Examine the dependency before adding more training

In a fictional preparedness case, a business requires employees to perform a complicated manual procedure when a technical system fails. Every system change creates another briefing requirement. Management is already planning the next training session, without examining whether a different workflow could remove this failure-prone dependency.

In our published working paper “Bewertung von organisationaler Krisen-Resilienz anhand des Resilienzrisikoreifegrades” (Rico Kerstan and André Röhl, NBS Northern Business School, No. 1/2025), we present a qualitative approach to assessing risks, resistance and coping capabilities against scenarios. The title concerns assessing organizational crisis resilience through resilience risk maturity. For developing measures, we draw on an occupational-safety hierarchy: substitution, technical and organizational measures, followed by measures addressing people and behavior.

Here, substitution means redesigning the work to remove a condition that creates exposure. I therefore recommend examining the workflow before adding another instruction. Whether training remains necessary also depends on which alternative designs are possible and which requirements they meet.

In the example, the process owner first explains which operating service the manual procedure is meant to sustain. Together with the technical owner, they examine whether another process could provide the same service with less need for manual intervention during an outage. Replacement makes sense only if its prerequisites and possible new hazards are considered. Simply changing a product does not settle that question.

The decision proposal therefore compares two reasoned options: the existing procedure with additional instruction, and a redesigned workflow. It considers required expertise, continuing support effort and remaining restrictions during the selected outage. This comparison does not automatically recommend a purchase.

For the next action planning review, I suggest examining one recurring training requirement this way. Management then decides whether to retain the dependency, modify it technically or replace it through another workflow. If it is retained, the rationale should explicitly include the training effort needed to maintain it.