THE HISTORIC CORONAVIRUS CRISIS

This is the most significant crisis that this consultancy has seen in our last three decades. The surge in illness, the outbreaks legal and business ramifications are critical and undeterminable. Government and industries are desperately trying to understand the challenge, support victims and their families, and find a solution.

The problem is, the more the world enters lock-down and isolation, the harder it is to effectively confirm risk and the human and technical resources available. Most of the renowned immunologists are cautiously optimistic. Putting a time on this, however, is virtually impossible. Most businesses are investing in virtual technology, improved infrastructure and future stability of the workforce. Our virtual crisis scenario testing and training is working well as we continue face-to-face contact with crisis and incident response teams.

Prepared executive management is communicating constantly through video-conferences and regular bulletins. In fact, some businesses have set up broadcast studios in home and office to ensure that all employees are communicated with to understand the new and changing operating models. 

Harvard epidemiologist, Professor Mark Lipsitch, made the concerning point on the outbreak as it continues to spread, when he said, “I think the likely outcome is that it will ultimately not be containable”.  We are in the middle of the containment process and there are good and bad examples of this around the world. 

I see Singapore as a shining example of proactive and immediate response. Like many Australian businesses, Singapore had a plan before the virus came.  Most of Asia had plans because of their past experience with SARS and other epidemics.  In Singapore, the ABC reported that testing regimes were up and running by the time the first case was confirmed on January 23^rd. “Labs were in place for our first case”, said Dale Fisher, an Australian infectious disease expert working with the Singapore Government on its strategy.  “And soon after our first case, every lab in every public hospital, was capable of doing tests,” Professor Fisher said.  “So, we ramped up very quickly.”  Within days of the first case, temperature checks were happening at Changi Airport for incoming passengers.  This is in contrast to Australia where passengers arriving recently at Sydney Airport were complaining there were still no mandatory temperature checks for incoming passengers.

A key lesson can be learnt from this crisis so far - the internationalisation of the corona-virus. What was completely unusual about this event was the fact that even though the disease had been discovered, the escalation was confusingly slow at first. Media and public opinion did not focus on the possibility of the battle to control COVID-19.  At the beginning of its spread, some containment measures were discussed in the background but the thought of widely banning travel, closing down cities and hoarding resources, was not even a consideration.

The global authorities, the World Health Organisation and the United States Centres for Disease Control, were somewhat confusing through the escalation phases. Their process lacked the recognition of the rising international threat. There was also confusion over the causes of the crisis in China. 

  

Another lesson was the question of leadership communication in every country.  National leaders had different approaches to the problem. Their press conferences lacked continuity of universal information. Public confidence was severely undermined. This has been particularly relevant in the US.  To quote President Trump in late March: “We’re opening up this incredible country. Because we have to do that. I would love to have it open by Easter.  I would love to have that. It’s such an important day for other reasons, but I’d love to make it an important day for this. I would love to have the country opened up, and rarin’ to go by Easter.” Very little consideration of the worst-case scenario. The response from Dr. Tina Tan of the Infectious Diseases Society of America was - "This is the making of a major public health disaster. I am not sure where he is getting his information from but it is extremely flawed."

Leadership hubris has a problem of underestimation – the tendency to plan for the easiest public option – the most logical way out. A common statement of underestimation during the Second World War was “we’ll all be home for Christmas”. 

The central crisis management responses needed in this continually unfolding crisis are:

• Determining your organisation’s preparedness.
• Constantly work-shopping a broader set of disruptive scenarios.
• Reviewing the human and technical resources needed to respond.
• Become the central point of leadership communication.
• Assessing the needs of your stakeholders: people, customers, suppliers and others.
• Ensuring the continuity of critical processes.
• Continually assess investment strategies.
• Date & privacy considerations 
• Reviewing control of supply chains.
• Preparing ahead for recovery and growth.

In terms of crisis management for small or large businesses, it will be a case of riding out the months, and maybe years, of managing the huge number of new risks. As Dr. Edward de Bono, international author international lateral thinker, said “the key responsibility as a Risk Manager and Team Leader is the ability to generate viable risk-adverse alternatives and ways of doing business that minimise your company’s operational risk.” 

Crisis management during the COVID-19 outbreak needs a refreshed playbook because this virus is a historic challenge to contain and recover. 

Do you think you could have been more prepared? 

Volcano Crisis

The potential eruption of a volcano in a popular tourist area is a crisis that require decisions of great consequence to be made on the basis of rapidly changing information, often under extreme time pressure and frequently under the intense scrutiny of the travelling public and social and news media.

This escalating threat is facing the island of Bali in Indonesia at the present time. Mount Agung has been in the initial stages of eruption since early September. Over 100,000 people have been evacuated. Mount Agung last erupted in 1963, killing 1,000 people. Millions of people travel to this idyllic tourist destination each year.

Bali emergency authorities and the Indonesian Government have worked to reduce the risk of the eruption on residents and tourists through effective emergency and security response. Clearly they have developed policies and procedures necessary to resolve the problems related to an imminent disaster.

I was on the island a few weeks ago and was impressed by the knowledge locals had about plans and preparations for evacuation response. I was highly impressed with the polite and well-prepared updates on dampening down the fear and concern visitors to the island may experience.

This is one of the communications delivered to my hotel room not long after my arrival:

“Dear Guests,

Bali is still safe for tourism.

The volcano has not erupted and there is no volcanic ash.

Mount Agung is 72 km. from Seminyak and 32 km. from Ubud. Flights in and out of Bali’s international airport remain normal.

Even if the volcano erupted, it would not affect aviation unless there is volcanic ash.

Nine alternative airports have been prepared for diverted flights. 300 buses will be available to transport travellers to ferry ports.

Bali tourism is safe.  Do not trust misleading news.”

This crisis could arrive at any time:  and it could come at any speed.  It can strike without warning and destroy people and property. It is through planning that an island like Bali can anticipate and reduce the impact of that crisis and hopefully preserve its tourism identity and brand as being a safe place to be or to come back to. Bali is prepared.

“BY FAILING TO PREPARE YOU ARE PREPARING TO FAIL" – Benjamin Franklin.                                                                    

Debriefing after Real Crises. The Best Learning

Financial disaster, major accident, cyber attack, massive recall. No simulation or crisis management exercise can ever replace the real thing.  When a real crisis occurs, most aspects of the crisis management plan would be applied, but there will be many more critical issues and intricacies which will appear. 

It goes without saying that the strategy behind a solid crisis management plan is to protect the company’s operations and reputation by providing a secure response.  But the identification of gaps in the response plan can be best discovered after a review of a real crisis situation.

A crisis simulation or exercise concludes with an evaluation and critique where responses are examined and roles and responsibilities reviewed.  The aim of these crisis exercises is to improve the effectiveness of the teams in managing a crisis, at the same time as reviewing the crisis manual and the various human and technical resources that assist the process.

A real event, aside from its serious consequences, can offer greater learnings, particularly related to the complex issues of communication, interactiveness and stress.

Any post-crisis evaluation must be done relatively quickly after the event.  The real value of what has happened, and how crisis teams responded, can be only be learnt while memories are alert to the central issues of the response. 

The purpose of the post-crisis evaluation is not to investigate the cause of the incident nor items such as emergency response, product recall action or security performance, but more how the crisis management team performed in its role.  Was the crisis identified effectively?  Was the team called out efficiently?  Could the team respond immediately and was the response effective?

Post-crisis evaluation is about managing and controlling the corporate issues related to the future of the business.  The following items need to be addressed in the audit:

1.      A narrative of the actual event.  What happened, why and how and what caused the event?

2.      How was the response managed by the crisis management team?  How did the response relate to incident and operational response procedures?  What was the decision making process based on?

3.     Were human and technical resources adequate?  Where did they fail and how could they have been improved?

4.      Is the organisation still at threat from the problem or similar problems?

5.      What were the unintended consequences that came out of the original incident?

6.      Were there any barriers to communication?

7.      Were all stakeholders advised effectively?  If not, what were the problems?

8.      Was there sufficient co-operation with outside agencies (emergency services, government, etc.)?

9.      Were the plan, manual and procedures useful?  Where could they be improved?

10.    Were human resource issues and employee communication handled efficiently?

11.    Were there any barriers to crisis response from senior management?

12.    Were legal issues dealt with efficiently? 

13.    Was the spokesperson’s role effective?  Were messages continual and consistent?

14.    How was business continuity and recovery managed?  What were the problems?

15.   What has been put in place in the short term and the long term to prevent this crisis from happening again?

This post-evaluation needs to be carried out by either outside consultants or a senior management team and preferably not by the crisis management team.  It is designed to improve operations, decision making, plans, skills and to ensure the crisis management team has done its job effectively.  

The post-evaluation team needs to interview the crisis management team, management executives, employees and external personnel/contractors involved in the crisis response.   

A post-evaluation project is no easy task.  While it has to be done as soon as possible after the crisis has occurred, it needs time for investigation, review and context. The project team needs the support of the Chief Executive and senior management, and commitment has to be given to ensure that the learnings from across the business can be incorporated in the overall crisis managing planning process.  This process ensures continual improvement and further development of a best practice response.  

The learnings of the post-crisis evaluation of a real event should be made available for training and response reference to the crisis management team.                           

Lindt crisis management response to siege

The dramatic events in Sydney this week resulting in the tragic deaths of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson by a radicalised individual represents not only a dark day in Australia’s history but is a sobering reminder that all organisations must be prepared for the unexpected. Over 17 hours the eyes of the world focussed onto the Lindt Café in the otherwise busy Martin Place and the extensive response by the New South Wales Police Force’s Tactical Operations Unit.

With the national terror alert recently elevated to ‘high’ by the Federal Government in September 2014, the realisation that Australia is not immune from the effects of violent extremists was brought to the forefront of our collective mind.

This week’s horrific events should clearly cement the fact that the threat of a major act of violence must remain high on the corporate threat agenda.

In the coming weeks and months there will be debates, questions, reviews and constant differing opinion about this event. What is clear is this critical incident again highlights the need for organisations to have up-to-date, rehearsed and seamlessly integrated Incident and Crisis Management Plans.

What are the learnings for business?

Firstly, a critical event can affect any organisation at any time.  Response must be immediate to take control. Moreover the effects of “someone else’s” crisis could rapidly become your crisis; drawing you into a situation for which you may not be prepared. A routine morning coffee quickly escalated to involve multiple organisations whose employees were tragic victims. In this case Lindt Chocolate Australia and Eight Selborne Chambers.

Secondly, if your organisation has identified the threat of an act of violence or armed intrusion as a risk to its operations then the Lindt Café siege is confirmation of that risk’s validity. Not all events can be prevented, however your organisation can control its response through the application of crisis management best-practice process and response.

Every Chairman and CEO should confirm that their organisation is prepared to deal with the worst case scenario. Does the organisation have a validated Crisis Management Plan that manages people issues immediately while strategically positioning the business to respond and recover from adversity? If the answer is ‘No’ then now is the time to reinvest in protecting your business and brand from company destroying events.

The age of social media

The Lindt Café siege again has highlighted the immediate power of social media. It confirms the necessity of incorporating this communication platform into your organisation’s response. Social media must be a front-line integrated part of the arrowhead that is your organisation’s crisis response.

  

The high profile effects of social media were visibly seen: The hostages were directed by the perpetrator to use it to communicate during the crisis, the solidarity characteristics of the crisis spawned the viral and global trending of the #Illridewithyou hashtag and the NSW government used it to communicate with affected publics.

An equally valuable learning for business was also demonstrated through Lindt Australia’s social media response. Within the early stages of the siege unfolding, Lindt delivered through social media a caring and concerned message strategy that was timely, appropriate and consistent. They demonstrated their compassion through an explicit stating of what their corporate priority was: People. Within two hours of posting their first message on their two Facebook sites (Lindt Australia and Lindt Chocolate Café Australia) there was a combined 35,000 likes, 2,000 shares and 2,000 comments. This necessarily excludes those who simply viewed the message only. As the situation developed, more messages appeared and their priority remained steadfast. Business leaders would be well served to familiarise themselves with Lindt’s social media response by viewing their Facebook page.

The Lindt communications response is a valuable contemporary learning that demonstrates the positive reach of social media. Conversely a poor message strategy could indeed create a secondary crisis for an organisation. The court of public opinion can be an unforgiving arena; if you do not get your message out fast and correctly someone else will fill the void with an alternative, inaccurate and potentially damaging message.

Don't blame the media in a crisis

Presidents, Prime Ministers and CEO's are given to blaming the media during a crisis.  It doesn't work because crises are news and there are hundreds of leading journalists, commentators and broadcasters who must get the facts to satisfy the ever-increasing public demand.

Don't blame the media.  They are doing their job and if you are not involved in a crisis, you would expect them to give you the news. All too often journalists are blamed for being too intrusive.  But, if they don’t give us the facts, we soon ask why.

Of course the media is interested and if they can’t get it immediately, they will go somewhere else.   They must have a spokesperson to lead their story.

The prospect of taking the high ground and doing the interview or press conference may strike terror into the heart of most corporate leaders, however it must be one of their early priorities.   There seems to be a mind-set in some management circles that by providing the media with facts early on, they are going to be accused of mayhem.  It is just the opposite.  Every fact that is provided in the early stages will release the pressure from both the spokesperson and all the internal stakeholders. 

In the case of one therapeutic products company during an escalating product recall, the leading network “warrior” interviewer demanded he spoke to the Chief Executive so he could get the news “right from the horse’s mouth”.  He shouted down the phone that there would be hell to pay if the company didn’t come good and give the network the story.  “I will stand outside your plant with the company name in the background,” he shouted, “and tell the story as I see it until you submit”.  

The CEO was experienced in media interviews and took on the task of meeting the “warrior”.  His organisation’s image and, to a degree, his reputation, was on the line.  Certainly there was going to be some difficulty in getting the message across and there will be traps and perhaps his words will be twisted, but he must tell the story. 

The CEO met the “warrior” and turned the setback into a springboard.  Questions were asked about the quality of the product and its future in the market place.  The CEO positioned the product as essential and vital to saving lives and identified the problem in the product recall as being controllable and the company as being in control of that problem.  He offered cool, clear and instant advice to the public about how to get advice or information on the situation and by the end of the interview, he had total clarity on the company’s confident approach to managing the situation.   He retained the initiative throughout and was never outmanoeuvred.  The sad end to this story of investigative dynamics was that the interview was never used.  Was it too good to be true or too true to be good?        

For the uninitiated, a period of media attack can be disastrous.  A barrage of cameras, microphones and tape recorders coming at you from every angle.  How do you avoid being ambushed by the early questions and how do you contain the situation without looking like you are on the defensive?   You understand what the media will want well before an incident occurs.  You plan, prepare and practice.

The Radio and Television News Directors’ Association in the US was surveyed on media expectations of an organisation during a crisis or disaster.  They wanted to find out how television stations covered an incident.  They  also interviewed people from the public relations industry who had been involved in a crisis.  The most important responses were to the question of “when a crisis occurs, how often does your organisation want updated information?” The most frequent answers were “constantly”, “immediately” and “as soon as possible”.  Respondents to the research also wrote “as soon as new developments warrant the public being informed”.  

Don't blame the media.  Have a plan to respond when they come and communicate your core message from the start of any critical incident. Move to the high ground with your spokesperson and be seen as the centre of information. Work with the media to win and hold the high ground.

Crisis apology from CBA - from CAN'T to CAN.

At last, under the threat of a Royal Commission, the Commonwealth Bank's Chief Executive has apologised unreservedly for its multi-million dollar financial planning scandal. In such high-profile corporate crises, "no comment" is no win. It is only a few days ago when a spokesperson for the Bank said "the CBA does not comment on rumour and speculation".

The Bank's highly-promoted brand slogan, "Can", categorically became "Can't" in their initial response to this critical and escalating disaster. When a strong brand and reputation need the protection of an early executive response, it is essential that the top management come out fast, loud and clear. And in this case, the Australian Treasurer, Joe Hockey, says the Bank did not act quickly enough to address the problem. And he should know. His own mother-in-law was affected by the scandal.

Public outrage must be managed fast, particularly in this age of social media igniting rumour and innuendo. Malaysia Airlines. Costa Concordia. BP oil spill. All criticised for early failure of a corporate message strategy to key stakeholders.

Corporate crisis communications pre-planning is central to the management of how an organisation delivers information to others during a critical event. This process should identify:

• who are the stakeholders who will be seriously affected by the event and must receive information immediately?
• what is the message strategy (not the media strategy but the central message strategy for all stakeholders)?
• how will the messages be delivered with pace and priority?
• who is the most appropriate spokesperson at the top of the organisation? If it's a major negative event, it has to be the CEO.  There is no hiding place.

Communicating with employees, customers, shareholders, government, media or regulators is an essential part of deescalating a crisis situation. This requires strategic pre-planning, constant monitoring and feedback. As the crisis develops, it is vital that communication is analysed and that the receipt of central messages to key audiences is confirmed.  This is now more important than ever with social media driving messages further and faster from the hub of the incident through the organisation nationally and internationally.

In a round of recent executive exercises with 10 sites in Asia, one common factor kept feeding back to our facilitator in the hot debrief - "our communication of key messages to stakeholders was too slow - we needed faster approval of corporate messages and clearer pathways to our key audiences".

Without doubt, "no comment" is no win. Early communication allows those who are affected to know what is happening and that it is being managed effectively.

Catastrophes and best practice crisis management

Regarding the recent terrible flooding crisis in the UK, I have just returned from that country and seen first hand the devastating flooding as torrential rain has caused the worst weather in UK’s history, with much of the Somerset area that I saw looking more like an inland sea.

As The Guardian newspaper quoted then - “public anger has risen as inexorably as the filthy waters in thousands of homes.”  The Prime Minister, David Cameron, took a while to get there which presented the question in the court of public opinion of “why has he taken so long”?  Once there, he seems to have been very community active but he could have learnt a lot from the early leadership stance of then Premier, Anna Bligh, to the floods in Queensland, Australia. She walked and talked to the community from the start. Leadership spokespeople in crises must arrive early and say and make things happen.

2014 will see the timely launch of a new British Standard for Crisis Management for both business and government organisations and most applicable for strategic response to major events such as floods, fires, riots, explosions, critical accidents and major product disasters. 

The new Standard will be aimed very much at executive management and those with strategic responsibilities in developing crisis management capability within their organisation. To quote the British Cabinet Office Public Available Specification facilitated in advance of the new Standard, "crises present organisations with complex and difficult challenges that may have profound and far-reaching consequences, sometimes irrespective of how successfully they are seen to be managed.  These consequences can be very damaging, especially where it is perceived that the organisation failed to prepare for, manage or recover from a crisis."

This is very relevant as countries and organisations around the world develop their crisis management capability at a more high-level context to respond to catastrophes. Malaysia Airlines and the Malaysian Government are experiencing this level of executive response under the microscope regarding their missing 777 aircraft where airline officials and government leaders are presenting information with very mixed and misleading messages.

AIRSHIP INDUSTRY CRISIS RECOVERY FAILURE

Recently we conducted a survey of businesses, corporations and government to find out what their crisis management recovery program was like. Of those that had crisis management and recovery plans, 30% had not tested them in the last four years.  Not testing crisis management and recovery plans is as good as not having them. The likelihood of full recovery will be very low.
 

The worst kind of event can wipe out a plant, destroy vital information and virtually stop production, but it should not finish the business.  The minute a crisis is declared, the recovery phase runs parallel.  Alternative means of operation have to be put into action, customers need to be advised, suppliers need to be contacted, and employees have to be supported and brought into the picture early.  Assets and earnings have to be secured and brand reputation and corporate image need to be stabilised.

The transport industry places recovery and damage control high on their crisis management agenda.  Transport disasters have been the death knell of some transport companies.  Aside from Concorde and some specific aircraft, the only industry to actually die because of disasters is the airship industry.  In fact, there were only two disasters - the airship R101 and the Hindenberg.  And in real numbers, there was a combined death toll of less than 100.  Small numbers compared to the 1,403 lost on the Titanic.

  

In October 1930, the R101 left its mast in Bedfdordshire in the United Kingdom with 54 people aboard, loaded to the hilt.  The fittings on the airship included silver cutlery, potted palms and heavy Axminster carpeting.   

There were large supplies of the finest gourmet food and wine with plans for a banquet over Egypt.  It was also carrying more diesel oil than was needed. 

The airport of Le Bourget in France gave confirmation that the airship was one kilometre north of Beauvais.  Then came the report that the R101 had caught fire after not clearing a hill.  There were reports of a huge fire in the air and the sound of an explosion as the airship hit the ground and broke up.  The cause was never really clarified but it rapidly brought Britain’s airship industry to a close.

Germany persisted with airships, particularly with the magnificent Hindenberg, the ultimate passenger experience.   Magnificently prepared cabins, plush dining room, a library and even a smoking area.   This airship made flights to the United States and passengers relied on this as a regular form of transportation.

On 3 May 1937, the Hindenberg flew into her American landing area from Germany.  Families of passengers awaited at the Lakehurst Terminus.  The media were there.  A radio reporter, with his wire recorder, had decided that this was an interesting event to review.  He moved through the landing processes as the airship slowly lowered its bulk to the ground from the mooring mast.  Then, without any warning, there was a flash.  In the midst of this historic broadcast, the man, engulfed in emotion, screamed “it’s flashing, flashing, flashing terribly, it’s bursting into flames.”  This historical and frightening broadcast was one of the first on the spot broadcasts of an actual disaster in action. 

The crew of the Hindenberg did an outstanding job of helping injured passengers and crew from the burning inferno.  Thirty-six people died from a total of 97. 

This was the end of the airship industry.  The media gave the disaster world-wide headlines and the broadcast was aired on radio stations internationally.  Public outcry and fear was enormous. 

The airship industry reviewed its options but recovery was not one of them. Safety and lack of capability signed the death warrant.  The Germans removed other airships from their fleet and both the UK and Germany closed their factories and hangars.  It was all over.

A crisis they said would never happen

Consider this scenario.

"It’s 3.30 am and a dull, crimson glow throbs on the black horizon.  The CEO looks hard across the city at his plant - one of the world’s biggest.  The company boasts  leadership in its field.  He is now wide awake.  Fifteen minutes ago, his General Manager Operations was on the phone: “There’s been an explosion.  It’s blown half the site out and some of our people have been killed.” 

He can see the empty freeway filling now with countless emergency vehicles - the flashing blue, orange and red lights trailing towards the city in a morbid celebration.  Both his home and mobile phones are ringing.  The leak of deadly gas is spreading to the many crowded cottages surrounding the plant.  This is the crisis they said wouldn’t happen here."

How typical is this scenario.  A successful corporation.  A known brand.  Now faced with a catastrophe that in just a few hours could reach the magnitude of an international disaster.  The nature and the scale of the problem is almost impossible to recover from.  There are very few, if any, strategic options.  And while their corporate business planning and marketing processes are the most sophisticated, the decision-making plan to save its soul may have been left too late.

Sounds like the Titanic or the Costa Concordia, doesn’t it?  Echoes of the BP oil spill.  The Lance Armstrong cycling crisis.  A stark reminder of the twin towers.  There is a familiar ring - a fatal flaw in response planning. 

It is astonishing, and ultimately unforgivable come the day, how many businesses and other organisations still say It can’t happen here.  Generally, we live in a society that does not discuss crisis. The It can’t happen here syndrome is everywhere. Too many organisations are simply not prepared for the worst case scenario. 

So it comes as a painful shock when they are confronted by a crisis head-on.  Inevitably, they can neither manage the situation, nor cope with the consequences.

Yet, it takes years to build a successful organisation, and it takes only minutes for a crisis to pull it apart.

And, while it’s a fact of life that success does not happen overnight, the corollary is that failure often does. Massive damage can be done to corporate reputation and brand, sometimes for ever.

We believe that every organisation needs a framework for managing the risk of a critical disruption and to build organisational resilience in its crisis management and recovery planning.

Early 2013 is an important time to review your readiness and resilience to face the worst case scenario.

Management Training for Crisis

Crisis management training is the centre of crisis preparedness. All businesses and organisations need specific training to build a crisis response capability. Training reduces the potential for panic, chaos and confusion and focuses a crisis team on the components of a successful response. 

The objective of a crisis management workshop is to enable crisis management team members to understand the basic principles of crisis management and its application within the organisation.  A good program is designed to review the crisis management plan, team roles and responsibilities, threats and responses and should cover the following:

·      Crisis training objectives:  what the session will achieve.

·      Introduction to crisis - cause and effects:  definitions and examples.

·      Crisis prevention and warning systems:  actions to prevent crises

·      The value of crisis management:  the benefits of being ready - strategies for damage control.

·      Overview of the plan and manual:  walk through each element of the plan and clarify.

·      Crisis management team - roles and responsibilities:  what each role means and what that team member has to do.

·      Threat analysis:  where is the organisation vulnerable and what are the possible effects on the business?

·      Review response strategies:   work through checklists of response actions for each threat. 

·      Integration with outside resources:   review plans with emergency services, police, security, State disaster organisations, etc.  

·      Discuss how to communicate best with stakeholders, employees, customers, media, community, etc.

·      Technology and equipment:  where does the crisis team meet and what essential technology and equipment do they need? 

·      Log keeping and documentation:  confirm document control and efficiency program for retaining information.

·      Test and evaluate:   Using typical threat, team provides discussion on how they would respond to the crisis using the learnings.

Case studies of past crises provide important insights, background and experience. They give the team an opportunity to observe the way in which successful and unsuccessful crisis response has been handled, at the same time as evaluating how recovery was instigated.

The workshop in most cases should be first conducted at the organisation’s Head Office with the Crisis Management Team  As with all the training units in the crisis management plan, it should then be rolled out to regional and divisional business units, operations and sites.  In some cases at smaller sites, the workshop may involve teams of two or three people, but they can still carry out threat identification and the responses to their unique situation.

Don't leave crisis management training until after an event occurs. Get in front and do it now.

Virginia Tech shooting alert system "awesome"

In yesterday's tragic shooting at the Virginia Tech campus where two people were shot dead, the alerts to students were rapid. Four alerts were given in the first hour of the incident following a campus policeman being shot. They started as follows: "From VT alerts (12:37pm): Gun shots reports - Coliseum parking lot. Stay inside. Secure doors. Emergency personnel responding. Call 911 for help." Then several minutes later: "Suspect described as white male, gray sweat pants, gray hat w/neon green brim, maroon hoodie and backpack."

Virginia Tech has an alert emergency notification system for students, staff and faculty that uses a number of delivery methods to reach students via phone alerts, desktop alerts, electronic message boards, broadcast emails, PA systems and the Virginia Tech home page.

Early responses from students and staff say the system worked well. Some students told television media the alert system was "awesome". This immediate and proactive aspect of the emergency response to the university shooting was taking place as Virginia Tech officials in Washington appealed a $55,000 fine levied by the US Department of Education after the previous 2007 massacre which killed 33 people. The fine was imposed for waiting too long to notify students after the attack.

US State actions after the 2007 event included the following recommendations: to integrate campus emergency planning into State Emergency Plans, communicate emergency management plans to all educational institutions, students, parents and workers and develop clear communication plans and tools to communicate rapidly.

The US Federal enquiry key findings that came out of the 2007 event were that:

* Education officials, healthcare and law enforcement personnel are not fully informed about sharing critical information on dangerous persons.
* Parents, students and teachers must learn to recognise warning signs and encourage those who need help to seek it.
* It is essential to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
* Need to fully implement emergency preparedness through practice and communication.

In this week's Virginia Tech shooting, a huge number of social media sites carried student views and videos of the shooting scene - many of the images have been picked up and used by mainstream media.

Pre-planning communication with key stakeholders in a crisis is at the centre of strong crisis management. Effective, up-to-date communication systems typically enhance response effectiveness during a critical incident, and early reports indicate that the Virginia Tech emergency notification system was a valuable asset for campus stakeholders.