As part of our Crisis management role at www.caminusconsulting.com, I have recently written articles on crisis management. Here’s a very brief introduction, but I will delve into what goes wrong and how we can utilise a system in a decentralised and remote way in the next couple of articles.

In December 2005, tensions on Sydney’s southern beaches exploded into one of the most widely publicised racially charged riots in Australian history.

As a legal officer attached to the police command centre, I had a front-row seat to how NSW Police and the rest of the government responded — and how the early form of ICCS helped.

Despite not having ICCS+ in its current structure, the elements were present: commanders utilising functional roles, sharing intelligence in near real-time, and building an operational picture under enormous public and media pressure.

The situation escalated quickly, marked by retaliatory attacks, public transportation disruptions, and waves of misinformation. However, what helped hold the response together was its structure.

We weren’t guessing. We had a system.

It wasn’t perfect, but it worked. Because when everyone understands who’s responsible for what, pressure doesn’t fracture the team. It binds it.
This was my first real exposure to the power of a unified command system in practice. It provided us with a common language, a rhythm for decision-making, and a way to integrate legal, operational, intelligence, and media teams.

Looking back now — especially after having worked with ICCS+ in its full modern form — I realise this was the origin point for how I came to lead under pressure. It taught me that systems don’t replace leadership, but they support it when it matters most. The ICCS+ can be found here (And I recommend it for anyone in a crisis management role, or who might be…) https://lnkd.in/giFmaaKp, but I will go through it in detail over the next few articles/