Emannuel's Thoughts: BCM, Risk- And Crisis management

Author: Manu Steens In this article I write my own opinion, not that of any organization. With multiple vaccines and the global roll-out of vaccination in the pipeline, it is not only useful now but also desirable to take a look at what will be the post-crisis phase. ContentsOpportunitiesCollateral damageThree types of "investigative board 's" are necessaryTheir goalSupported by expertsA "public hearing" Opportunities In this post-crisis phase of covid-19 there will be opportunities. It must be a time for psychological, physical, social, emotional and economic recovery. This applies both on an individual level and on a social level. But it must also be a time of honest self-analysis of the crisis approach (by organizations and governments), of lessons Identified in all sections of society, whereby doubts about yourself as a person, about your organization as a company and the authorities are central. In effective crisis management, there is always a post-crisis moment for debriefing with comments from the sidelines and commendations of the achievements. This self-assessment is for small and large improvements to the own operation, structure, culture, ... of the organization, and corrections at all levels. One must dare to take a view on processes, systems and procedures up to the smallest details. This improves insight into their own functioning. The assessment provides the opportunity to apply renewed and especially motivated new insights . The fact that adjustments are implementable suggests that one can transcend the anxiety because of the perception of risks and resistance due to uncertainty as to change (through insights by the results during in the crisis). Appropriate actions provide the basic operation for the prevention and processing of future crises. That way the organization can learn, modify administration and initiate a wide variety of changes. This under the motto “never again”. Because a crisis is often transient, the suffering takes an end and the memory of society is sometimes too short, the moment par excellence to make use of these levers must not be lost. One must therefore take action post-crisis if one wants to use the innovation opportunities optimally. Collateral damage Unfortunately, there is always collateral damage. People or organizations that will not be able to reach the post-crisis phase (alone). A crisis like covid-19 includes therefore often media attacks on governments and their agencies . The opportunity to provide answers to urgent needs that were first only latent, makes the organizations stop for a moment and often marks a turning point for these organizations, but also for society. Three types of "investigative board 's" are necessary To thoroughly analyze crisis management afterwards, three types of "investigative board 's" are necessary: one for the organization, one for a society within a country, and the authorities in the countries, and across countries. They represent with regard to society, every citizen as an individual and the victims and their families, the fact that that the problem is being tackled on a permanent basis. Because the board represents the public as the ultimate stakeholder, they are legitimate, and as authority for the investigation. Their goal The goal of the boards in a post-crisis phase is a permanent solution, which includes a pandemic plan with international cooperation as one of my wishes. That is possible when one can reduce uncertainty , achieve legitimacy, and each of the three boards proves to make efforts to establish a basis to address future crises as well as the consequences thereof. One will have to conduct intensive communication about this, in order to continuously convince and keep the public informed of progress and planned actions. Note that the effects of actions, findings and conclusions in the accompanying investigations of the board can counteract these effects. Therefore, one requires great skill in conducting in-depth objective investigations, drawing conclusions and making appropriate recommendations without external influences (industry or other governments). Supported by experts Experts from a large number of disciplines support each board in such an assignment. In order to work effectively on solutions in the aftermath of the crisis, you require a 360 ° approach of the problem. This requires specialists who work together in a “modular system”. There are reasons for this Extra expertise and hands at work for generating solutions Direct access to much more data and decisions based on all available information (which is then much broader), where possible without involvement of the crisis teams that did their work during the crisis. These experts also feed their own organization with information from the research which they consider necessary. Factors affecting the size and diversity of the expert teams determine the severity of the pandemic , the methods that one uses (here organizational methods, policy action and vaccination technology), the collateral damage that occurs, the chance that one will write a detailed narrative report, numbers and circumstances of injured and deceased persons, public interest and the chance of a formal “board hearing” (committee hearing). The degree of public interest is perhaps the most complex to estimate here. The expert teams and assessors must take the time to make a thorough analysis of the pandemic. Their report should not be actively public (due to too much technical detail, and potential privacy issues). It must however support the report of the board (committee) which have to be transparent to stakeholders and the public. A "public hearing" The board / committee then decides on a “public hearing” based on Interest of the citizens. Severity of the pandemic. Quality of successes and severity of errors in dealing with the pandemic. Benefits of all kinds with regard to a future pandemic. (e.g. when citizens, society and governments know how to arm themselves against another pandemic thanks to science) A public hearing is the first real opportunity for the media to know something about the post crisis, but it is also a first chance for the organizations and the authorities and their board to communicate something to the press for their own benefit. So it must be thoroughly prepared. So if a party involved in the investigation wants something in the press, this must be discussed with his board in order to avoid contradiction. Because contradiction causes anxiety and uncertainty, and even gives the impression after the crisis that the situation is not under control.