When David and I first discussed Adaptive, we both agreed that it should be flexible and evolving. We have always avoided defining specific tasks and deliverables. This has presented a challenge from the beginning as people have continually asked for greater guidance and direction.

I have intentionally avoided that…until now. While this is not intended to be instructional, I admit that it comes perilously close. Which is why I offer this introduction as a warning: Adaptive is not about following specific methods, seeking conformity or leaning on defined tasks as measures of progress. It is about finding your own way. What I offer here is one, and only one, way of working within this space. Proceed with caution…

Adaptive is all about capability. It starts with what we already know: that capability exists within any organization. Adaptive encourages the preparedness professional to understand and improve upon those capabilities. To put yourself in a better position, you need to have a sense of where you are. In the world of organizational preparedness, this means determining your level of capability. The inevitable question is: How do we do this? Before answering that, we need to take a step back…

What Do We Measure?

Remember that Adaptive is based on Principles and not methods. This means that Adaptive does not define what must be measured. This is a recognition that many factors contribute to response and recovery capability. It is also an acknowledgement of the fact that there is little empirical data to rely on in determining what – out of all the possibilities – should be measured to determine true capability.

Fortunately, some informative data and materials do exist. There is the paper by David Lindstedt, “Measuring Preparedness and Predicting Recoverability”, which covers the RPC Model (Resources, Procedures, Competencies). There is also the historical event that lead to the Rule of LGOPs which I referred to in another piece. From the world of public health, there is a paper which examines 35 studies to identify contributors to community resilience which includes “social capital and networks, local knowledge and learning, effective governance and leadership, preparedness and response capacity, and adaptive infrastructure and resources.”

These provide potential candidates for what to measure. My own approach currently favors four: Strategies, Resources, Competencies and Empowerment. Equally valid cases could be made for adding to these or for measuring an entirely different set of components. I could even see these being broken down into component parts. Resources could easily be replaced with three items: physical devices, IT systems and forms / materials.

This is not meant to complicate things but simply to demonstrate that there is a wide variety of paths one can take. The best solution comes down to a combination of what makes the most sense to the practitioner and what is most applicable to the organization.

How Do We Measure?

Ask people. Perception is reality. Strategies may have been identified and developed but, if the people needed to execute against them are not aware, they may as well not exist. Knowing that resources are available is fundamentally different than asking the people who actually need those resources if they are aware of them and if they are adequate. The people who will need to take action in the event of a loss or disruption are in the best position to understand what they will need and the degree to which it may be needed.

For each component you have chosen to measure (Resources, Capacity, Empowerment, Diversity, etc.) you’ll want to ask: To what degree is this component present, compared to what is needed or ideal? Anyone who could be called upon to respond to or recover from a disastrous event will need to leverage their own skills and knowledge as well as that of others (i.e. competencies). What we’re seeking is people’s assessment of where competencies sit along a spectrum, from having none to having all the expertise that will conceivably be needed. This could be a relatively subjective scale (None, some, most, nearly all, etc.) or something more mathematical (1 – 10 or 0 – 100%). The idea is to get a basic measure: of everything that may be needed, and to what degree it exists or is available.

By What Means Do We Measure?

You’ll want to ask more than one person. Likely, you’ll want to ask a whole host of people. This is where one must balance the depth and quality of replies desired with the volume of people involved. Fortunately, there are many options:

One-on-one discussions
Group discussions
Exercises
Collaboration platforms
Online surveys and survey tools

Individual discussions are going to yield the most detailed results and provide for maximum understanding. However, they’re time consuming and don’t allow for easy analysis across teams and departments. At the other end of the spectrum are one-directional surveys which provide a means to ensure consistent, easily analyzed responses with the ability to query people at scale. But they don’t allow for the richness of response that might come from discussions or the back-and-forth that may be needed to ensure clarity. Variations or a mix of multiple approaches can be applied. An online survey could be followed up with group discussions. Or an exercise activity could be augmented with collaboration tools involving polling questions and individualized chats.

Choose the solutions that best fit your level of expertise while leveraging the culture and tools available within your organization. Understand that knowing what works within a given culture can be challenging. It is also possible that no overlap exists between your expertise and the best fit for the corporate culture. These present great opportunities for experimentation and learning!

Summary

Remember, the Adaptive Principles act as guidelines during every activity. You’re ‘Measuring and Benchmarking’, of course, but there is no reason this work cannot be an opportunity to also ‘Learn the Business’ or ‘Engage at Many Levels within the Organization’. Be willing to take risks and to pivot. This means being cognizant of your results and willing to go back to the drawing board should it be necessary. This is the beauty of Adaptive. It does not direct the professional down a specific path towards a destination so much as it offers up a landscape worth exploring. The mountain views are no better or worse than those from the beach. Only different. And there is no penalty for heading towards the shore once the perspective from the peak has been appreciated.

Stay curious, friends!