Terms of Use and Privacy | What is the problem?
System crisis management in three steps:


In step three of our example of the three steps to system crisis management, we are proposing a way to get to our target from our current situation. Don't just lead with the diagram, as sometimes the graph can be confusing without narrative. While those reviewing should be used to the diagram from step one, the proposal is usually more complicated. Here is the narrative for our proposal:

The president of the railroad will contact Erie Timber Sales, and sign an agreement to provide 4000 tons of timber daily to our Dunkirk lot and 5000 tons to our Buffalo lot for a ten year contract with options to increase. We will take 27 laborers off of Susquehanna and 35 off of Delaware to transport the timber to kilns and then transfer the charcoal to rail cars. The General Superintendent will orchestrate the shipments from there.

For the engine modifications, we plan to take 3 boiler makers and 23 machinists who normally work on the Susquehanna line, and dedicate them to expanding the fireboxes. We are taking 3 copper smiths from Piermont and 10 machinists from Dunkirk to work in the Dunkirk machine shop expanding fireboxes. The Buffalo/Dunkirk, Piermont, and Susquehanna Masters of Engine Repairs Shops will work with the General Superintendent to make sure that all engines are updated. After the each shop has finished repairs, it will confirm with the General Superintendent and release the shop workers back to their original reports.

Here is the dot file of the proposed changes:

digraph {
"DunMachinistsF\n10"->DunShop [color=red]
"DunMachinistsF\n10" [color=red]
"DunMachinists\n48" [color=red]
"SusBoilerMakers\n3" [color=red]
"SusBoilerMakersF\n3"->SusShop [color=red]
"SusBoilerMakersF\n3" [color=red]
"SusMachinists\n43" [color=red]
"SusMachinistsF\n23"->SusShop [color=red]
"SusMachinistsF\n23" [color=red]
"PieCoppersmithsF\n3"->DunShop [color=red]
"PieCoppersmithsF\n3" [color=red]
"PieCoppersmiths\n8" [color=red]
"DelTLaborers\n203" [color=red]
"DelTLaborersF\n35"->BuffaloKiln [color=red]
"DelTLaborersF\n35" [color=red]
"DelTLaborersF\n35"->"BuffaloLot\n5000" [color=red]
"SusTLaborers\n295" [color=red]
"SusTLaborersF\n27"-> DunkirkKiln [color=red]
"SusTLaborersF\n27" [color=red]
"SusTLaborersF\n27"->"DunkirkLot\n4000" [color=red]
GenSup->BuffaloKiln [color=red]
BuffaloKiln [color=red]
GenSup->DunkirkKiln [color=red]
DunkirkKiln [color=red]
ErieTimberSales->President [dir="both" color=red]
SusShop->GenSup [color=red]
DunShop->GenSup [color=red]
SusShop->PieMasterEngrRep [color=red]
SusShop->BufDunMasterEngrRep [color=red]
DunShop->SusMasterEngrRep [color=red]
DunShop->PieMasterEngrRep [color=red]

Here is the diagram:

A core feature of Daniel McCallum's design of the organization diagram, was a way to quickly understand reporting structures. In our example we are changing reporting structures, sometimes significantly, to deal with the crisis. The above diagram shows who to contact directly if something goes wrong. If the kilns are less efficient than expected, and more timber is needed, the diagram shows that the president should be contacted if an immediate adjustment is needed. Similarly, the diagram can help adjust resources quickly. If more labor is needed at the kilns, or a different specialist is needed to modify the fireboxes, the diagram can assist, since it lists available resources. Finally, it is easy to see all changes to the current situation with color. This is something that was not feasible back in the time when a dedicated drafter was needed to generate the diagram, not at the velocity needed to quickly address the crisis.