QSL for received traffic...
Bob Koonce
Helping oil and gas leaders reduce major process safety incidents and improve operational performance using proven lessons from the US Nuclear Navy. Founder & President at High Reliability Group LLC | Keynote Speaker
I don't know what qualifies as a "rant" but this may be a borderline rant article so if you are turned off by such rants, stop...reading...now.
A submarine at sea beneath the waves at any significant depth is out of communications. Electromagnetic waves do not travel below the salty seawater waves very far for physics reasons that are beyond the scope of this article and because I haven't studied it for decades so wouldn't do it justice anyway. Something to do with refraction, reflection, wave particle theory, blah, blah, blah. Just suffice it to say you can't get a radio wave to travel very deep unless it is very low frequency with a long wavelength and low data rate. None of that is important.
What is important is that when a submarine is at sea and goes deep it is out of reach of shore side communications for a period of time. I don't know what they do now, but for decades in the US submarine Navy the shore side support would send a periodic "broadcast" of messages. Now imagine you are on shore trying to coordinate operations with a submarine. You want it to go "here" and not go "there" at this time and not that time and "oh by the way, here is some new intelligence information that might get you killed..." minor stuff like that.
So you can see, it is important for you on shore to know that the submarine received your message. But, how do you know that they received it unless they tell you (or they do what you told them they shouldn't and you read about it in the newspaper...that's probably not the best way to find out.)
So what did we do? Of course, we required the submarine to "acknowledge receipt" of all messages. For some reason that I don't know but could research but instead will wait for a submariner to comment on, we called this "QSL" for received traffic. I am guessing back in the days when data rates were slow, QSL was code for "hey, Bob, I got your message. See you soon. xoxoxoxo. emoji, emoji" (okay, maybe no emoji's in pre 1990's submarine communications. Today, who knows?)
So at HRG we run a virtual office concept with the team spread out over all time zones in the United States. We use all the current tools of collaboration like Slack, Teams, email, texting, even that new one called dialing your friend's phone number - try it. It's fun. But one thing I have noticed is that we all can't help ourselves but to "QSL for received traffic". It doesn't really matter what the communications are, the HRG recipient will always QSL. It's part of our culture. It's in our submarine DNA. Some guys who spent a really long time in the Navy and are still in therapy, actually do send a 3 letter code: QSL. I laugh when I get that, but it's fun. I know what they mean and most importantly I know they received my comms. And here is the rant...
We have a client. A very good client. We like them a lot. They like us. We are helping them. They like the help we are providing. It's all good. But, they don't QSL for received traffic! I send a very important report (at least I think it is...maybe that's the problem, emoji, emoji, hashtag). I just sent a report on an operational assessment we have done. There are follow ups and fixes needed and we have to line up resources to support that work. They need to schedule time for that work. There is coordination needed for the next step. But we send our report via email and...you guessed it...crickets.
So now I say to myself: "Self, did you send it correctly? Did you send it to the right person? (check that). Is that person dead from the CoronaVirus? Should I have sent it to everyone in a huge email blast that are so wonderful to fill everyone's inbox? Should I call them to tell them I sent an email like my mother used to do to me in 1997? So I wait. I think, surely they will send me a "got it, thanks". But they don't.
A day goes by. Two days. Three days. Okay, I can't take it any more. I call and get voicemail. "Hello Bill, I am just calling to see if you got our report via email last Tuesday". Within an hour I get an email. "Bob, got it. Will review and email you Monday"
Was that so hard? Couldn't you have just QSL'd like that when you got it. That literally took you 30 seconds. Yes, I know this seems petty when I write it here on Linked In. My therapists says it is my way of releasing negative energy. Thank you for receiving it. Please QSL.
Bob Koonce served for over 20 years in the U.S. Submarine Force and retired from active duty in 2011 after commanding USS KEY WEST (SSN 722), a nuclear submarine based in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Bob frequently speaks and writes on Operational Excellence and High Reliability Organizations based on the leadership and culture of the U.S. Nuclear Navy. He is co-author of Extreme Operational Excellence: Applying the US Nuclear Submarine Culture to Your Organization available here. You can learn more about High Reliability Group by visiting www.highrelgroup.com.
Retired ACINT Rider
4yMy wife gets upset sometimes when I repeat back what she says to me. Old habits die hard.
Electromagnetic Environmental Effects, NASA MSFC
4yQSL!
Director at Envisioneering
4yQSL. Funny but true. There are people in my life that get the “read receipt” applied to all traffic!
Business Owner Down Town Escape Rooms, LLC; Shift Supervisor at Rayburn Energy Station
4yIf I recall, a former Eng we know named Matt DiGeronimo once said something along these lines, but the question was it message received and requires feedback, or just an okay I got it? He advocated for the use of a "." in a response to just let the sender know they got it, and that no further input was required at that moment. But you do bring up a valid point of sometimes you are inundated with incoming emails and various means of messages. Just think of how many ways we have to communicate now days, emails, social media, text messages. Senses overloaded sometimes. But your message has gone out and I will hit the like button to let you know it was received by others.
Senior Multi-Disciplinary Engineer | Senior SW Product Owner | SME: Materials, R&D | Nuclear Energy | Founder: Leadership Development & Executive Coaching
4yGood article. As a submariner who has been in manufacturing/industrial environments for most of the last 15 years... I can definitely relate. Two things I’ve noticed. Almost anyone WITH a work email, has a flooded work email. The standard CIVLANT-CIVPAC protocol for email 1) answer your boss or boss’s boss 2) answer anything you know you’re responsible to answer 3) ignore the rest until someone says something You can modify 1,2, & 3 above to suit your own specific work culture, but it’s mostly going to be a variation on that theme. It is a failure to communicate, but not so much in failed receipt acknowledgements... rather in establishment of the expected protocol up front. If there is a communication in writing before the first rep is sent, and it is agreed upon, that all reports go to x distribution and y individual(s) is/are responsible to acknowledge receipt... you now have a path to resolve the issue even if it starts with the first report. Just a thought.