What is Conservative Decision-Making?

Admiral Hyman George Rickover (1900-1986) served more than 60 years of active military duty in the U.S. Navy – longer than anyone in our history. He is known as the Father of the Nuclear Navy. For 34 years, he led the organization that developed the pressurized water reactor technology that propels our nuclear Navy and provides about 14 percent of U.S. electricity (boiling water reactors provide an additional 6 percent, approximately).

Admiral Rickover’s approach to the never-ending leadership challenges was to create an organization composed of professionals. As a leader, he only had to “manage” the standards used in decision-making by the individuals rather than each decision. Rickover shaped the culture of his organization, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, by fostering excellence, professionalism, and conservative decision-making.

But what is conservative decision-making?

When safety is unclear for a particular action or work phase, front-line workers, their supervisors, and managers MUST DEFER TO SAFETY, NOT PRODUCTION. They should use a conservative approach whenever there is any conflict between safety and production. 

However, because of the complexity of operations (it’s challenging to know all there is to know), CONSERVATIVE DECISION-MAKING REQUIRES JUDGMENT UNDER UNCERTAINTY, AMBIGUITY, AND, USUALLY, TIME PRESSURE.

Conservative decision-making in an emergency situation requires a STRUCTURED, forward-looking thought process to identify and establish a safe and reliable system configuration, especially for situations with no apparent procedure. To aid one’s “thinking” in response to such uncertain, time pressured situations, a pre-determined, structured protocol is necessary to promote conservative decisions.

CAUTION: The less time available to make an informed decision, the more readily one should default toward safety without regard to production goals.

1. Goal. Identify the desired safety state of the asset(s) in question (pinpoint critical parameter(s)).
2. Reality. Recognize the current safety state of the asset (critical parameters) and its threats (existence of pathways).
3. Analyze. Determine the difference between the goal and current states (define the safety problem). Develop options to restore the asset to the goal safety state. Understand the costs, benefits, and risks of each option.
4. Decide. Choose and execute a course of action that will achieve the desired safety state. Decide who will do what by when. Identify key indicator(s) of the asset’s goal safety state (critical parameters).
5. Evaluate. Monitor changes in the asset’s critical parameters to verify recovery to a safe state. Review the effectiveness of the decision in achieving the goal safety state.