Threat Managers: Rethinking risk. This blog is about the management of risk in the outdoor sector, the challenges with risk and a way forward. Here I argue that we need to rethink our notions of risk, explaining the approach of Threat and Error Management (TEM).

Mountain Professionals are well placed to act as “Threat Managers”. We are used to taking a pragmatic approach to the hazards inherent in the mountains. We are used to working in dynamic environments where we use our judgement to balance risk with reward. We do that while existing in a sector which is bombarded with confusing language and terminology. For the most part we are good at working around the complicated descriptions of risk, and body swerving the terminology of corporate health and safety.

Threat and Error Management is not new. Rather than coming from academic research Threat and Error Management was developed by people at the “sharp end” of operations, from the ground up. The concept is still used by pilots as an applied model to help the active management of hazards. The concepts of Threat and Error cut through the noise of risk management speak, to empower people. The aim is one of accepting that threats will exist, errors will occur and situations need to be actively managed to achieve safe outcomes.

“In simple terms it can be defined as thinking ahead in order to predict and avoid errors and operational threats, and manage any that occur.” – Mountain CRM.

Threat Managers: Who am I trying to reach?

In writing this post I am really focusing on those working in the mountains professionally – leaders, instructors and guides. Collectively I have referred to ‘Mountain Professionals’ in attempt to focus on those that deliver activity safely in the mountains. That is not to say that some of my thoughts are not relevant to any other group. But the thrust of this blog is that Mountain Professionals = Threat Managers.

Threat Managers: Why rethink Risk?

Why rethink risk? the simple answer is that I think it is complicated, confusing and subjective. Navigating the concept of risk in our sector is akin to working in a wicked learning environment. Regular visitors to this blog will recall that there is often a definition, and in this case a definition for risk is notably absent. Professor Philip Ebert recently described a committee tasked with finding an umbrella definition for risk. After a lengthy period, they gave up. Their conclusion was simple, risk means different things to different people (Ebert, P., 2024, Risk Communication Seminar).

Our sector is awash with confusing and sometimes conflicting terminology. It starts before we even step onto a mountain. Take the regulatory back drop to activity as an example. Sometimes we are required by law to conduct risk assessments.

In the case of a business or a provider with greater than five employees risk assessment is a requirement. As an individual instructor risk assessments might be required by our insurers, licensing authority or other organisations providing non-statutory accreditation. For the individual, this might all seem like a distant concern, but what about ratios and course planning? The Association of Mountaineering Instructors, Mountain Training and other organisations don’t define ratios. A quick look at the MTUKI National Guidelines or a forum will tell you this is the responsibility of Mountain Professionals, and may be defined by risk assessment.

Then we have dynamic risk assessment. We all understand the concept of dynamic risk assessment in our work. But we might more accurately describe this as “using our judgement”. Perhaps we consider what will cause us harm, we might also consider the mistakes that we can all make. Especially when we are subjected to external pressure.

I am not suggesting for a minute that we don’t need to engage with, and carry out these processes. In many cases they are a requirement. Look at any incident and, in all but the rarest of cases, these processes have been conducted, leaving the outcome appear arbitrary or perhaps totally unexpected.

Threat Managers: Hazard vs Risk

Speak to Mountain Professionals informally and you will often hear confusion, or perhaps even conflation of hazard and risk. I would like to say that this doesn’t matter but many of our systems in the outdoor sector are based around risk as a function of likelihood multiplied by consequence. For example, a quick glance at the SAIS Avalanche Report and you will see references to Avalanche Hazard rather than Avalanche Risk. The reality however, is that those two terms are often used interchangeably in conversation.

The Biggest risk of all?

The biggest risk of all is that we are content in our conversation about risk. There is no doubt that conversations about risk and what it means for us are frequent in our sector. They occur in small groups, conversations around community based practice, continuing professional development and in our training and assessment courses. The biggest risk is that we continue to use the corporate language of health and safety, rather than our own. Just because we have these conversations, does not mean that any workplace is safe.

“The biggest risk is that we continue to use the corporate language of health and safety, rather than our own. Just because we have these conversations does not mean that any workplace is safe.”

Risk will always be present. For Mountain Professionals working in dynamic environments it is easy to think risk is being managed when there is an absence of incidents. In the same way it is easy for providers, managers, chief instructors or heads of centres to hold the belief that safety management systems are working effectively. That may not necessarily be the case.

Threat Managers: Cutting through the noise

Threat and Error Management shifts from identifying risks as a measurable entity, to managing our behaviour in response to problems that we may be faced with. Essentially the approach is one of identifying problems and finding solutions.

It is all too easy to discount small numbers of incidents or brush off minor injury as insignificant. Instead, dealing with threats and errors means that problems don’t need to be high consequence or high likelihood to be on your to do list. This means that small threats and potential errors can be avoided, trapped or mitigated rather than building. We all know in the mountains that incidents are often the culmination of a series of minor problems. For this reason, I argue that Mountain Professionals are well placed to act as Threat Managers. We can continue to develop skills to cut through the noise.

Threat and Error Management

There are three components in the TEM model:

• Threats – What could harm or be a problem for us?
• Errors – What mistakes could we potentially make?
• Narrow Safety Margins – Where are the pinch points that create narrow margins of safety?

 

Threats and errors need to be effectively managed. In practice this means timely detection and response to threats and/or errors that may result in narrow safety margins or an unsafe state.

Threat Managers: A summary

Mountain Professionals = Threat Managers. If you have read this far then you might be acting as a Threat Manager already? In presenting the concept of Threat and Error Management I am suggesting a different way forward. This approach isn’t intended as a competing approach, it is simply a different perspective on the challenges that we face in our work place. You might ask why you should be interested in being a Threat Manager? In response I would suggest that quality is closely linked to safety, and this is just one approach to delivering activity safely in the mountains.

• Threats and Errors aways exist, if we accept this then we have agency over how we manage them.
• We need to actively manage situations, and our behaviour in response to problems.
• Be proactive as much as possible.

If you liked this article you may wish to check out Assured Training or the Threat and Error Management section in Mountain CRM (e-learning). This is publicly available as a preview. Alternatively you may wish to download the Threat and Error Management (TEM) Booklet [Coming soon].

Note: I would like to thank the safety and risk professionals out there who have contributed to my thoughts on these issues. Particularly Professor Philip Ebert and Neil Richardson MRAeS.