Certified: The GIAC GSTRT Audio Course

In this episode, we focus on what separates a procedure that looks good in a document from a procedure that actually works at two in the morning when systems are unstable and people are tired. Procedures are supposed to reduce variance and prevent mistakes, but poorly designed procedures often do the opposite by creating false confidence and forcing operators to improvise under pressure. Real operational environments have interruptions, missing information, partial outages, competing priorities, and tools that do not behave perfectly. A procedure that survives those realities is one that makes starting conditions explicit, assigns roles and decision points clearly, and includes safety checks and rollback paths that acknowledge failure as a normal possibility. When you build procedures this way, you reduce tribal knowledge, you reduce dependence on a few experts, and you increase recovery speed when something goes wrong. The goal is not paperwork, it is repeatable execution that can be trusted when the environment is chaotic.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

Every usable procedure begins with a clear trigger, clear prerequisites, and a required starting state. The trigger answers why the procedure is being initiated and what event or condition justifies it, such as a scheduled maintenance window, a critical vulnerability threshold, a failed health check, or a change request approval. Prerequisites are what must be in place before the first step starts, including required access, required tools, required approvals, and required communications. The required starting state is what the environment must look like at the moment you begin, such as current service health, backup status, monitoring readiness, and whether a maintenance window has been announced. Without these elements, operators waste time diagnosing whether the procedure even applies, and they may start execution in an unsafe state. Starting state clarity also reduces blame because it separates a failed procedure from a procedure run in the wrong conditions. When you make triggers and prerequisites explicit, you turn procedures into decision tools, not just task lists. That is one of the most important shifts for operational realism.

Triggers also help you prevent procedure misuse, which is a common source of incidents. When triggers are vague, people run procedures because they feel like it, not because the conditions warrant them, and that leads to unnecessary disruption. A strong trigger includes thresholds and clear conditions, so the operator can verify that the procedure should be used. Prerequisites should also include what to do when a prerequisite is missing, because missing prerequisites are normal in real operations. If access is unavailable, if an approval cannot be obtained quickly, or if monitoring is degraded, the procedure should direct the operator to pause and escalate rather than improvise. Starting state should include any required stabilization steps, such as confirming the system is not already in a degraded mode, or verifying that backup jobs completed successfully. The point is to reduce ambiguity at the beginning, because ambiguity early multiplies risk later. A procedure that starts cleanly is far more likely to end cleanly.

Roles, responsibilities, and decision checkpoints are the next layer of realism, because operational tasks are rarely executed by a single person in isolation. Roles answer who is responsible for running the procedure, who is responsible for validating outputs, who is responsible for communicating status, and who has the authority to approve continuations or aborts. Responsibilities are not the same as tasks, they are accountability assignments that clarify who owns each part of the outcome. Decision checkpoints are specific moments where execution should pause and someone must verify state before continuing, such as after a backup completes, after a service is drained, after a patch is applied, or after a health check returns. Checkpoints are essential because they create a disciplined rhythm of verify then proceed, which is how you prevent small issues from cascading. When roles and checkpoints are missing, the procedure becomes a stream of steps that can be followed blindly, and blind execution is dangerous. Clear roles and checkpoints turn the procedure into a controlled operation rather than a hopeful sequence.

Procedures that work in practice also define inputs, steps, outputs, and success criteria in a way that operators can verify without guessing. Inputs include the change request, the target systems, the version or configuration being applied, and any reference data that must be correct, such as approved artifacts or maintenance windows. Steps should be described in a way that reflects what operators actually see and do, without hiding critical transitions behind vague phrasing. Outputs include the observable results at each checkpoint, such as confirmation that a service restarted cleanly, that error rates returned to baseline, or that a verification test passed. Success criteria define what it means for the procedure to be complete, not just that all steps were executed, but that the system is stable and the expected state is achieved. This distinction matters because it is possible to complete steps and still fail the objective, such as applying a patch but leaving monitoring broken or leaving performance degraded. When success criteria are explicit, operators can make safer decisions under time pressure. They also give leaders a way to evaluate procedure quality through outcomes rather than through compliance.

Safety checks, rollbacks, and contingency paths are non-negotiable if you want a procedure that survives pressure. Safety checks are points where you verify that you are not about to make the situation worse, such as confirming backups are current, confirming you have a rollback path, confirming the change window is still valid, or confirming that critical dependencies are healthy. Rollbacks must be described as first-class paths, not as an afterthought, because in real operations you will eventually need them. A rollback path should include what triggers rollback, what steps to reverse the change, and what verification proves rollback succeeded. Contingency paths cover what to do when the normal sequence cannot proceed, such as when a system does not return to healthy state after restart or when a dependency service is down. This is where many procedures fail, because they assume everything will behave normally, and normal is not guaranteed. Including these paths increases confidence, because operators know the procedure anticipates failure and provides a safe exit. That confidence reduces panic, and reduced panic reduces mistakes.

Timeboxing steps adds operational realism because time is part of risk, and long-running steps create windows of exposure. When a procedure captures average duration, it helps operators plan and helps leaders decide whether the operation can fit within a maintenance window. Timeboxing also supports early detection of trouble, because if a step normally takes five minutes and it has taken fifteen, something has changed and the procedure should guide a pause and investigation. Dependencies should be captured alongside timing, because many delays are not due to the operator, they are due to waiting on approvals, waiting on tool availability, waiting on system responses, or waiting on coordination with other teams. If you do not acknowledge dependencies, the procedure will be blamed for delays and operators will invent shortcuts to meet unrealistic timelines. Timeboxing also supports communication, because status updates are more accurate when you know what should happen and how long it typically takes. A realistic procedure is one that treats time as a constraint to manage, not as a detail to ignore. This improves both safety and predictability.

A concrete example is a patching procedure that includes approval, backups, and rollback verification, because patching is a routine task with high downside when done poorly. A realistic patching procedure begins with a trigger, such as a scheduled update cycle or a risk-based requirement for a critical vulnerability, and then defines prerequisites like change approval, maintenance window confirmation, and verified backups. Roles might include the operator applying patches, a peer validating health checks, and a decision authority who can approve continuation if unexpected issues appear. Steps would include pre-checks, draining or isolating affected services, applying the patch, restarting services, and running validation tests that confirm both functionality and monitoring. Safety checks would confirm backup integrity and confirm that rollback is feasible before the patch is applied. Rollback verification would be explicit, describing how to restore the prior state and how to confirm the system is stable afterward. Timeboxing would capture how long each phase usually takes and what external dependencies might cause delay. This structure makes patching feel less like a gamble and more like controlled change execution.

The most damaging pitfall is when tribal knowledge replaces documented, tested steps, because tribal knowledge is fragile and it disappears when people leave or when stress degrades memory. In many organizations, procedures exist, but they are outdated, incomplete, or written by someone who does not actually execute the work. Operators then rely on personal notes, chat history, or memory, and that reliance increases variance and increases risk. Tribal knowledge also creates inequity, because a few people become gatekeepers, and the organization becomes dependent on their availability. During incidents, tribal knowledge becomes especially dangerous because people are operating under cognitive load, and they may skip steps, misremember sequences, or forget critical checks. Documented and tested procedures reduce that dependence by making the steps visible and repeatable. Testing is essential, because a procedure that has never been exercised in a realistic environment is an assumption, not a control. The goal is to turn operational knowledge into institutional capability.

A quick win that improves procedure realism fast is shadowing frontline staff, because people doing the work can reveal gaps that authors never see. Shadowing means observing the actual workflow, including tool friction, missing data, and the informal decision points people use when the situation is ambiguous. It also reveals where procedures are too optimistic, such as assuming a system is always reachable or that approvals are always available. When you shadow, you can capture the real sequence that operators follow, then reconcile it with the intended safe sequence. This helps you simplify steps, clarify wording, and add checkpoints where people naturally pause and verify. It also builds trust because operators see that the procedure is being designed around their reality rather than imposed from above. A procedure that reflects real work reduces resistance because it feels like support, not oversight. The fastest way to improve a procedure is to learn from the people who live inside it.

A realistic scenario is a vendor outage that forces emergency change execution, because emergency work compresses time and increases risk. In that situation, normal prerequisites may not be fully available, and the procedure must guide how to act safely within the emergency context. The trigger is clear, a vendor outage is causing service impact, and action is required to restore availability or mitigate further harm. The procedure should direct the team to confirm starting state quickly, such as current impact, scope of affected services, and whether any changes are already in progress. It should also define decision checkpoints that prevent uncontrolled changes, such as confirming that a proposed mitigation has a rollback path and that monitoring is sufficient to detect harm. Roles become even more important because communication and coordination can fail under stress, so the procedure should assign who communicates externally, who executes changes, and who approves risky steps. Contingency paths matter because emergency changes often encounter unexpected issues, such as partial recoveries or degraded dependencies. When procedures anticipate emergency realities, teams can act quickly without becoming reckless.

A useful practice to test whether a procedure is truly usable is to narrate it slowly, stepwise, aloud. When you narrate a procedure, you will hear where the language becomes vague, where steps jump without explaining the transition, and where prerequisites are assumed rather than stated. You will also notice where decision checkpoints are missing, because the narration will feel like it is pushing forward without verification. Narration reveals whether an operator could follow the procedure while tired and distracted, which is exactly when procedures matter most. It also reveals whether the procedure can be used by someone who is competent but not the original author, which is a good standard for operational resilience. As you narrate, pay attention to whether each step has a clear input and a clear expected output, because that is what prevents confusion. This practice is simple, but it is highly effective because it turns the procedure from written text into an executable script in your mind. If it does not sound executable, it probably is not.

Hold a simple memory anchor: triggers, roles, steps, checks, rollback. Triggers ensure the procedure starts for the right reason and in the right context. Roles ensure accountability and coordination, especially when multiple people must act. Steps ensure the work is repeatable and not dependent on memory. Checks ensure that progression is safe and that failures are detected early. Rollback ensures that when something goes wrong, there is a controlled path back to a stable state. If any element is missing, risk increases and the procedure becomes fragile. This anchor also makes procedure reviews faster, because you can scan a draft and immediately see whether it contains the operational scaffolding that real work requires. The anchor is useful because it matches how incidents and changes actually fail, which is usually by starting in the wrong state, unclear ownership, skipped verification, or missing rollback. When you keep these five elements strong, procedures become reliable under pressure.

As a mini-review, procedures that work begin with a clear purpose and a defined trigger, so operators know when to use them and when to stop. They describe prerequisites and required starting state so execution does not begin in an unsafe environment. They define roles and decision checkpoints so accountability is clear and progression is verified rather than assumed. They document inputs, steps, outputs, and success criteria so completion is based on stable state, not on having followed a checklist mechanically. They include safety checks, contingency paths, and rollbacks so failure is anticipated and controlled rather than chaotic. They capture timing and dependencies so planning is realistic and delays are detected early. They avoid tribal knowledge by being tested and refined through observation and feedback. When these elements are present, procedures reduce risk and increase speed simultaneously, which is what day-to-day operations require.

To conclude, pilot a procedure in a realistic setting and adjust the language based on feedback from the people who run it, because operational truth is the only real test. A pilot reveals where steps are unclear, where tools behave differently than expected, and where decision checkpoints need to be strengthened. It also reveals whether the procedure is too long or too fragile for real conditions, and that is valuable information, not a failure. Collect feedback quickly, update the procedure, and then run it again, because repetition is how you turn a draft into a reliable operational asset. Make sure that changes preserve safety checks and rollback paths, even if you simplify other parts, because those are the protections that matter most under pressure. When you treat procedures as living tools rather than static documents, they become part of how the organization stays stable while still moving forward. That is the practical purpose of procedure design, creating repeatable success when reality is messy.