Risk Management Planning
So why was the last option #4 plausible?
With at least fifty failed tunnel attempts in a thirty-month time frame the risk
was high, resources were high, but the return was potentially also very high.
Getting 250 POWs out would cause tremendous havoc for the enemy, and in some
ways the lesser of evils. It would provide the greater ROI of the four escape
types. There were many benefits especially with keeping a lot of POWs occupied,
and raising their morale.
This was critical for #4, as there were many
risks to the project many not obvious from the outset. Failure to manage these
risks would shut the project down. These risks included discovery of the escape
plot, dangerous work in the project, and the escape itself. The intricacies of
these risks had to be identified and managed through carefully thought-out management
plans. For Roger Bushell, discovery of the escape plot was the trickiest issue
and for this he set up the Intelligence Branch to provide layers of security.
Risk Identification
This process reviews previous projects and metrics to provide a starting point
for identification of risk. In the camp this was based on keeping track of metrics
related to escape attempts and going through a postmortem after each attempt,
regardless of whether it failed or was successful.
The first area of risk was escape plot discovery with the tunnels. The shorter
the timeline, the less likely it was that the escape plot would be discovered.
The principal risk for the escape committee lay in the detection of the escape
project through:
- Traces of the tunnel exposed or poorly hidden
- Nosy Ferrets[4] uncovering something
The second area of risk involved the dangers of tunnel engineering, see Figure 5.
This was hazardous work where men would risk their lives due to potential risks
in:
- Tunnel construction and collapse - Stalag Luft III was deliberately situated
in a pine forest, and built on sandy soil. Any tunnel required bracing throughout
to prevent collapse.
- Accumulation of bad air in tunnels - in a tunnel with a relatively small dimension
(2 x 2 feet over a 330 feet/100 m), the static air would
steadily accumulate an excess of carbon dioxide.
Figure 5: Bracing around the Tunnel Shaft[5]
The third area of risk involved the escape itself with:
- Getting through the tunnel and out - the small tunnel dimension posed the
risk of collapse.
- Life on the outside on the run - being able to survive on the outside for
days, weeks and months had all sort of challenges.
Bushell and the escape committee were very aware of risk and incorporated its
management in almost all the activities they undertook. With the major risks identified
we can examine their approach to Risk Analysis, and Risk Response Planning.
4. Specially
trained Axis intelligence officers who would look for suspicious activities related
to a planned escape.
5. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Air Force Academy Library's Special
Collections.
|
Introduction
to Part 2
