficult to lay blame for inaction if the issue reoccurs later, although it is far less likely to reoccur if the other parties’ issues have been ‘nipped in the bud’.
Finally, if nothing can be resolved and things escalate to an ‘official problem’, one has the necessary information to deal with this as well.
In Summary
Management Assistant Process or MAP can provide A. the legal requirement and B. most importantly provides us a system that satisfies all the processes we are immediately involved with.
The ultimate gain is minimisation and resolution of issues, including critical ones, and ultimately, peace of mind and peace of business for teachers, students, parents, supervisors and coordinators.
About the Author
Alex Kudrasev is manager of Art-Technology-Australia
Art-Technology-Australia is a software development enterprise specialising in business processes and the MAP approach.
Keelins is a commercial law firm who work to help businesses operate more effectively.