Last week I posted a YouTube video shortly explaining how care facilities (shelters, warming centers, family assistance centers, etc.) should be positioned within an Incident Command System structure.
© 2014 – Timothy Riecker
Tag Emergency Preparedness Solutions
Emergency Management Grants – Promoting Planning Standards
We know that good emergency plans are the cornerstone of preparedness. Often times it is local governments that have difficulty putting quality plans in place because they don’t have knowledgeable personnel or funds available to make this happen. This gap is critical since we know that all disasters begin and end locally, so quality local plans are an imperative.
States provide financial assistance to local governments through a local allocation of the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), which is an annual grant program through FEMA/DHS as a component of the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). While there is always some variance in the goals or focus of EMPG, the overall concept and allowable costs are fairly static and the emphasis is always on preparedness.
Preparedness, however, encompasses a lot of activities. The best breakdown is POETE – Planning, Organizing, Equipping, Training, and Exercising. Just from this we can see a lot of opportunity to spend money on a lot of needed activities. Planning, however, regularly needs to be revisited. While funding the other activities may be important, they mean very little without a quality, up to date plan. All preparedness activities should relate somehow back to the plan, such as equipment and training efforts to shore up capabilities identified for need through the planning process. This applies to everyone by the way – federal, state, and local governments; private sector; and not for profits.
How can states (or any other grant or budget managers) continue to emphasize the importance of planning? I’ve recently seen a best practice by the State of New Hampshire which is similar to the federal administration of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs. First, they make funds available for, and only for, planning. This includes new plans and plan updates. Once plans have been developed that meet their standards, then additional funds can be requested for supporting preparedness activities. This building block preparedness approach helps provide targeted funds solely for plan improvements while helping to ensure that subsequent funds are provided for activities that associate with the plan and addressing or identifying (by way of exercises) gaps. While it can be a bit cumbersome, I think it’s a great model for promoting preparedness the right way.
Thoughts?
©2014 – Timothy Riecker
Training EOC Personnel – ICS is not Enough!
A consistent misconception is that if an emergency operations plan calls for an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to utilize the Incident Command System (ICS), then EOC personnel only require ICS training to be successful in their jobs. ICS training, however, only gets personnel part way to success.
Regular readers of my blog know that I am a big advocate of conducting needs assessments. Often times, agencies don’t know how to conduct a needs assessment, don’t think it’s important enough to conduct one, don’t think that conducting one is necessary, or simply don’t even consider conducting a needs assessment. The result is creating training or using existing training that does not meet the real needs. Certainly if an EOC is using the foundations of ICS to define its organizational structure and processes, then ICS training is absolutely important. Consider, however, the multitude of other processes that take place in an operational EOC that are not included (in whole or in part) in ICS training. Processes including financial management and procurement, situation reporting, and use of EOC management and resource tracking software are so diverse and can very from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The unique application of Multi-Agency Coordination Systems (MACS), an element of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), just like ICS, by each jurisdiction also has to be considered. While there are numerous best practices in MACS, their interface with ICS – often implemented through an EOC – is influenced significantly by governmental structure, statutory responsibilities, and politics more than can be addressed by any training curriculum. Consider simply the differences between a state EOC, a county EOC, and a local government EOC and their unique roles and needs. For as much standardization NIMS encourages, there will still be different ways of implementing these systems. In the end, the challenge remains the same – how do we train people to function in EOCs?
First, do conduct that needs assessment. What do people have to know and what skills must they have to be successful in an EOC? At this point, I speak foundationally, as additional and more in-depth training can be explored based on position and responsibility. Certainly ICS – with sufficient detail in positions of the organization and the planning process. What else do they need to know? ICS training does not address in detail what an EOC is or does – an important understand for people to have. What processes must they be familiar with? What tools or methodologies does the EOC use that must be trained on? Are there specific organizational elements that require unique interactions with the greater organization (such as emergency support functions <ESFs>)? Look through your jurisdiction’s EOC Standard Operating Procedures/Guidelines (you do have one, right?) to help you identify some of these needs.
Second, identify how to address these training needs. ICS organization and the planning process are covered in the ICS-300 course, so that will meet some of your needs. Unfortunately, since so many of the other needs are unique to your jurisdiction, you will have to build custom training to meet these needs. Yes, FEMA does have available a course called EOC Management and Operations (IS/G – 775). While some material in this course may or may help meet your training needs, chances are the course in its entirety will not. First, it dedicates time discussing ideal facilities for an EOC (not really necessary if you already have such a facility), and second, while it provides an outline for general EOC operations it still won’t address all of your specific needs, although course materials can be used as a resource to inform your instructional design.
Third, build staying power into your training. Much of what is learned is quickly forgotten, especially when people don’t practice it often. There are a few strategies to combat this knowledge loss… 1) offer refresher training, 2) conduct regular exercises, 3) create job aids. ICS is big on job aids – that’s very simply what the ICS forms are. There are a multitude of additional job aids that you can create for your EOC. Practically every position and process can have checklists and flow charts which help remind staff of what they need to do and in what order to do it in.
This can all be a lot of work, but it will pay off next time you have to activate your EOC. Remember, there is always help available. My consulting firm, Emergency Preparedness Solutions, has a great deal of experience working in a variety of EOCs across the country. We have developed plans, procedures, job aids, training, and exercises unique to each EOC. We can help you! Check out our website at www.epsllc.biz or contact us at consultants@epsllc.biz. Be Proactive, Be Prepared!™
© 2014 – Timothy Riecker
Capability Prioritization
The THIRA (Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment) process is the most comprehensive hazard analysis in emergency management and homeland security. It provides more information than the traditional hazard analysis by examining each hazard through the lens of each of the 31 Core Capabilities which have been specifically defined by the stakeholders of the jurisdiction. The end result of the THIRA is a snapshot of the hazards a jurisdiction faces and the identification of what is needed to handle that hazard within each of the five mission areas (Prevention, Protection, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation). It can be a complex process, but well worth the investment of time for a jurisdiction. More, however, can be learned and the THIRA should inform more than just your plans.
For states and UASIs (Urban Area Security Initiative jurisdictions), the process continues in the form of the SPR (State Preparedness Report). The SPR uses the THIRA data and applies a POETE (Planning, Organizing, Equipping, Training, and Exercising) analysis to each capability. The POETE analysis drills deeper into each capability, allowing the jurisdiction to better understand their strengths and weaknesses within each capability. This is extremely valuable information and clearly there are benefits to more than just states and UASIs conducting a POETE analysis. The SPR process also prompts jurisdictions to assign a priority to each capability – High, Medium, or Low. All in all, this provides a depth of data, but what does it all mean?
While the SPR process expands on the THIRA foundation by prompting a more in-depth analysis of each capability, the end result is a multitude of data points. Taken individually, a jurisdiction can examine details of a specific capability, but further analysis needs to be undertaken to see the big picture. Many jurisdictions rate quite a few of the 31 Core Capabilities as a High priority. So what do you focus on? If everything is a priority then nothing is a priority!
In response to this, Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC has developed a proprietary Capability Prioritization which incorporates stakeholder-assigned priorities while also considering the ratings provided in the POETE analysis. The results of the Capability Prioritization provide a relative priority ranking of the Core Capabilities for the jurisdiction which can give the jurisdiction a better view of the overall priorities for continued development of preparedness strategies across the POETE spectrum, policy issues, investment justification, and resource allocation.
Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC is skilled and experienced in conducting THIRAs and POETE Analysis – plus we equip your jurisdiction with usable data and recommendations based on our findings. Contact us today to jumpstart and focus your preparedness efforts. The investment will pay off! Be Proactive, Be Prepared! ™
© 2014 – Timothy Riecker
Deliberate Planning – Strategic Planning and Business Continuity
Many organizations put forth extraordinary effort to develop strategic plans to give concerted organization-wide direction to the organization for the coming 3-5 years. Like many of my readers, I have been part of several strategic planning efforts in different organizations, sometimes helping to lead the way. There is a great deal of value to strategic planning as it helps not only refine the organization’s vision, but also develops objectives to help it get there while (ideally) bringing the entire organization on board – from finance, to HR, to operations, and facilities – everyone is facing in the same direction and striving to accomplish the same goals. Just as strategic planning should not be performed in a vacuum, business continuity planning should not either. Just as strategic planning engaged the whole organization, as should business continuity planning.
If the efforts of strategic planning and business continuity planning have such foundational similarities, why not bring the two together? As the goals of these two efforts are distinctly different we certainly can’t merge the efforts, but the overlaps provide for easily exploitable opportunities within the organization. How?
First, make business continuity and resilience a goal of your strategic plan. What does this do for the organization? Just like the other goals identified in strategic planning, it provides a documented leadership-driven purpose which will engage the whole organization. Every business unit in an organization has a stake in business continuity. Just with other goals within your strategic plan, the specific actions will be identified through objectives – be it a start to your business continuity program or a continuation and improvement thereof. As mentioned in previous posts, business owners and managers put forth a great deal of effort to build and expand their businesses, but we also need plans to stay in business in the event of a disaster.
Second, once the strategic plan is completed, you now have a group of people from across the organization who now hopefully work well together – engage them! Turn your strategic planning committee into your business continuity committee. Good strategic planning provides for someone (ideally the planning group) to monitor the implementation of the strategic plan. This takes minimal time compared to developing the strategic plan, allowing for this group – who has already worked together for some time and has gone through the group dynamics of forming, storming, norming, and performing – to focus on another task. Why pull together another group of different people? It’s a waste of time and the team will lag in performance. Simply reengage them and change their focus. This group is a great asset who has already proven they can represent their business units while still having an organization-wide perspective.
Third, mine data from the strategic planning process to support business continuity. A thorough strategic planning process has examined the organization from many angles and perspective – particularly through a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats). While a SWOT analysis is performed from a business standpoint, much of the data obtained and derived from this analysis can inform both your hazard analysis and the identification of mission essential functions – these are the things which you MUST DO to stay in business and to minimize the greatest losses.
Lastly, continue the relationship between strategic planning and business continuity. Both work in a cycle of continuous improvement and those cycles obviously intersect – not just at one point but potentially at multiple junctures; an important consideration of a business continuity program is the impact which disasters may have not only on current business operations but also on planned business initiatives. This shared knowledge and insight between two planning efforts conducted within one group is invaluable. As strategic planning continues, new objectives for the business continuity program should be included while resiliency opportunities identified through the business continuity program should inform the strategic plan helping the organization overall to become more resilient and sustainable.
What are your thoughts on the synergy between strategic planning and business continuity? What other opportunities do you see?
As always, if you need help starting, growing, or rebuilding your business continuity or emergency management program, Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC can help. Contact us through www.epsllc.biz or directly at consultants@epsllc.biz.
© 2014 – Timothy Riecker
Business Continuity in the Food Service Industry
Last year I had the pleasure of working with a number of folks in the food service industry on business continuity. Just like any industry, they have some very specific mission essential functions which must be maintained or minimally disrupted in the event of a disaster.
If you’ve watched Bar Rescue or other similar shows (or eaten in a restaurant) you should know that sanitation is a critical issue in the food service industry. Sanitation is the aspect of food service which is most heavily inspected (not as often as it should be in my opinion) and cited. It is a critical component of regulation in the food service industry (usually done by local health departments) and failure to comply with sanitation can, will, and should result in being shut down. Operating in a disaster environment is no exception to this – particularly when people are more susceptible and more exposed to food borne illness during disasters. Part of sanitation, by the way, also includes the control of vermin.
In my discussions with food service folks on business continuity, sanitation is the primary mission essential function they must maintain. Others on the list include receiving and storage (at appropriate temperatures) of food goods and preparation of food (to proper temperatures and maintaining those temperatures until food is served).
As restaurants examine their hazards they need to know what impacts hazards can have on their operations. Certainly a loss of power can inhibit their ability to store and prepare food – but does it make it impossible to do so? Maybe. Dry ice can help regulate cold storage, but must be carefully monitored. Food preparation is often done with natural gas or propane stoves, so power may not necessarily be required. Even refrigeration can be outfitted to be powered by propane or natural gas. That’s how food trucks and carts do it.
Other considerations during a disaster are the ability of employees, customers, and suppliers to access your location. You may have to operate with minimal staff as some of your staff could have been impacted by the disaster. Assuming access is viable and that you can safety store and prepare food, it is possible for you to make money or at least minimize losses, even with a smaller menu, since those impacted by a disaster may not be able to make their own food and responders and relief workers will be happy to sit down and enjoy a warm meal.
The best way to minimize your losses during a disaster is to have a business continuity plan. If you need help building one, call Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC. Reach us at consultants@epsllc.biz or www.epsllc.biz.
What Planning Format To Use?
Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 (CPG 101) describes three format options for your emergency operations plan (EOP): The traditional functional EOP format, the Emergency Support Function (ESF) format, and the agency/department focused format. As mentioned in CPG 101 the traditional functional EOP format is the most popular and widely used. It generally provides for three major sections – the basic plan, functional annexes, and hazard specific annexes. The traditional format provides for the greatest flexibility and allows a jurisdiction or organization to easily evolve their plan as the need for addressing additional issues or hazards is recognized. Continuity of Government/Continuity of Operations (COG/COOP) plans are easily integrated as annexes as our newer concepts such as resiliency plans and climate change plans.
Agency/department focused EOP formats provide utility for those folks that like to crack open the book looking to answer the question ‘what is expected of me?’. This format offers some flexibility, but under most occurrences where the need to address a new issue arises edits need to be made through much of the plan to identify and address each agency’s involvement in said issue. It can also be awkward to include other associated plans, such as the afore mentioned COOP and COG plans. It does work for smaller communities, though, whose hazards and other planning areas stay fairly static.
The ESF EOP format is modeled after the National Response Framework (NRF) (originally the Federal Response Plan) which addresses functions by grouping agencies and organizations with responsibility and resources to address those functions. This model has worked fairly well for the federal government given their structure and the general federalist approach of most agencies (aside from those agencies with direct authorities such as the US Coast Guard). There is some flexibility in this model with the ability to include both support and hazard specific annexes, but one must be cautioned not to confuse the ESF annexes with the support annexes. The key word in the format is ‘support’, which is largely what the federal government does in response to a disaster.
Last week Lucien Canton posted an article Emergency Support Functions: Misunderstood and Misapplied. Read this! As usual, Lu states his point expertly as he discusses the pros, cons, and uses for the ESF structure. Many jurisdictions, in an effort to mirror a system which seems to work for the federal government, create their EOP in an ESF format. I’ve rarely ever seen it well applied – at least not in the form that the feds use. Understanding that the feds structure their ESFs to address policy and coordination, these same needs may not exist at a state or local level. Therefore states and locals change the ESF structure. While there is certainly no requirement to use only those ESFs which are used in the NRF, using a different format can cause great confusion. For example, what is ESF #12 (Energy) in the NRF may be an ESF for economic recovery for a city or county. Now we have what we’ve been trying to avoid in incident management – a lack of common terminology.
Each jurisdiction and organization should choose which format works best for them. I would strongly recommend the traditional format which is the easiest to shape to meet your needs rather than trying to work within an awkward planning framework. Remember that no plan is ever perfect, but requires regular attention to ensure that it evolves with and addresses your needs. Don’t try to tackle it all at once, either, or on your own. Proper planning is a team effort requiring input from multiple stakeholders in your jurisdiction or organization. CPG 101 references ‘whole community’ planning which is a great idea to ensure that you capture multiple perspectives and that all stakeholders are bought into the process and the product. Take on your planning work in small bites, one component at a time. First work on the base plan – the most essential part. Then identify those functional and hazard specific annexes which are most important – accomplish those next. To help guide your work it will help to create a project chart for your planning efforts identifying timelines and benchmarks, stakeholders, and needed inputs. Finally, don’t forget to exercise your plans to validate them!
Lastly, my marketing plug – If you need help planning please contact Emergency Preparedness Solutions! EPS is experienced in working with governments, private sector, and not for profits in all facets of preparedness including assessment, planning, training, and exercises. We are happy to discuss your needs and determine the best way to meet them.
What planning format do you prefer and why?
© 2014 – Timothy Riecker
Planning for a Mass Fatality Incident
Planning for a mass fatality incident can be almost as complex as responding to such an incident. Mass fatalities can arise from transportation incidents, pandemics, mud slides, mass shooting, or other sudden incidents. Thankfully mass fatality incidents do not occur often, but due to the impacts and complexity of managing such incidents every jurisdiction should have a plan in place to address them.
A mass fatality incident management plan should be an annex to a comprehensive emergency management plan. Just as with any deliberate emergency planning effort (ref CPG 101), we start by assembling a planning team. This planning team should represent all relevant stakeholders from across the community. Beyond your usual public safety agencies, the team should also include the coroner or medical examiner, public health, public works, hospitals, social services agencies, the American Red Cross, funeral directors, and cemetarians. It is also important to consider the cultural and/or spiritual requirements of how the deceased are handled so community leaders from these groups should also be included in your planning process.
Your plan should acknowledge the hazards in your community which can lead to a mass fatality incident. These should already have been identified through your hazard analysis/THIRA. If you have not conducted a THIRA, your planning team should discuss the impacts of such an event through a briefly outlined credible worst-case scenario then identify what capabilities are needed to address these impacts.
Assisting agencies may have some slightly different roles in the management of a mass fatality incident than they would in other incident responses. These differences should be identified in the mass fatality incident response plan. It should also be recognized that the causal nature of the incident is most likely to drive who will be in charge of such an incident. Typically there are other matters which must be mitigated to save lives, protect property, and stabilize the incident which will determine who is in charge. Because it is a mass fatality incident the coroner or medical examiner will be managing a significant portion of the incident and may also be driving policy based upon their legal responsibilities, but they may not be in command, although they may be likely to be part of a unified command.
While the coroner or medical examiner will be handling the deceased, it must absolutely be remembered that the living must also be cared for. First and foremost are the immediate survivors, if any, of the incident who will require emergency medical care. Depending on the nature of the incident, others may need to be treated for exposure. Mental health care is a much more prominent issue in a mass fatality than perhaps any other incident – and the need for mental health care applies to everyone working the incident, families and friends of victims and survivors, and the community at large.
A common venue in mass fatality incidents for providing mental health assistance to families and friends of victims and survivors is a Family Assistance Center (FAC). The Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996 requires family assistance centers to be established for major transportation incidents (the joint responsibility of the NTSB and the American Red Cross) but these centers have been used for other mass fatality incidents as well. In additional to crisis mental health counseling, a variety of other services can also be provided at a FAC. A FAC should be established very quickly and it should be recognized that surviving victims may be stranded in the area and that family and friends will flock to the area – many of which may have little support structure or plans for essentials such as lodging. A FAC is also an ideal location for authorities to obtain information from survivors about the missing or deceased which will help with future identification. FACs are often located in hotels where large conference facilities, lodging, food, and other services can be obtained.
Another facility common to a mass fatality incident is a temporary morgue. Temporary morgues are established either as a matter of operational convenience (rather than having to transport remains to the jurisdiction’s usual morgue site) or because the usual morgue site is too small to accommodate a larger operation. Usually in conjunction with a temporary morgue is the need for cold storage for remains. This is most often accomplished via refrigerated trucks/containers. The incident morgue is obviously a secure location, with only authorized personnel being allowed access.
The amount of logistical planning required to establish and support facilities such as a family assistance center and temporary morgue lend themselves greatly to pre-planning efforts, including MOUs, site-specific standard operating procedures, mobile caches of disaster supplies, and exercises to test the standard operating procedures for setting up and running such facilities. There are a variety of resources available to assist you with assembling your mass fatality incident response plan from LLIS, the federal Disaster Mortuary Response Team (DMoRT), state health departments, state emergency management agencies, and funeral home director’s associations. The National Association of County and City Health Officials also has information which can assist you.
Take the time to create a mass fatality incident management plan, train personnel on the plan, and exercise it regularly. Mass fatalities represent some of the most complex incidents I’ve ever been involved in and are very multifaceted. As always, if your jurisdiction needs assistance in any preparedness efforts, Emergency Preparedness Solutions, LLC is here to help!
© 2014 Timothy Riecker
Business Continuity and Emergency Management Standards and Requirements
When building a business continuity or emergency management program – or the foundation of that program in a business continuity or emergency management plan – there is a lot of research that needs to be performed before much work can even begin. Some of the most critical research is the identification of the standards and requirements which apply to your program/plan. Note a significant difference in terminology between requirement and standard. Requirements are generally items that are in passed into law or included in regulation. Standards are typically developed by standards organizations or accrediting bodies and are generally looked upon as best practices within an industry. Standards are also more likely to be regularly updated whereas requirements (laws) are generally updated on a less often basis.
Where should you look for requirements and standards which apply to you? Much of it is based upon what industry you are in and where you are located.
Start locally. Research local laws and codes which may have requirements for certain industries. Local emergency management planning codes that I’ve seen include industries that use or produce specific chemicals, healthcare facilities, day care programs, and the hospitality industry (hotels and resorts), to name a few. These codes may require certain planning or notification elements which you must address. You should search the codes/laws of your city/town/village as well as your county. The clerks or emergency management officials for those jurisdictions should be of great help to you. States usually also have specific planning requirements found in state law and/or regulation which cover requirements for local jurisdictions as well as many of the industries mentioned previously. Contact your state emergency management agency as well as the state agency that regulates your industry for the best information.
Local and state laws comprise most of the requirements you will find – however certain industries may have federal laws or regulations which must be followed – many of these come from the EPA. Nationally, however, you are more likely to find standards. FEMA’s standard for emergency planning (which largely applies to jurisdictions but can certainly be used by other organizations) is found in Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101 – Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans. While there is no up front legal requirement to follow CPG 101 from FEMA, it may be a requirement of grant funding – yet another requirement you must explore and address. Certain industries seeking ISO (International Standards Organization) accreditation may need to follow various ISO standards on emergency management and safety. Overall, if your industry has a professional association or accrediting body, they are an excellent resource for you.
But isn’t there some standard that applies broadly to everyone? Yes – that is NFPA 1600. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) creates standards which apply to many industries and are often legally adopted as code by jurisdictions. The NFPA itself does not create law or regulation but they drive many of the standards we see across the nation in many applications including chemical production and handling, engineering, electrical, plumbing, building and development codes, fire codes and others. NFPA documents are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). NFPA 1600 is the Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs. Typically access to NFPA documents requires membership or a fee per document (their material is copyrighted), however NFPA 1600 is seen as so critical and broad-reaching that the NFPA offers access to the document free of charge.
NFPA 1600 is comprehensive yet open enough for individual application. You won’t see from NFPA 1600 any detailed guidance in how to write a plan, but you will see the steps of a planning process and key benchmarks they recommend be addressed in a plan. In addition to planning, the standard also addresses program management, training and exercises, and program improvement. Intended to be used as a tool, the standard also includes program evaluation checklists and references other best practices in emergency management and business continuity including DRII (Disaster Recovery Institute International) and United Nations programs. An annex within the standard even addresses family preparedness programs intended for employees.
While the standards you must follow are dependent upon your location and industry, NFPA 1600 can be applicable to all organizations and should be referenced in the building and maintenance of your emergency management and business continuity plan. For those of you dependent upon access to information on your mobile devices, they even have a free NFPA 1600 mobile app (I reference it often!).
Adherence to requirements and standards helps ensure that your program meets or exceeds all expectations and best practices. Even if you are not legally obligated to do so, following standards, such as NFPA 1600, provides you with a comprehensive program which will help you better prepare for, respond to, and recover from disaster.
If you need help navigating your emergency management requirements or standards, contact Emergency Preparedness Solutions. Visit our website at www.epsllc.biz.
© 2014 Timothy Riecker
Business Continuity – More than just a plan
Don’t throw away all of your effort to build your business – Be prepared! (image courtesy of FEMA)
Every year businesses are forced to close due to the impacts of disaster. Research from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) tells us that the top four threats to business suffering the impact of disaster are:
- Power Loss
- Loss of Sales and Customers
- Length of Recovery
- Uninsured Loss
How can businesses protect themselves against these impacts? Planning for them is, of course, the easy answer. Just like governments, though, wouldn’t it make the most sense for a business to have an emergency preparedness program in place?
Consider that small business owners invest a great deal of time, energy, and funding to build and grow their business. As an independent consultant I can be working on a variety of things on any given day including project management, marketing, and accounting. Small business owners that deal with products (vs services) often times have even more to deal with including inventory, vendors, and distributors. The foundation of these entrepreneurial efforts is often times the business plan. Aspiring business owners put a lot of effort into creating this plan which describes what the business will do, what the market capacity is, what the competition looks like, and even trying to forecast revenues for several years. A successful business may continue elements of this business plan years later through a strategic plan intended to guide growth and company-wide efforts. Doesn’t it make sense that if we put so much effort into building and growing our businesses that we put some effort into ensuring that our businesses will survive a disaster?
As a society we generally like plans. They are an organized tome capturing our assumptions, ideas, and strategies to accomplish something. Plans are good and certainly help us through a great deal. A disaster plan, though, is not a disaster program. The plan may embody our program, helping to guide and inform our decisions in the event of a disaster, but our preparedness efforts must stretch beyond a plan if we are to be successful. Consider DHS’ POETE capability elements – Planning, Training, Organizing, Equipping, Training, and Exercising. With these elements in your head scroll back up to those top four threats from the NFIB and give them a moment of thought. You probably now have some additional ideas as to how you can address and prevent each of those with activity which may go beyond planning.
This recent article from Small Business Trends (which provided my initial inspiration for this blog post) provides a good outline of initial considerations for every business relative to disaster preparedness.
What does your business do to be better prepared?
Shameless plug time: Need help building your business continuity program? Emergency Preparedness Solutions can help! Contact us at consultants@epsllc.biz or check out our website at www.epsllc.biz.
© 2014 Timothy Riecker
The Contrarian Emergency Manager 