Experience from the emergency handling guide

Many people memorize emergency treatment guidelines as standardized answers, and even expect to solve all problems by following the process. This is a complete misunderstanding. The core function of emergency guide is to draw a clear line and avoid low-level mistakes. The real emergency ability to solve problems is always "keeping the red line of the guide and not stepping on it+giving priority to the highest risk according to the on-site situation", and there is no so-called 100% correct process.

Last autumn, there was a fire in the flue of the dining street on the first floor of my park. I happened to buy coffee downstairs. I saw the administrative Commissioner in charge of the park holding the newly issued Emergency Handling Manual, standing next to the smoke crossing, taking out his mobile phone to take a scene photo and looking for the reporting level. The business owners next to him had sprayed it with fire extinguishers, and she was still struggling "whether to call the property manager first before reporting the fire". In the end, the fire was put out by the merchant, and nothing serious happened. However, after this incident, the park re-conducted three emergency trainings. The first thing was to print "the first priority is to report the fire and control the fire" on the first page of the manual, and all other processes were put behind.

Later, I talked to my friends who are engaged in enterprise emergency management, only to find that there have been two completely different ideas on how to use emergency guidance in the industry, and they have been arguing for several years without a unified conclusion. One school is a real "strict compliance school", especially those who are engaged in high-risk industries such as chemicals and mines. Almost all of them are based on this idea. Their reason is very real: any operation that deviates from the guidelines in high-risk scenarios may lead to irreparable consequences, and once an accident occurs, the process trace is the only exemption basis. Two years ago, there was a fire in the distribution room of a small chemical plant in the south. The security officer on duty was afraid of taking responsibility and breaking the main gate first according to the guide, so he rushed in to put out the fire. Finally, he was seriously injured by electric shock. When the accident was identified, he suffered a big loss because he did not follow the process.

The other school is the "on-site priority school" which is more inclined to the Internet and service industry. It thinks that the guide is that the dead are alive, and all processes should make way for "reducing losses" as long as they don't touch the red line. Just like the common incidents such as data leakage and user complaints escalation in our Internet industry, the negative impact has already spread beyond control after you have finished the process of reporting at different levels. In fact, there is no right or wrong between the two ideas, except that the applicable scenarios are different. I have compiled a comparison table for my own use for your reference:

|----------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------|----------------------------------|

Seriously, I used to be one of those people who memorized the guide, and I didn't change this problem until I met an operation accident the year before last. At that time, our operating colleagues mistakenly sent the activity list with more than 3,000 users' mobile phone numbers to the industry public group with more than 200 people. According to the requirements of the emergency guidelines at that time, it was necessary to report it to the Risk Control Department for grading, and then the legal department issued a statement before withdrawing or other actions could be operated. However, that group message is brushed very quickly, and it will be pushed to the top in 5 minutes at most. No one will see it. If the approval process is completed, someone may have saved the form. I didn't think much at that time. I first found the group owner to dissolve the group temporarily, and then I called the risk control and leadership to make up the process. Finally, nothing happened. The risk control department also added "controlling the scope of communication first" to the later guide.

Don't believe it, when it comes to an emergency, people's brains can't turn so fast at all. Only two or three core red lines can be remembered from a thick guide I memorized before. Therefore, when I turn over the guide now, I never recite those trivial procedures, so I just remember two things: the first is the red line that you must never do anything, and you will be responsible if you touch it; The second is what is the most important thing in this scene. You can put everything back and do the most important thing first.

Of course, I'm not saying that the process is not important. After all, if there is no bottom line drawn by the guide, everyone will do what he thinks when things happen, and there will definitely be a big mess. Just like the last time a colleague handled a user complaint, he promised the user compensation beyond his authority for fear that the situation would expand. In the end, it made a bigger noise, which was stepping on the red line of the guide. To put it bluntly, the emergency guide is like a question bank of the subject of the driver's license test. You have to memorize the traffic regulations first without deducting points. When you are really on the road, you can't drive according to the topic of subject one, right?