The Human Aspects of a Crisis – RiskLogic presentation
October 12, 2010
Recently in September 2010, Jodie Wentworth attended the Continuity Forum Business Continuity Conference and Expo in Melbourne and delivered the presentation; “The Human Aspects of a Crisis.” Jodie drew on her time working with London Underground to explore how people’s reactions and subsequent behaviours can be disruptive to an organisation’s recovery effort, if the personal aspects of a crisis have not been considered during the planning phase.
Many factors can contribute to how an individual might behave during a crisis. And each individual is different. We should acknowledge that managing people on a day to day basis can be challenging because of these differences and will be even more so during a crisis. Jodie explored how basic human needs influence how an individual responds. Generally people need to: feel safe; have a sense of belonging; and feel valued1. A disruption to the workplace can disrupt these fundamental needs and thus create stress, and in some cases, trauma.
Given we are all different, and on any day we might respond to change and stress differently, what can we do to minimise these impacts?
- Get an understanding of how the organisation will respond to the impacts of a crisis – use the BIA, exercises and tests and employee feed-back to gauge the organisation’s culture and resilience to disruptions.
- Ensure policies are in place (and communicated) to respond to people issues during a crisis, such as:
- Working from and staying at home – what is expected of an employee?
- Will the organisation continue to pay contract and temporary staff if they are sent home, and not required to work for a period of time
- How will the organisation respond to issues around the loss of staff personal possessions? Is there a policy in place in regards to the type of personal possessions that staff bring to work?
- How will the organisation respond to staff injury or death? Who will manage the process at the time of the disruption?
- Manage expectations by taking the time to inform people of the plan, their roles and responsibilities.
- Provide opportunities for staff to build familiarity of the Business Continuity plan and solution (i.e. attend the alternate site).
- Establish internal mechanisms for monitoring and managing people issues. Harness existing team structures to provide support networks. Train managers how to identify and deal with their own, and their team member’s, stress. Don’t just provide outsources counselling services – remember that everyone is different, and therefore one solution doesn’t suit all.
- Motivate staff to build their own resilience such as having all their contact numbers with them, and making sure they have house keys and money with them should they be evacuated immediately.
Without taking into account the Humans Aspects of a Crisis:
- People’s ability to perform under pressure may be jeopardised
- The task of managing a crisis will become significantly more challenging
- The potential to create long term employee dissatisfaction will increase
- The ability to respond and recover will be affected.
Changes to AS4083 Planning for emergencies – health care facilities
October 12, 2010
The objective of AS4083 Planning for emergencies – Health Care Facilities is to assist health care facilities in effectively planning for both internal and external emergencies. This Standard is used in conjunction with AS3745, Emergency control organisation and procedures for buildings, structures and workplaces.
Standards Australia has released AS4083–2010 which supersedes AS4083–1997.
The following outlines the key differences between AS4083-1997 and AS4083-2010. These changes may require changes in the facility emergency response plans, or associated processes and training.
- The incident colour coding alert for personal threat (code black) now also includes “Illegal occupancy”. Illegal occupancy was previously included in code yellow.
- The new standard provides more guidance on the definition of the phases of an emergency:
- Alert: Emergency possible – increase level of preparedness
- Standby: Emergency imminent – prepare for implementation of response
- Response: emergency situation exists – implement response according to facility plans and in collaboration with other facilities as necessary
- Stand down: Emergency abated – return to usual business
- The new standard requires the emergency procedures to detail activation, notification and stand down procedures. The standard also recommends that State/Territory health departments introduce a nationally consistent and unique two- or three-digit number for notification of internal hospital emergencies.
- Examples of supplementary plans in the new standard now include pandemics, storage and handling of hazardous materials, and Tsunamis.
- The Emergency Coordination Centre is now called the Emergency Operations Centre.
- The new standard requires that where appropriate, the facility emergency response plans should be referenced to respective State/Territory health departments.
- The role of the Emergency Coordinator in the new standard now outlines protocols around communicating with emergency officers and working in an Emergency Operations Centre.
- The bomb threat procedure in the new standard now includes a definition of bomb threat.
- AS4083-2010 now includes information in the bomb threat procedures on identifying an object as suspect and actions to be taken when dealing with a suspect object.
- AS4083-2010 includes a section on suspect mail articles. It also requires that all occupants responsible for handling mail should be trained in the identification and subsequent handling of suspect mail articles.
- AS4083-2010 recommends that the procedure for internal emergency (hazardous substances incidents) should refer to relevant State/Territory legislation. The new standard also notes that shutting down the air handling systems may be a consideration in the event of dense smoke or hazardous airborne pollution.
- AS4083-2010 states that debriefing and emergency plan review should be conducted as soon as practicable after every emergency or training exercise.
Written by Cheryl Hambly
Learning & Development Manager, Risklogic Pty Ltd
The revised incident colour coding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planning to Manage a Crisis – RiskLogic Presentation
October 12, 2010
Over the past three months the RiskLogic Business Continuity Team has been busy presenting at various Business Continuity forums. In July, Mira Lose and Jodie Wentworth delivered “Planning to Manage a Crisis” at an Advanced Business Continuity Management Seminar hosted by Continuity Forum Ltd. The aim of the seminar was to provide experienced practitioners with advice and tips, by way of case study discussion and knowledge sharing, about implementing and maintaining their Business Continuity Programs.
Our assumption is that an effective crisis leader brings with him or her, this view, as well as a unique set of skills and behaviours. We believe that in planning to manage a crisis, we must acknowledge the importance of effective crisis leadership roles and commit to building that capability, as much as we commit to developing the Business Continuity (BC) plan, itself.
Mira used the words of Lee Iacocca to begin the session, “We are continuously faced by great opportunities brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems.” Lee was responsible for the revival of the Chrysler Corporation in the 1980s and was wise enough to see the potential for opportunity in the chaos of a crisis.
During the presentation we discussed the competencies of the crisis leader, their knowledge, skills and most importantly their behaviours. Research has shown that a key success factor for a crisis leader is his or her ability to build and retain a foundation of trust – before, during and after a crisis. The Crisis Leader’s attitude and strength of character is as important as his or her knowledge and skills. It is about having the courage to make the “defining decision” in a potentially chaotic environment, constrained by time and limited information, and the strength of character to manage the consequences of that decision when circumstances change.
We explored the concept of emotional intelligence (EQ) and proposed that a successful crisis leader – one who builds and maintains trust, and demonstrates the attributes such as integrity and courage – has a high EQ. EQ attributes can be split into four areas: self-awareness, self-management; social awareness, social skills. So someone with high EQ is aware of their own behaviour, and the way in which they are managing themselves, as well as the environment around them.
However we acknowledged not all people fulfilling crisis management roles have the innate abilities of a crisis leader, and therefore it is important for Business Continuity practitioners to provide opportunities for their crisis leaders to develop emotional intelligence. Key to developing EQ is via “experiential” learning opportunities, such as exercising and testing as they provide individuals with opportunities for self-assessment, and observation. Other opportunities to learn include team building, coaching and mentoring, and regular access to BC related information. Examples of other people’s ‘war stories’ and experiences are valuable learning tools too.
Our overall message was that whilst the BC Program is a necessary foundation, the capabilities and qualities of the crisis leader will greatly influence the outcomes. Therefore development and preparation of your crisis leaders is as important as the development of the BC plan, and should be an integral component of any BC program.
1. Human Resilience Ltd 2008, version of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
New Business Continuity Standard AS/NZS5050
October 12, 2010
Business Continuity (BC) has developed into a recognised profession and the requirement for having a Business Continuity Plan (BCP) in place has become more important. As a result, an increasing number of Business Continuity (BC) standards and guidelines have emerged and gained prominence in recent years. Australia adhered to this trend through its recent introduction of the standard AS/NZS 5050: Business Continuity – Managing disruption-related risk. In view of the previous absence of any Australian-wide established BC standard, this reform has raised the question, what does AS/NZS 5050 mean for organisations?
Whilst the fundamental importance and values deriving from implementing and maintaining an effective Business Continuity Program have not changed, AS/NZS 5050 provides another perspective of the context in which BC sits. At present, HB292:2006 offers a practitioners guide to BC Management, while Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADIs) also have to conform to APS232, laid down by their ruling regulator, APRA. These publications uphold more traditional BC methodologies than that presented in AS/NZS 5050, and ordinarily do not link BC to the subject of Risk Management. In contrast, AS/NZS 5050 strategically places BC in the realm of Risk Management. While this approach has been debated amongst practitioners and experts of late, the standard highlights the concept of risk assessment including the identification, analysis and treatment options of disruption-related risks. Unlike other guidelines and standards addressing disruption-related risks, AS/NZS 5050 expands its consideration to include preventative mechanisms and treatments, aiming to mitigate the occurrence and extent of events that can cause a disruption. As a result, it fosters the creation and preservation of a BC-aware and risk-averse culture in the company. The process of developing an accessible BC framework in the context of disruption-related risk, ensures a BCP is tailored to the organisation.
Comparable to England’s BS25999, whose initial publication in 2006 only gradually gained the momentum to succeed but which is now adopted throughout Europe, AS/NZS5050 is likely to be seen as a BC benchmark for many organisations, operating in Australia. Therefore, incorporating this standard will warrant the utilisation of a common language and performance measurement. In light of this, an independent assessment of an existing BC program is an opportunity to re-evaluate and invigorate BC within the organisation.
An audit will not only identify any prevailing gaps and deficiencies, but also reveal the current state and suitability of the prevailing program. Benefits from adopting the principles of a recognised standard such as AS/NZS 5050 will enhance an organisation’s resilience and create a strategic and potentially competitive advantage. Particularly, when comparing to other suppliers that are unable to show a prudent BC framework and compliance with the standard or other regulations. The verification of supply chain continuity will provide assurance to key customers that the business is appropriately prepared for a disruption, and will also demonstrate good governance and professionalism to all stakeholders.
Ultimately, the decision to adopt AS/NZS 5050 or another internationally recognised standard such as BS25999, is at the discretion of each individual business. Investing in an intact and tested BC program is not an option but a necessity in order to ensure the organisation maintains and successfully recovers from a business disruption. In particular, employing a BC system compliant with AS/NZS 5050 will provide a variety of opportunities to improve and refocus existing BC programs. And for those organisations in the process of creating a BC program, the standard, together with appropriate best practice guidelines, will provide a foundation for equipping a resilient business. Overall, AS/NZS 5050 has provided new fuel to the perpetually evolving discipline of BC and is an opportunity for organisations to revisit their BC preparations in view of the potential disruption-related risks they face.
Written by Mira Lose
Business Continuity Consultant, RiskLogic Pty Ltd
Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss
October 12, 2010
Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss
Background
Occupational noise-induced hearing loss (ONIHL) is a significant health and economic problem in Australia. Despite the seriousness of the issue, research suggests that several personal and institutional factors affect stakeholders’ willingness, ability or opportunity to implement effective noise control and hearing loss prevention strategies.
On 25 August 2010, Safe Work Australia Chief Executive Officer, Mr Rex Hoy, officially released the Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Australia publication at the Hearing Awareness Expo, run by the ACT Deafness Resource Centre. The publication focuses on research conducted by Safe Work Australia which exposes some of the key factors (barriers and enablers) that influence the effective control of occupational noise and prevention of Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (ONIHL). The results also provide insight into the design, implementation and evaluation of strategies for facilitating more effective occupational noise control.
The overall aim of the project was to provide stakeholders with a greater understanding of why a condition such as ONIHL still occurs among Australian workers despite the fact that each jurisdiction in Australia has regulations for the exposure to occupational noise.
The publication addresses:
- The causes of hearing loss (including structural problems, infections, exposure to certain chemicals and pharmaceuticals and ageing, in addition to exposure to loud noise)
- Studies of ONIHL in Australia, including prevalence and incidence statistics
- Noise management and hearing conservation (i.e. what employers can do to help minimise exposure to loud noise and other factors that contribute to ONIHL)
- Barriers to effective noise control (factors that impede the implementation of an effective noise control program)
- Promising enablers of effective control programs, including increased awareness, economic and regulatory incentives and managerial commitment
Effects of Noise Exposure
The National Standard for Occupational Noise [NOHSC:1007 (2000)] has established specifications on maximum daily occupational noise exposure levels. The maximum exposure level for an eight-hour period is set at (LAeq,8h) of 85 dB(A). For peak noise, the maximum exposure level has been set at 140 dB(C).
Although exposure to loud noise in the workplace is most often associated with hearing loss and impaired communication, noise exposure can also adversely affect workers’ health and wellbeing even when hearing remains unaffected (‘non-auditory’ effects). Evidence suggests that noise levels which are significantly below those considered hazardous to hearing may reduce worker performance and productivity by adversely affecting concentration, levels of stress, annoyance, job satisfaction and motivation.
In addition, other non-auditory effects of noise exposure and hearing loss include psychological and social effects, such as:
- Depression
- Memory loss
- Impaired decision making
- Reduced quality of life
- Lower morale and self-esteem
- Social isolation
- Social stigma
- Difficulty forming and maintaining relationships
Costs of Noise Exposure
The costs associated with noise exposure and ONIHL extend far beyond increased workers’ compensation insurance premiums. A case of ONIHL can have significant economic effects on a business, including:
- Employment and income disruption
- Increased employee absenteeism
- Increased employee turnover
- Reduced productivity and performance
Although workers’ compensation is the most readily identifiable and available ‘indicator’ of the cost of ONIHL to businesses, the total cost of exposing employees to excessive noise is estimated to be approximately fourteen times the cost of workers’ compensation costs. Factors such as productivity, absenteeism and staff turnover significantly contribute to the costs associated with ONIHL.
Controlling Noise Exposure
The ideal solution to excessive noise exposure is to entirely eliminate the noise source. In situations when this is not possible or practical, the legal requirement is to minimise exposure through a hierarchy of controls:
|
Priority |
Control Measure |
Example |
|
1 |
Substitution |
|
|
2 |
Isolation |
|
|
3 |
Engineering |
|
|
4 |
Administration |
|
|
5 |
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) |
|
It is important to note that the most common control measure (use of PPE) is the lowest priority on the hierarchy of controls. The highest priority is given to controlling the source of the noise followed by the path of transmission and, finally, the point of reception (the exposed worker). In addition to PPE being the least preferable option for minimising exposure to noise, studies have shown that PPE is often not used properly, including:
- Up to 46% of workers provided with personal hearing protection (PHP) do not wear them while working in loud noise, and
- About 50% of workers provided with PHPs remove them while working in loud noise.
Overall, there are many personal and institutional factors that can reduce the effectiveness of a noise control program, including:
- A dependence on personal hearing protection
- Intermittent and incorrect use of personal hearing protection
- Noise not perceived as a serious occupational health and safety issue
- Inadequate consideration of potential benefits of noise control
- The belief that noise control is too difficult
- The belief that personal hearing protectors can interfere with warning signals
- The stigma associated with employees admitting to being bothered by noise
- The lack of managerial commitment to workplace health and safety.
Conclusion
Several clear messages are evident from research on ONIHL:
- Both regulatory enforcement and education are vital for achieving more effective noise control and ONIHL prevention
- Employers, managers and workers need to be made aware of the real risks and available solutions – and they need clear, concise, and readily available guidance on how to achieve these solutions
- At present, there appears to be too many employers, managers and workers who believe that noise control is too expensive, too difficult, or simply not worth worrying about
However, a successful noise control program offers employers a number of significant benefits including operational improvements in productivity, work quality, and worker morale as well as reductions in absenteeism and accidents.
Consequently, many businesses may find that implementing a noise control program is a good financial investment as well as benefiting worker health and safety.
Written by
Kara Smith
OHS Consultant, RiskLogic Pty Ltd
References:
Evans GW & Johnson D (1998). Human response to open office noise. Proceedings of the International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem: Noise Effects ’98 Pty.
Kjellberg A, Landstrom U, Tesarz M, Soderberg L & Akerlund E (1996). The effects of nonphysical noise characteristics, ongoing task and noise sensitivity on annoyance and distraction due to noise at work. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16:123–136
Mital A, McGlothlin JD & Faard HF (1992). Noise in multiple-workstation open-plan computer rooms: measurements and annoyance. Journal of Human Ergology, 21:69–82.
Timmins, P., Granger, O. (2010). Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Australia – Overcoming barriers to effective noise control and hearing loss prevention, Safe Work Australia.
Social and Economic Costs of Influenza
October 12, 2010
Australian Health Authorities have warned that despite the weather warming up, the worst of the flu season has yet to hit, with the number of cases likely to spike in September & October. The warning coincided with the release of a survey showing colds and flu have cost Australian companies more than $7 billion in lost time over the past year. The survey found that more than a quarter of the $25 billion to $30 billion lost every year due to unscheduled leave was attributed to colds and flu. However the consequences of the latest strain of flu can be far worse than financial impacts. The death of a 60 year old man from the NSW Central Coast in early September from swine flu highlighted the dangers of the illness.
Infectious diseases can undermine economic and commercial viability by placing extraordinary demands on the healthcare system, sapping business confidence, reducing the productive labour force, and destroying individual livelihoods. Historical examples like HIV/AIDS and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) demonstrate just how vulnerable the economy is to major disease outbreaks. SARS alone, which was a comparatively low impact example is estimated to have cost the global economy somewhere between 30 and 50 billion US Dollars. SARS is a potent reminder of the impact infectious diseases can have on the financial security of local and international economies, even though in this instance only a few thousand people were affected globally. In looking at the impact of pandemics on economics, it was reported that during the height of the SARS crisis international travel to Asia went down by a massive 60%. Singapore Airlines for example, one of the world’s most profitable air carriers reported a $6million per day loss. Thankfully for them, and numerous other effected organisations, the SARS crisis only lasted a few short months.
Reports have also suggested that the 2009 H1N1 (Swine Flu) virus, through workplace absenteeism and business investment reduced Australia’s GDP by as much as 1.3% last financial year. That’s the economic impact of a relatively mild virus that was attributed to fewer than 1000 reported cases in Australia. While the normal seasonal attack of influenza is between 5% and 10%, a more virulent strain could affect 25% – 35% of the population. If this were the case, then a conservative estimate would see between 18,000 and 25,000 deaths and between five and six million reported cases.
There is always a very real chance that this can become a reality. The genetic material that controls the reproduction of the influenza virus is known to be relatively unstable and prone to errors as it reproduces itself. When errors occur, the virus undergoes what is known as an ‘antigenic drift’. It effectively changes. The host’s immune system won’t immediately recognise this ‘different’ virus and so a new infection can occur. This is the reason why we have a normal cycle of new influenza infections each year.
If the 2009/2010 Swine Flu effect was to be scaled up, should a more virulent virus emerge (to the number predicted as possible by some experts), the economic impact on Australian businesses could be immense. Only the organisations with sufficient contingencies in place to deal with these impacts will be fit to survive.
As dire as the economic impacts are, they don’t always have to be expressed in dollars to demonstrate their true effects. Other non-financial impacts can be shown by examples like a report out of India that suggests its armed forces are losing more soldiers in battle over Kashmir to AIDS than to conflict. What about the social impact on communities of people staying away from crowded places, or schools closing, restaurants shutting their doors, concerts going unattended, sporting fields being deserted, or air travel restrictions? All of these have significant social impacts and are a likely reality should a pandemic with true potential for morbidity and mortality emerge.
The spread of infectious diseases threatens the health, wellbeing and quality of life for all Australians. Infectious disease can highlight and deepen inequalities and vulnerabilities within societies like Australia, accentuating existing disadvantage and minority status. This can be highlighted by the prevalence of a number of infectious diseases within some remote aboriginal communities that are known to be otherwise extinct within Australia’s European population. Infectious diseases have a tendency to target the young, the old and the vulnerable of our society, as was the case in the most recent example. Pandemic data from history suggests that remote aboriginal communities have a five times higher infection and mortality rate of disease when compared with the wider Australian community. The effect that has on the social wellbeing of Australia is immeasurable and extremely detrimental.
Unfortunately, in a modern, jet setting society, stopping the spread of infectious diseases like Pandemic Influenza is impossible. For individuals, listening to the warnings, utilising the available vaccines where possible, and maintaining a level of general health that may help to minimise the impact of the infection and early recognition of the signs and symptoms of the disease may help to reduce the impacts.
In preparation for an outbreak, organisations should consider the development of a number of policies or governance for pandemic management, including the implementation of an ‘organisation wide’ flu vaccination program. Other strategies may include conducting a thorough assessment of all employees’ capability to work from home. This will allow a degree of work to continue without the spread of the infection to other employees, helping to minimise the impact and spread of an outbreak across an organisation. For businesses, adequate planning and preparation through the development of adaptable Pandemic Management Plans that are continually reviewed and tested should be considered as essential internal tools for dealing with the impacts of pandemics.
Maintaining the continuity of any business through periods of significant disruption is always difficult, whether it is as a result of an Influenza Pandemic or a significant physical disruption. However, with the development of organisation wide business continuity and pandemic management plans, maintaining ‘business as usual’ is always possible.
Written by Grant Davis
Business Continuity Consultant, RiskLogic Pty Ltd
Lessons Learnt – The Liverpool City Council Fire
October 12, 2010
In the early hours of Sunday morning, 15 August, Liverpool Council’s Administration Building and Chambers were almost entirely destroyed when a huge fire engulfed the building. “The roof of the building collapsed but fire crews managed to save the northern section of the building” [7]. Fortunately no one was injured and no evacuations were necessary. [5]
The Liverpool Council fire illustrates the importance of having a well-structured and scalable business continuity program in place. A disaster can occur at any time, and only with appropriate plans and procedures in place will the organisation be able to minimise impact to the company, stakeholders and operations.
The damage caused by the fire was extensive with the bill estimated to be $20 million [3]. Liverpool Mayor Wendy Waller said that many historical artefacts and documents were also destroyed.
However, the damage could have been far greater. According to media reports, it seems that the council were prepared and had procedures in place in the event of an emergency. There was a significant amount of documentation held at the Council, yet the mayor stated “that while some material would be lost, that most items are backed up on a fairly sophisticated computer system and taken off site,” she said.
She said “there will have been maps and drawings and other documentation relating to a range of council activities, including applications, which will have been lost because they were not computerised. “But we will be able to complete the picture.” [1]
The Council’s recovery action plan was also implemented immediately, sending 650 staff to work out of city libraries, depots and arts centres – or on to paid leave – until they find a new facility from which to operate. [6]
From these off site locations the council is working to ensure that operations and service levels are maintained.
What can we learn from Liverpool’s experience?
- The importance of having emergency and business continuity plans in place to ensure critical services can continue.
- The value of having a communications strategy to ensure accurate and meaningful information is communicated to all key stakeholders and the media.
- The preparation required to ensure IT systems, data and infrastructure can be restored within required timeframes.
- The need to identify and protect critical documentation as much as practicable. Are documents stored in cabinets rather than on open shelves? Should some documentation be stored off-site? Should some documentation be scanned and electronic copies stored?
By having appropriate contingency plans in place, it appears Liverpool Council was able to minimise the impacts to their services after the emergency occurred. This situation clearly demonstrates the importance for companies to build a resilience organisation that has adequate risk management, crisis and continuity strategies in place.
Written by Jodie Wentworth
Senior Consultant, Business Continuity, RiskLogic Pty Ltd
References
1. Liverpool Leader http://liverpool-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/no-shortage-of-leads-on-council-fire/
2. ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/15/2983167.htm
3. Liverpool Council Fire: USU General Secretary Visits (2010) United services Union http://www.usu.org.au/usu/artman/publish/article_1241.shtml, at 26 August 2010
4. Liverpool City Council http://www.liverpool.nsw.gov.au/docs/Media%20statement%20Liverpool%20Council%20update%2017%20AUGUST%202010.doc.
5. Fire Destroys Liverpool Council Chambers (2010) Big Pond News http://bigpondnews.com/articles/National-Regional/2010/08/15/Fire_destroys_Liverpool_council_chambers_499332.html, at 26 August 2010
6. Daily Telegraph http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/m-council-inferno-whats-next-at-liverpool-city-council/story-e6freuy9-1225905565926
7. Sydney Morning Herald (2010) http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/arson-suspected-as-fire-guts-council-20100815-12575.html, at 27 August
Effects of the New Zealand Earthquake
October 12, 2010
At approximately 4:35 am on Saturday 4 September 2010, a magnitude 7.1 earthquake struck the South Island of New Zealand, near to the nation’s second largest city, Christchurch. The quake struck at a depth of 16.1 km, approximately 40 km West of Christchurch. The resulting tremors caused widespread infrastructure damage, cut electricity supplies, closed airports, shutdown businesses, and created shockwaves that could be felt up to 400 km away in the North Island.
Up to 50% of the local population of 340,000 residents were immediately without basic utilities like water and electricity. The tremors that shook the earth caused major damage to underground water and sewerage pipes, and as a result residents were advised to boil water before drinking after reports of contamination. All schools were closed for several days and all public transport was stopped for three days. To add to the trauma felt by everybody in the community, in the first week after the quake, more than 400 aftershocks had been recorded throughout the region, most averaging above three on the Richter scale.
Remarkably, the impact of the largest quake to hit New Zealand since 1931 was surprisingly minor. There were a number of reported injuries, with only a few regarded as serious and although there was a 10 fold increase in the number of heart attacks in the 24 hours after the quake, no deaths were directly attributed.
It is estimated that 70% of the damage caused by the quake will be covered by the national disaster fund or private insurance. Although the cost of the rebuild is expected to exceed $4 Billion (representing around 2.5% national GDP), it is also estimated that the money spent on the quake reconstruction will boost the national GDP by about 1.5%.
In this instance it should be noted that the majority of the damage caused to buildings and infrastructure predominantly affected older, cultural and historical buildings and landmarks, most of which pre-date the 1931 Hawkes Bay earthquake. Historical examples of prior earthquakes as well as the geographical location of New Zealand, (which is located on some relatively unstable faults) led to the New Zealand government placing some very tough restrictions on building codes. Since the 1931 earthquake that killed 256 people almost all existing and newly built structures have been ‘earthquake proofed’. It is widely believed that the strict building codes in New Zealand was the main factor in minimising the damage and losses as a result of the latest quake.
Most businesses in the Canterbury – Christchurch area reported escaping without significant damage or loss. The general consensus was that the majority of operations continued as normal after safety and structural assessments were made. Air New Zealand reported that flights were departing from 1:30pm on the day of the quake after engineers had given the all clear for all terminals and runways to be re-opened.
It can be duly noted that the New Zealand Government has played a significant role in having the foresight and the economic durability to implement a number of stringent systems and policies to ensure the structural continuity of the country’s infrastructure to withstand the potentially catastrophic effects of a major environmental event such as an earthquake. Organisational foresight and continuity planning has also seen the majority of organisations in NZ cope with the disruption without as much as a blip on their financial reporting. In saying that, there are always opportunities to reflect on an organisations response to a significant incident once their planning and actions have been tried and tested. A disaster may provide the opportunity to conduct a review of plans and potentially pick-up deficiencies that may not have been otherwise accounted for in a simulated environment.
Not only will an earthquake have a devastating effect on the buildings and infrastructure of a city, it will also have a social impact on the fabric of its people. One example of the social impact on the community that can highlight the increased pressures is the example that in the week following the latest NZ quake local police reported a 53% increase in cases of domestic violence.
Impacts on staff are bound to have an increase on the pressures placed on workplaces to try and maintain critical business functions in the wake of a crisis. It has been reported that in previous examples of natural disasters that there is a 6 – 10% increase in the number of workplace accidents in the month following a disaster. How does an organisation account for the significant disruption to people’s home life? Organisations may have implemented systems or procedures to ensure the workplace functions as normal, but what about the unimaginable effect a disaster may have on staff?
It may be difficult to account for the true social impacts that a major earthquake might have on staff and their ability to attend and focus at work in the days and weeks following the disaster. With schools being closed and public transport out of action, how easily staff are going to be able to attend work and be productive is questionable. With their thoughts distracted by their personal situation, staff focus will be of concern. Chasing personal insurance claims, organising new electricity connections, getting damage assessed, organising temporary accommodation, organising care for children, all these things take time, and in most cases for the individual they probably take priority over work.
Flexibility and understanding seems to be the obvious solution for employers to account for the increased pressures felt by staff from their lives outside of the workplace. With family members at home that may have been injured, or having had their houses damaged or destroyed, employees may not be in the most productive frame of mind. Planning for this type of event should account for the very personal effects that a disaster may have on staff. Employers should be open and aware and be looking for the signs of stress or increased pressures faced by staff. Planning should consider – creating supportive networks, shift working to allow more staff to work reduced hours and if possible, consideration of additional support such as child care facilities.
This is where flexibility and understanding have to play a part for employers. In areas where disasters like earthquakes are a possibility, rigid plans with no alternative solutions or contingencies are not likely to be successful in a major disaster event. Recognising the signs of staff who are not coping, and having the planning in place to cope with their increased absence will ensure that an organisation has the most effective strategies in place to see itself through a disaster like that which affected the Canterbury – Christchurch area. Like any disruption that can be planned for, a natural disaster should always be factored in to the potential risk factors that may impact an organisation. The consequences of a disaster like an earthquake may be the biggest that an organisation may ever face.
Written by Grant Davis.
Business Continuity Consultant, RiskLogic Pty Ltd
