In
terms of past honesty and transparency about accidents, the three include the best (NPA), but also
the worst (HALO). I suspect that the Damned (GICHD) has not told the donor that
it has done this before – TWICE – and failed to gather any useful data (or share
it). I very much doubt that they have told the donor that a useful bit of
software already exists – one that deliberately uses the Microsoft Access
database engine so that sharing it and its updates should be low-cost and easy.
Instead the Damned have decided that an entirely new and bespoke database engine
must be made so that use of the software can be restricted and that they will
have complete control of its maintenance and use. Being secure and restricted
sounds reasonable? Not when we know how they have done things in the
past.
First there was my (always anonymous)
Database of Demining Accidents and Incidents started with help from Col Z and US
ARMY CECOM NVESD (as was) – which provided evidence that was so useful when
drafting the original IMAS that both UNMAS and GICHD wanted on board. They gave
letters in support of my data gathering and arranged some UK money to improve
the software (I knew what was needed, but could not afford it) and so the GICHD
Database of Demining AccidentS was born.

Yes, the ‘DDAS’ is not a real acronym, but
the GiHAD has never been good at those. GICHD was supposed to gather accident data
for me to add while I designed and managed the software rewrite. I was obliged
by contract NOT to gather reports myself. My ‘flat’ database had to become
several databases inside each other to simplify both data entry and searching
(this is known as a ‘relational’ database). At my insistence, the database was
distributed freely on CD. Data from it was never used to embarrass the demining
agencies because I had designed it to avoid that possibility. It was requested
by INGOs and widely distributed amongst field people at the time. I bug-fixed
several software iterations and got it working well – but GICHD failed to gather
a single accident report over more than two years – during which there had been
many accidents.
Their failure to gather accident data
embarrassed those who were nominally managing me (it was all a bit ‘Ugly’), so
they made no objection when I started gathering the data again myself (still
with letters of support). The IPR for the software was always shared by me and
the developer, and could be used freely. The software engineer offered to sell
GICHD the coding (which was a simple front-end to the latest Microsoft ACCESS
database) but they declined. I continued to gather data and use the database to
inform IMAS revisions for another five years – always answering questions in
detail (with the evidence) and making the data freely available to the industry.
I even put a much used version on-line. It was successful and influential, so
someone at GICHD decided that it was time they took it back. With no money, they
used an in-house ‘talent’ to make a spreadsheet with nonsensical drop-down
choices that would reduce a 4000 word accident report to a few inaccurate
phrases. The thinking seems to have been to make it RAPID and very easy for MACs
to report an accident, so meaning that they would do all the work for GICHD.
They could give its upkeep to an intern and claim ‘job done’. Rubbish in,
rubbish out, of course. And soon the MACs stopped sending these silly summaries
because they could not find a box to tick (and got nothing back) so GICHD’s
approach was a complete failure.
When announcing the release of their RAPID
spreadsheet, UNMAS and GICHD told MACs to stop sending me their accident reports
– and most obeyed. So now, no one was gathering the real data. I kept going –
albeit erratically because I had to earn a living – and kept asking GICHD to
take over the real database. They kept on asking me for data from it, but had no
interest in taking it over. Two years ago James Madison University (JMU) renamed
it the Accident and Incident Database (AID) and hosted it in their data
repository – well done JMU. It has been extensively used over the last ten years
(including by GICHD). Even this year, I have been to give working copies
containing their data to Lebanon and Kosovo (to allow the ‘evidence based’ risk
management that is required in the IMAS).
But now it seems that some poor donor has
been duped into starting the whole process again. With years of development
delay, they will let those organisations with most to conceal decide what data
is gathered and what lessons are learned – all supervised by a bureaucracy that
has repeatedly proven itself incompetent in gathering and using this data. Yes,
I know that GICHD has become a finishing school for ex-Ugly Saints who, by
definition, always start by knowing all they need to know. True, I can also come
over as arrogance personified myself, but I cannot help observing that favouring
semi-articulate, half educated macho arrogance (male or female) has always been
Geneva’s problem. Yes of course that’s a problem in UNMAS too and Agnes was a
disappointment to those who thought she might bring real improvements. I am told
that she has resigned this week – so maybe her replacement will bring a breath
of fresh air? (It’s the ‘ban bunny ‘in me that cannot help having these little
surges of illogical optimism.)
Hey, I know this is partly personal. I have
dared to criticise the self acclaimed UNMAS and GICHD experts and they cannot
answer me, so have declared me persona non grata. Do I obstruct the path to
their food trough perhaps?. Fine. The real accident database is now with JMU.
Support it. Give them data. Let really independent people assess and analyse it
to produce coldly self-critical lessons learned. Improve the gathering and
analysis systems constantly – and let the industry start to manage risk based on
the real evidence. Job done. But please, no more jobs for the boys in the
mountains who have had their chance at least twice. Send accident reports to bowe...@jmu.edu.
You thought I had retired? Yeah well. Anyone
wanting to talk – go to the Croatia Symposium thing in September. Anyone wanting
to thump me – er, why not try using words instead? It really is time that
UNMAS/GICHD grew up, stopped pretending that the team must be defended at all
costs, encouraged self-criticism, and tried to answer me with the honesty and
transparency of the Quality Management approach to continuous improvement that
is (ironically) required in the IMAS they have the hypocrisy to impose on
national MACs and NGOs.
Regards,
Andy
www.nolandmines.com www.ddasonline.com