Business Continuity and Emergency Action Plans - Assignment Example

Emergency Planning: A Discussion and Review Introduction: As with the Department of Homeland Security itself, the voluntary private sector preparedness program (also known as PS PREP) was the result of the terrorist attacks of September 11th and the response that the government directed towards these events. As a direct result of the fact that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security were combined under a single umbrella, the need to develop an “all hazards” approach to the world was something that both of these entities came to represent to a further. In this way, and as a direct result of the 9/11 commission report, the voluntary private sector preparedness program was passed into law and funded in late 2007. Due to the fact that the 9/11 commission report denoted that the private sector was virtually unprepared for large-scale disruption, whether the result of man-made or natural disasters, a focus on providing the resources, training, and material to ensure that available instruction existed for hardening businesses against such externalities was something that was determined to be lacking. Summary of Program: At its core, the program is designed merely to encourage private sector participation in emergency planning and preparedness. Moreover, the program is designed to allow the standardized level of training and information to be represented to the private sector that was previously nonexistent. Furthermore, by providing certification and specifically focusing upon private industry and nonprofit organizations, the end goal of the program was to provide the hardening of United States infrastructure and industry against either man-made or natural disaster. Moreover, as the name implies, the entire program itself is voluntary; denoting the fact that the Department of Homeland Security nor FEMA requires that any particular private entity or nonprofit organization fulfill the training steps. Instead, both of these agencies, as well as the entire federal government, encourages such entities to partake in this training and certification as a means of not only serving their own self-interest and providing for contingency plans in the event of an emergency, but with respect to providing a more solid and hardened defense against disaster (Zhao, 2008). Yet, beyond merely defining and describing the program, it is also necessary to understand that the private sector is actually encouraged to participate in the preparedness certification process due to the fact that it would stand to gain obvious benefits from this (Russel, 2009). The first and most obvious of these is with respect to the fact that the potential for business loss and/or hardship would be ameliorated through a partially federally funded initiative. Further, by conforming to standards industry-wide, the firm would ensure that it would not face a situation in which a disproportional loss would occur; at least compared to other competitors. Finally, management and leadership within such a firm or organization can be assured that compliance with respect certification and mercy planning has been accomplished; thereby freeing additional manpower and resources to deal with other business operations issues. The program itself works in three separate and distinct ways. Firstly, the “adoption” mechanism allows for a firm to engage in appropriate DHS selected criteria for emergency preparedness standards. Secondly, accreditation provides a process through which a DHS selected third-party can then ensure that compliance is followed and proper training is administered to representative stakeholders. Thirdly, certification is the process through which previously mentioned third-party responsible for accreditation then certifies that the standards of emergency preparedness have been met by the firm or organization in question and can then be represented as having been obtained fully. The standards that have been selected by DHS/FEMA as a means of incorporating a certified program were drawn from three unique sources. These are as follows: ASIS SPC, the British Standards Institution 25999, and the National Fire Protection Association. As can be noted, this is a relatively broad field of scholarship that incorporates a litany of different international standards. However, rather than being rigid in its approach, the voluntary private sector preparedness program is continually under review by the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA. The underlying reason for this is to ensure that hazards which present themselves within and dynamic and changing globe will be reflected within the certification and standards process that are represented within the program itself. In such a manner, the agencies are perennially reviewing the compliment parts of certification and recommending prospective changes to the way in which third-party consultants teach the material and provide ongoing to do applicants (Geffers, 2010). Additionally, once certification has been attained by a given organization/firm, DHS/FEMA highly recommends that the organization/firm will continue to engage in ongoing training and consider any prospective changes to the plan that might be necessary in the coming months/years. Further, as a direct result of the fact that DHS/FEMA has adopted three distinct standards, certification and training with respect to a given firm or organization can take place against any of these three standards. This provides a degree of latitude with respect to the many different types of businesses and organizations that operate throughout the United States. Furthermore, by allowing this degree of freedom and standardization measurement, three distinct training and certification programs are then replicated within the broader umbrella of DHS/FEMA and the voluntary private sector preparedness program (DHS, 2008). Unlike many certification programs that have a verified set timeframe during which certification can be met, the voluntary private sector preparedness program does not. Instead, it relies upon a self-paced program in which the business entity or organization in question can devote the necessary time and resources that it feels are required in order to meet the standards that are set forth within the determinants of the preparedness program. This degree of freedom and latitude further encourages with the stakeholders to engage with the program without the fear that they might become overwhelmed with other parties and not be able to meet the requirements that are set forward by the federal government within a specific timeframe. Relevance to Selected Subject/Topic: From the information that has thus far been represented, it is clear and apparent that the voluntary private sector preparedness program is relevant to a litany of different types of organizations. As has been denotes previously within the discussion, it is also true that this specific standard that is ascribed to within the certification process also has a relevant bearing with respect to the overall relevance that the certification process has for a given firm/business/entity. Within such an understanding, the following discussion will be partially concentric upon analyzing the relevance that this is voluntary private preparedness plan has with respect to a warehousing industry that suffers a fire outbreak and therefore experiences a continuity of operations breakdown (Borgin, 2009). Although it might be relevantly noted that a fire in and of itself might not serve as a mass casualty disaster of either man-made or natural processes, take into a large enough scale and represented within a populated or industrial area, the consequences of such a fire could be profound, long-lasting, and drastically negative for business operations. Although it is invariably true that emergency operations planning factors into business continuity, there is a broad differential with respect to which different organizations and business you implement emergency response and emergency response planning. However, taken on aggregate, emergency response and emergency response planning must focus on the “who, what, how, where” questions that help to define the means by which a firm can continue to operate in the eventuality that emergency actually does occur. For instance, the “new” question is answered with respect to the individual that is in charge of implementing emergency response and his signing within the organization. Similarly, the “what” question is with regards to which aspects of the firm or business entity/organization will be impacted upon and directed in the result of an emergency response. Further, the “how” question delves into the actual mechanics of emergency response and the means by which these will be carried out (Rigsby, 2002). Additionally, the “where” question refers to the actual physical location in which emergency response and business continuity operations will be affected. By engaging each of these respective considerations, firms are universally able to engage in emergency response preparation and planning as a function of effecting business continuity in the face of a disaster or emergency of some size. Although the preceding list is not exhaustive discussion of the way in which a business or organization should effect the responsibility, it helps to give a brief overview of some of the key considerations that must be made prior to any business continuity operations being delineated. Similarly, the second phase of business continuity is necessarily crisis management. It is at this particular stage that many firms and organizations have evidenced a distinct weakness. Whereas it is relatively obvious that emergency response should be considered and engaged within the firm, the actual implementation of crisis management is oftentimes ignored up until the moment in which it is required (Pritchard, 2007). As a function of their understanding crisis management and delineating key compliments, the following section will be concentric upon analyzing the importance of timely, organized, structured, and planned crisis management. With respect to timely, the current era has witnessed a drastic change in the way the information is disseminated; oftentimes new stories can travel the globe engage with stakeholders within a matter of moments. As such, it is extraordinarily important that crisis management places a primary focus upon the timely manner in which they can address the crisis and seek to reassure the public and/or concerned persons that all possible tactics are being employed as a means of addressing the situation. Similarly, it is also extreme importance that the information which is provided to stakeholders is organized and structured. Within the realm of crisis management, one of the most effective techniques is to provide stakeholders with an overview of the situation and a summary of some of the alternatives and scenarios that are being engaged. Many firms make the mistake of merely representing the decision that is been made to the public without providing this in a structured or organized manner. As such, this oftentimes encourages the understanding that the situation is being handled by a group of people that have not considered all possible externalities and are not fully aware of the costs and benefits of each one. Finally, is absolutely necessary for crisis management to at least partially be planned. In the eventuality that a particular firm or organization works within a high risk/high dangerous environments, the need to consider the most likely externalities and most likely situations and how they would be responded to prior to them ever taking place is of the utmost importance and ultimately essential to the continued survival and success that the firm/organization might hope to exhibit. Naturally, the end goal of business continuity is business recovery. As such, business recovery is specifically interested in providing an environment and resources through which the firm or organization can continue to perform its work; more or less unaffected by whatever disaster or emergency situation it affected such an organization/firm in the first place. As a function of developing business recovery in planning for it, key contingencies must be understood and prioritized. As such, those functions, job responsibilities, and systems that are vital for the day-to-day operations of the firm or organization in question will naturally maintain a priority over those that are not. Additionally, where and how specific business recovery plans will be initiated will also be a primal importance for the entity in question to continue to service the needs of its clients. Further, secondary and tertiary backup plans with respect to business continuity and recovery operations should be defined, practice, and given responsibility as a function of creating a system by which an automatic response to certain key threats and/or emergencies is affected. Of all of the information that has thus far been discussed with respect to business recovery, the priority of operations is far and away the most important. Ultimately, without a priority level that can be given to each and every function/task that the firm or business organization performs, the level, extent, and speech which recovery can take place is drastically limited. Another aspect of business continuity plans that are oftentimes overlooked is with regard to human capital. Ultimately, many stakeholders become so involved in business continuity and recovery planning that they failed to consider the fact that whatever emergency or disaster might cause the business continuity plan and business recovery plan to be initiated may very well have negative externalities with respect to the potential for these human capital of whatever firm or organization might seeking to recover. As such, the first and foremost aspect of any business continuity plan or business recovery plan should place the protection of its human resources as a primary goal. Prior to business continuity operations being affected, it is absolutely necessary for each and every organization to ensure that employees are taking care of, their physical needs are met, and whatever threat or danger that could have caused the business continuity plan to be effected have satisfactorily been addressed/ameliorated. Without proving that this human capital is of the foremost importance to whatever firm or organization might be seeking to affect a business continuity plan, stakeholders will not feel I incumbent burden to give all possible efforts to ensure that the viability and continued success/profitability/survival of a given firm or business organization is ensured. Once this fundamental aspect has been addressed, only then can business continuity operations consider the other externalities such as systems and processes that will continue to ensure operations can continue. Finally, a business continuity plan that would have been instituted as a result of voluntary private sector preparedness program that is oftentimes misunderstood has to do with the fact that many firms develop a business continuity plan and then do not pay any attention to the plan or developing the resources that the continuity plan has denoted as necessary. As such, there are certain fundamental and appropriate mechanisms through which a business continuity plan can be tested and analyzed. The first and most obvious of these is with respect training. By training individuals that will be involved in business continuity operations, or business organization is able to ensure that individuals within the organization fully understand their respective responsibilities. Additionally, And rules can be performed which will help to ensure that the way in which crises are dealt with corresponds to the mechanisms that are denoted within the business continuity plan. Although it should not be expected that all potential and likely scenarios can be effectively engaged merely through a process of planning and training, seeking to regularly drill employees, represent the contingency planning that has been effected, and improve upon the process is one of the most effective means of ensuring that continuity planning maintains a primary focus within the firm or business organization in question. In order for such a program to be effective, it must necessarily engage with a high percentage of businesses. However, the key weakness of this particular program has to do with the fact that it is voluntary. Moreover, it costs money for a particular business or organization to become PS Prep certified; thereby effecting two impediments for further businesses/organizations seeking to engage with this offering. Although it is clear that the government has provided an effective and highly detailed training platform within PS Prep, the overall success of the program is less than one might expect; due in part to the fact that businesses have understandably shifted their priorities in other “immediate” profit oriented directions. Further, due to the voluntary nature of the program, the full effect that stakeholders within the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA hoped to achieve has not been realized (Isely, 2012). Although the program exhibits core strengths with respect to the way it engages organizations and businesses within the private sector, the key weakness is in the fact that it requires a relatively high investment by the firm or entity that seeks to engage with the training; thereby discouraging many firms from seeking out the training to make them more resilient in the event of a potential hardship. Regardless of this fact, the most fundamental shortcoming of the program has to do with the fact that it has been incorrectly marketed. Whereas the government is specifically interested in making the nation secure and resilient, this primal desire does not easily translate to the private sector. Instead, the approach that should have been taken is one in which the stakeholders within business are engaged based upon the potential for profit loss that could take place in the event of man-made or natural hazards. References Borgin, S. (2009). ASCE Meets with FEMA Director. This Week in Washington, 3. Department of Homeland Security (2008). Homeland Security evaluates FEMAs preparedness. Fire Engineering, 161(6), 58. Geffers, L. (2010). FEMA cites San Leandro for emergency preparedness effort. Fire Engineering, 149(8), 42. Isely, G. (2012). FEMA Creates New Preparedness Council. Professional Safety, 57(9), 16. Pritchard, R. (2007). GAO challenges FEMA to improve disaster preparedness. (2007). Safety & Health, 176(3), 14. Rigsby, D. (2002). FEMA To Issue Emergency Preparedness Planning Grants. Nations Cities Weekly, 25(39), 2. Russell, T. (2009). GAO recommends improvements to national preparedness. Safety & Health, 180(1), 19. Zhao, M. (2008). FEMAs Schrader pushes tie between safety and security. Safety & Health, 176(6), 30-33. Read More