HV Incident Debrief, ICAM Training Plans & Leadership Alignment
Electrical Incident Discussion
Location & Context
Incident occurred in the next bay along from where the work team was operating, not in their immediate bay.
Initial confusion: team first thought the problem was in their bay.
No-one was in the direct vicinity at the moment of the event, preventing injury.
Nature of the Event
Classified as high-voltage (HV) rather than low-voltage (LV).
Described with the phrase "the SAG didn’t impact where they were working"—implies either a conductor sag or fault that manifested nearby.
Protection settings (automatic trip / isolation) were hoped to have operated; confirmation still pending.
Emotional Impact
Recognized as a “scary moment” for those involved despite the absence of direct harm.
TasNetworks’ Role
TasNetworks reportedly has early indications of the root cause.
Open question: Have they been proactively sharing information with the organisation to the degree expected?
Immediate Follow-Ups & Waiting Game
Final, formal investigation results still awaited.
Team is withholding judgement until the official documentation arrives.
Implicit reliance on standard fault investigation timelines and HV protection analytics.
ICAM & Learning-Team Training Strategy
Brooke’s Coordination Efforts
Conducted a meeting with Tom on alignment around ICAM (Incident Cause Analysis Method) training.
Apologised for partial unavailability: prioritising data collection on the HV incident.
Training Evolution
Rather than a standard ICAM program, Brooke is:
Partnering with ICAM Australia (Safety Wise did not wish to customise content).
Building hybrid modules that merge:
Core ICAM methodology.
Report-writing essentials.
Learning-Teams facilitation (systems-thinking, collaborative debriefs).
Using internal incidents as live case studies—participants handle real evidence packets, produce draft reports, and collectively debrief outcomes.
Long-Term Capability Build
Idea: Brooke runs the first few learning teams, then the broader MATS team (maths / analysis group) hand-picked facilitators shadow and graduate into leading future sessions.
Goal is to widen critical-thinking skill sets, not just teach root-cause templates.
Leadership Dynamics & Relationship Friction
Key Individuals
Effie – new senior leader brought in for her systematic, accountable style.
Ruth (speaker expressing concern) – experienced in service south, strong client relationships.
Lisa – facilitator, trying to mediate and set next steps.
Red Flags Raised by Ruth
Effie “demands respect because of her title.”
Approach perceived as blunt, risks alienating GMs (General Managers) and frontline partners.
Personal anecdote: Ruth’s early conflict with Brendan—initial hostility resolved only after listening, restructuring, and trust-building.
Brendan once threatened: “If you don’t give me what I want, I’ll stop paying for you.”
Over time, he acknowledged Ruth’s value; demonstrates the power of patience + adaptation.
Service-Model Nuances
The HSE group functions like an internal consultancy:
Direct “client” is the GM cohort rather than individual business units.
Much work is about unblocking system-level constraints (e.g.
procurement, contractor management) above BU level.Successful engagement hinges on understanding each GM’s priorities first.
Meeting-Plan Clash
Effie proposed a firm, recurring meeting cadence with mandatory attendance or delegates.
Ruth’s objections:
Planning without GMs neglects key stakeholders.
Delegation often infeasible in health-services context; substitutes lack decision authority.
Communication style escalated—felt like an edict rather than collaboration.
Reflective Coaching & Next-Step Agreements
Lisa’s Two Key Questions to Ruth
Personal reflection: “What underlying feelings drive your reaction?”
Constructive role: “How can you help Effie succeed in her transition?”
Suggested Behavioural Shifts
Re-frame “That won’t work” ➔ “Here’s what I learned last time and how I can help.”
Seek face-to-face reset meeting—share background, working styles, and personal stories beyond work.
Team Cohesion Imperative
Noted appetite from parts of the HSE team for united solutions on data, learning, and improvement initiatives.
Monday 11 AM slot floated as potential standing forum; flexibility offered if unsuitable.
Exposure & Delegation Philosophy
Sending less-experienced staff as observers can be valuable even if they only “sit there quietly.”
Rotating attendance builds bench strength and broader organisational eyesight.
Commitments & Cadence Resets
Lisa to reset 1-on-1 and team catch-ups on a fortnightly basis (or mutually agreed cadence).
Next Tuesday: strategy workshop with Lisa, Effie, Vanessa, Leonie.
Agenda: FY-planning, People-Survey (Culture Amp) insights, link-up with HR (Lyndal, Mel).
Open Feedback Loop
Lisa repeatedly requests honest upward feedback—“If something isn’t working, tell me.”
Emphasises professional transparency and ‘seek to understand’ mindset across the leadership cohort.
Practical & Philosophical Take-Aways
Systems Over Silos
HV incident illustrates how protection systems (automation) should cover human fallibility.
Same systemic thinking applies to organisational relations—design processes that force collaboration rather than depend on goodwill alone.
Psychological Safety
Early career hostility stories highlight the need for respect earned through listening versus positional authority.
Learning Teams Methodology
A shift from cause-hunting to sense-making—embrace multiple narratives, avoid simplistic blame.
Ethical Dimension
Transparency on HV cause sharing by TasNetworks speaks to ethical duty of care and inter-organisational trust.
Real-World Relevance
Procurement bottlenecks, contractor issues, and business-unit autonomy echo common corporate challenges; lessons transferable well beyond power-services context.