Effective Fatigue Management
January 31, 2011
Written by David Ginpil, Head of Safety & Risk Management.
The increase in 24 hour operations and longer work shifts has highlighted the need for effective fatigue management strategies. Research has shown that fatigue can have significant impacts on a business including:
- Reduced productivity (through impaired performance, errors, etc.)
- Increased accidents (15–20% of accidents in transport operations are related to fatigue, surpassing that of alcohol or drug-related incidents)
- Increased personnel costs (e.g. lost time, absenteeism)
In addition, fatigue has significant personal costs to employees including contributing to health problems such as gastrointestinal and cardiovascular disorders as well as the disruption of family and social life.
The importance of fatigue management is reflected in the increasing number of legislated requirements and industry guidelines that have appeared both locally and internationally. Within Australia, regulations governing work and break schedules have been in place for many years within the trucking industry. Similar regulations or guidelines exist for other industries including rail, oil and gas and mining.
What is Fatigue?
Fatigue is an acute or ongoing state of tiredness that affects employee performance, safety and health. Fatigue is cumulative -it builds up, leading to a progressive loss of alertness that ultimately causes the person to fall asleep.
The effects of fatigue include:
- Loss of alertness – Loss of alertness is an early sign of fatigue and may include minor memory lapses or difficulty in operating equipment safety.
- Poor judgment – Fatigue affects the ability to think clearly and to make safety-related decisions. The problem is compounded by the fact that someone who is very fatigued may underestimate how fatigued they are.
- Mood change – Fatigued can cause irritability, agitation and the tendency to overreact to issues that arise.
- Drowsiness – When drowsy, a person may experience “microsleeps’ of 3 to 5 seconds. This can be critical if operating heavy machinery or travelling at high speeds. Eventually, this drowsiness can lead to the person falling asleep.
Causes of Fatigue
There are several factors that contribute to fatigue. These include:
Disruption of circadian rhythms
The body has natural or “circadian” rhythms that are repeated approximately every 24 hours. These rhythms regulate sleeping patterns, body temperature, hormone levels, digestion and many other functions. When these rhythms become “out of synch’ due to factors such as different sleeping or eating times or even changes in the exposure to light, fatigue can result. A common example of this is jet lag.
Sleep factors
The amount and quality of sleep is critical to preventing fatigue. People who do not have enough sleep will incur a ‘sleep debt”. This sleep debt is cumulative and will continue to build up if there is insufficient sleep.
The quality of the sleep is also important. Poor sleep quality is a common problem for those on shiftwork since it is often difficult to attain restful sleep during the day when it is light outside or if there is considerable noise.
Health factors
Many health factors and lifestyle choices contribute to fatigue. For instance, individuals with sleep apenoa (a breathing obstruction during sleep that causes oxygen starvation) do not get enough sleep because they wake frequently during the night. Other health conditions such as diabetes and obesity can also contribute to fatigue as can alcohol, a poor diet, poor physical fitness and the side effects of some medications.
Work factors
Work factors can be a major contributor to fatigue. Two common examples are long or excessive hours and inflexible deadlines.
Developing a Fatigue Management Program
When developing a fatigue management program, a risk management approach should be taken that involves the following key steps:
- Identifying the hazard
- Assessing the risk
- Controlling the risks
- Monitoring the effectiveness of the program
The application of this approach to fatigue management is shown below:
| Risk Management Steps | Application to Fatigue Management |
| Identify the hazard |
|
| Assess the risk |
|
| Controlling the risks |
|
| Monitor effectiveness |
|
Controlling fatigue
Controlling fatigue in the workplace ideally involves a number of different approaches that provide several protective ”barriers”. This includes:
1. Ensure adequate staffing levels
As a first step, it is important to ensure that adequate staffing levels have been set in order to enable control over other factors such shift length, amount of overtime and the average time off duty.
2. Shift scheduling
In addition to mandatory limits that may exist for shift lengths and rest periods, optimal shift schedules require consideration of issues such as shift structure (eg. permanent or rotating shifts), shift patterns (eg. fast versus slow rotation of shifts) and rest breaks during and between shifts. Shift schedules should also account for factors such as the employee’s commuting time to and from work, employees swapping shifts or overtime assignments. This is best addressed by using fatigue risk models to assess actual (rather than planned) work-rest patterns and to place limits on the number of consecutive working hours or the number of days worked in a row.
3. Employee fatigue training & sleep disorder management
It is also important to educate employees on the causes of fatigue and the ways that they can manage their personal fatigue risk. This includes coping with shiftwork lifestyle issues and understanding health conditions that may affect the quality of sleep.
4. Workplace environment design
Changes in the workplace can also assist in overcoming reduced alertness caused by out of synch circadian rhythms or inadequate sleep. Changes in environmental factors such as the lighting intensity, sound levels, temperature and humidity can be helpful in this regard.
5. Alertness monitoring & fitness for duty
A final line of defence is to put measures in place that identify employees who are not suitable for work. Technologies such as alertness monitors and fitness for duty tests are options that can be considered for this purpose.
By taking a systematic approach to fatigue management, companies can minimise fatigue-related incidents while improving employee well being and ensuring compliance with OHS regulations and best practices.
Change in Pandemic Phase
January 31, 2011
Written by Mira Lose, Business Continuity Consultant
As of 1 December 2010, the department of Health and Ageing has officially moved its Pandemic Phase from PROTECT to ALERT, signifying the end of the swine flu pandemic in Australia. This development followed the World Health Organisation’s announcement in August 2010 that the H1N1 influenza virus is now in the post-pandemic stage with localised outbreaks of various magnitude likely to continue throughout the world. At the time, the Australian government considered it appropriate to remain in the Protect period, which proved to be reasonable, as the country went on to experience one of its highest peaks of confirmed swine flu cases in the second half of 2010.
As part of Australia’s response to alleviate H1N1 and curb a pandemic outbreak, the government rolled out a free vaccine program in 2009. While the free vaccine is no longer available since 31 December 2010, the virus H1N1 has now been incorporated into the seasonal influenza vaccine for 2011. While the future impact of the virus is impossible to predict, it is expected that H1N1 will continue to circulate as a seasonal influenza strain for years to come. This means that more people will develop immunity to the virus. Nevertheless, actions to generally reduce the risks of influenza infections including hygiene practices and vaccines, should be reinforced and applied throughout work places and at home in order to prevent or at least mitigate the impacts of another influenza pandemic. It is important that businesses continue to prepare and maintain a sound and well-tested Pandemic Management Plan. This plan will provide the organisation with a roadmap of the appropriate response efforts to support employees and minimise operational disruption to the business.
Talking Risk with Westpac Bank
January 31, 2011
Interview by Grant Davis, Business Continuity Consultant
There is always something we can learn from the experience of others. To this aim this article is the first of a series of interviews with individuals who we recognise as leaders or influencers in the areas of Risk Management, Business Continuity, Incident Management, OHS and other related fields. JFK is quoted as saying, “Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other,” and no more so in the field of Risk.
In this first edition of ‘One-on-One’ we speak to Robert Colla, the Head of Risk Analysis and Market Risk Management at Westpac Institutional Bank. Robert has more than 20 years of experience in risk with Westpac in Australia and London, and is widely recognised as a pioneer of risk management in the Australian banking and financial services industry.
In this discussion, Robert emphasises the importance of championing risk within the organisation, driven by the ethos that “risk is everybody’s business.” He also raises the challenge of managing risk within ever tightening regulatory constraints on one hand, and more complex data systems on the other. For Robert the way forward is to be able to analyse and report on ‘real-time’ data, whilst using simplified yet robust systems, to monitor risk.
Briefly describe your role: I lead a team responsible for the oversight, analysis and reporting of trading-related risk for the Westpac Institutional Bank and broader Westpac Group. We have a team of people responsible for overall risk management, who deal with the traders (those trading the portfolios of risk) and others who are directly involved in the market in areas like foreign exchange, credit markets, capital markets, treasury and liquidity. We independently assess the market risk exposure in both value-at-risk terms and structurally and provide analysis of that risk for management and regulatory purposes. I am also responsible for Board and regulatory reporting. We provide consultation services to the business to ensure that all levels of risk are understood and managed appropriately. Others within the organisation are responsible for individual transactional valuation whereas my team are responsible for ensuring the frameworks and systems dedicated to Risk Management are developed, maintained and incorporated into the operations of the organisation.
Describe your initial involvement, and progression in Risk Management: My initial involvement was as a Trader, in effect, one of the ‘risk takers’. After a period of time in London in the trading market I became involved in the establishment of the relationship between Risk and market activity for Westpac in Australia (around 15 years ago). In the fledgling days of market risk, we were still developing the relationship between market risk and the objectives of sound risk management. We were tasked with trying to create a cultural linkage and relationship between the risk takers and the risk overseers. A number of market crises through the late 80’s and 90’s led to significant increases in regulatory controls and requirements within the financial services industry. This demanded greater oversight, analysis and understanding of an organisations credit and market risk activities. My experience within the market as a Trader allowed for a greater understanding of the risks associated with those activities, so it was a natural transition into the realm of Risk Management.
Has the ‘profile’ of risk changed over the years within your organisation: In my experience, the profile of risk has changed dramatically, not only within Westpac and the financial services industry, but within the business community and society in general. People have a greater understanding of the concept of risk, and therefore there is an expectation that risks are appropriately managed. Market events, as well as greater regulatory control, has significantly increased the level of understanding, knowledge and perception of risk and what role it has to play within the Credit and Market activities of the organisation. The growing regulatory environment and the development of risk related systems and technologies have enabled greater increases in our abilities to assess and manage risk. This then allows us to better understand risk as a concept and report and promote it to those not directly involved. Prior to events like the 90’s recession, Asian crises and tech stock crash, the market did not understand the concept of risk at the same level or depth that we do now. There is now a greater textural understanding of risk and its application. I now believe that our risk management activities better allow us to be ahead of the game, and relatively ‘pre-emptive’ of market changes and activities.
How has your organisation adapted to the increased requirements for Organisations and Boards to better manage risk: In the wake of the global financial crisis (GFC), and other high profile economic events, regulators now want to see that Directors and Boards have a detailed understanding of the risks that their organisations are taking. Westpac has adapted to the increases in regulatory requirements through the development of sound risk frameworks, policies and practices. The organisation has a hierarchy of delegation and control that starts with the Board and the Board Risk Management Committee, and filters down through all levels of the business. Our Risk Management Frameworks now ensure greater accountability at the top, and the implementation of those policy statements allow for greater aggregation of overall risk information. The regulators also want to see that there are no gaps between the ‘in-principal’ documentation and the actual risk management practices. Part of my teams’ activities is to report the impacts of various ‘stress tests’ on our business activities. A detailed analysis of the results of those tests are reported and communicated back to the executives and the Board on a regular basis. Greater education and understanding of ‘risk’ and the implementation of solid frameworks across the organisation ensures that we are in a position to better manage risk in line with best practice and our ongoing regulatory requirements.
How widely accepted is Risk Management within your organisation and is there a strong risk ‘Culture’: Westpac has developed a very strong ‘risk culture’. As a financial services institution, our interaction with risk is a big part of ensuring our ongoing financial objectives are achieved for our shareholders and customers. Internally, Westpac maintains a motto that ‘risk is everybody’s business’. We have a very strong risk culture within the areas where risk taking is a direct function of the business, or where it is meaningful on a day-to-day basis (in areas like Foreign Exchange or Capital Markets). Of course, there is always a danger that the risk culture is nothing more than a documented framework which may not actually be effectively implemented. I don’t believe that to be the case with us. Lessons have been learnt from our experiences over many years which have developed a strong risk culture and we maintain good discipline around lending practices and limit structures. Across the organisation, from the Board down, diligent risk management is the expected standard practice.
Have you or your organisation developed or adopted any systems or programs that have assisted in better managing risk: Westpac utilises a number of standard risk measurement and reporting platforms. We have significant infrastructure dedicated to risk management. We have a number of ‘off the shelf’ engines that are applied to our processes. In most cases we have worked with the provider to make modifications to the standard package to ensure they suit our requirements. We have separate platforms for measuring and reporting in all areas like interest rate risk, operational risk, liquidity, market risk and credit. One of the main barriers or constraints to good risk management is the access to and consistency of data. A number of the systems we utilise assist us in the management of our data. Developments in the availability and use of various technology associated with risk management has allowed us to oversee, analyse and report on risk in a much more effective way. The systems and platforms we apply have helped to minimise the need for individual interpretation of data, which greatly improves our efficiency and ability to manage risk.
What are the biggest risks that organisations like your face: As a lender, credit risk will always be our primary risk. Any large organisation such as ours also has significant operational risks inherent in our activities. Part of the regulatory response to the GFC will see more stringent liquidity requirements for financial institutions and that will continue to be a significant risk factor. One of the risks we all face is the systemic risks in the market place. This is an interesting one as these risks are things we can perhaps influence but cannot directly control. The quality of the regulatory changes currently being implemented will be critical in addressing these systemic factors. There is a risk that we get lost in the complexities or that the systems involved become too complicated to be effective. I believe it’s important to maintain the practical textural understanding and depth of knowledge associated with risk.
Is there anything that would help an organisation like yours better manage risk: ‘Real Time’ risk management has always been the ultimate ambition. Increasing our ability to capture, store, analyse and report data in real time would greatly improve the ability to optimise risk management. Continued modification and development of the tools we currently utilise is the likely progression for us in assisting to improve our risk management practices. Like most organisations, as the market evolves there will always be a demand on us to maintain the level of understanding, knowledge and application of risk management practices across the organisation.
Who is your champion of risk: Westpac has always maintained three solid lines of defence regarding risk management. That is, the business unit level, the monitoring and oversight level, and the executive and Board level. Strong leadership and direction has always been maintained at each of those levels. My opinion may relate back to my days as a Trader, but I have always maintained a close interaction with those in the business that are ‘generating the risk’. This has allowed me to maintain a working knowledge of our risks and develop the frameworks and strategies accordingly. The internal championing of risk goes back to our internal motto that ‘risk is everybody’s business’. This is definitely the case with us. There is no one individual that stands out in the risk area. Everybody has a role to play. With significant investment and support in risk from the senior executive and Board, the application of our risk strategy and framework allows us to continually develop and evolve. This will ultimately enhance the stability of the business and assist us in meeting the expectations of our stakeholders.
Changes in Emergency Standards – AS3745
January 31, 2011
Written by Cheryl Hambly, Emergency Management
There are important changes to Australian Standard 3745; planning for emergencies, that may impact your organisation.
Every organisation is obligated to comply with state-based health & safety legislation and regulations, requiring the provision of a safe workplace for staff and visitors at all times. This extends to the prevention and management of unforeseen and potentially life threatening emergency situations within the workplace.
Australian Standard 3745 has been developed to provide a uniform code for managing emergency procedures and evacuations in the workplace. Adherence to this standard is not compulsory, but is widely recognised as best practice and the benchmark for developing compliant and effective emergency management programs.
Standards Australia has recently released the 2010 update of AS 3745, which now supersedes AS3745-2002, Planning for emergencies in facilities. There are some significant changes to this standard that may result in additional compliance challenges for organisations, requiring updates or changes to your procedures, maps and training programs. It is strongly recommended that all organisations review their programs, in line with these changes, to ensure full adherence to the revised standard.
The following information outlines significant key differences between AS3745-2002 and AS3745-2010. Please note that this summary is not intended as an overview of all your requirements under AS3745, but merely the key differences between the standards.
Should you require any assistance or further guidance regarding these changes, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Emergency Planning Committee (EPC)
- Those responsible for a facility or its occupants shall ensure that the EPC has adequate resources to enable the development and implementation of the emergency plan.
- The EPC is now required to take responsibility for the development, implementation and maintenance of the emergency plan, emergency response procedures and related training
- EPC should contain at least two members. At least one of these members shall be management. At least one member shall be a competent person.
- Consistent with the previous standard, EPC shall meet at least annually.
Indemnity
- The new standard has removed the explicit exemption from liability for wardens as long as they act in’good faith’.
- It is now advising that “facility owners, managers, occupiers and employers should obtain professional advice on the level of indemnity provided to EPC (and ECO) members. The EPC and ECO members should be advised of the level of indemnity provided”.
- It is important to remember that the Australian Standards, at present, are recommendations and guidelines though they are not legally binding unless they are otherwise incorporated into contract or legislation.
- Assuming that organisation’s do not have agreements with their wardens that reference back to the Standards, then change in the standards does not necessarily affect the positions of the companies and the wardens. However, in circumstances where the company is silent on the situation of indemnity and an issue arises, the Standards (and therefore the new definition of indemnity) may be implied as being applicable, particularly if the company otherwise purports to rely on the Standards.
- The change in AS3745 does not automatically render a fire warden personally liable. It does, however, give companies the option to allow their fire wardens to become personally liable, an option that was not previously available under the former Standard. It is for this reason that best practice would suggest that companies expressly indemnify their fire wardens, in order to encourage active volunteer participation without fear of liability.
This reinforces the need for organisation’s to follow due process and have all encompassing, best-practice, emergency management programs in place.
Emergency Management Plans
Structure of the emergency plan
The emergency plan shall include the following additional elements:
- Information on the structure and purpose of the EPC.
- Description of the fire safety and emergency features of the facility.
- The organisational arrangements for the facility.
- Separate sections for the following:
- The emergency identification outcomes.
- The emergency response procedures (pre-emergency, emergency and post-emergency).
- The evacuation diagram.
- Training arrangements.
- The EPC nominated validity period for the emergency plan.
- The date of issue or amendment date on each page of the emergency plan.
Distribution of emergency plan
- Plans should be distributed to members of the EPC.
- Sufficient information shall be distributed to the members of the ECO members.
- Sufficient information shall be distributed to the facility occupants to explain their actions to take with regard to an emergency.
Key elements of emergency plan
New or changed elements include:
- Consideration for communicating with neighboring facilities.
- The location of the emergency control point (ECP), as well as an alternate ECP to allow for contingencies.
- Inclusion of information and instructions on the use of any emergency response equipment that is in place in a facility.
- Outline of various evacuation options – full evacuation, partial evacuation (for aged care, hospitals, etc) and shelter in place (ie lockdown).
- The characteristics of, and hazards from, external sources shall be considered.
- Media response – all media statements should be provided, released and authorized by nominated persons.
- Additional definitions around the considerations for occupants and visitors with a disability, and the need for a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP). A sample PEEP is included in the appendices of the standard.
- Personal effects – occupants and visitors may be asked to take their immediately available personal effects such as handbags, wallets and car keys if it is safe to do so.
Consideration should be given to the use and suitability and storage arrangements of stairway evacuation devices.
Evacuation Maps
Standardised colour codes are now incorporated into AS3745. This is consistent with AS4083.
| Incident Type | Incident Colour Code |
| Fire/smoke | Code Red |
| Medical Emergency | Code Blue |
| Bomb Threat | Code Purple |
| Infrastructure and other internal emergencies | Code Yellow |
| Personal threat | Code Black |
| External emergency | Code Brown |
| Evacuation | Orange |
Authority of Emergency Control Organisation (ECO)
- Authority given to the ECO to act during an emergency must be acknowledged by the facility owners, managers, occupiers and employers as part of the Emergency planning activities.
- The EPC should ensure that the appropriate people, such as senior management, have been advised of the authority of the ECO during emergencies.
Training
- At least one member of the EPC shall receive training.
- All training and skills retention activities shall be conducted or supervised by competent person(s).
- Additional training should be conducted for persons appointed to the positions of chief warden, deputy chief warden and communications officer, and their deputies.
- Training should be conducted for all new occupants including casual occupants/employees, at the commencement of their duties in a workplace or their occupancy of a building.
- Occupants should participate in training activities at least annually.
- Occupants of a facility, who do not work at that facility, should receive training to enable them to act in accordance with the emergency response procedures.
- Visitors at the facility should be provided with appropriate information on the emergency response procedures, as determined by the EPC.
- The ECO and occupants shall be supplied with training material appropriate to each person’s role and level of responsibility as determined by the emergency plan. Training materials shall be site specific.
Evacuation Exercises
- Occupants should be notified before the evacuation exercise takes place.
- All areas of a facility shall participate in at least one emergency response exercise in each 12-month period.
- All occupants of the areas involved in the emergency response exercise shall take part, unless the EPC grants a written exemption prior to conducting the emergency response exercise.
An emergency during an emergency response exercise should be considered, with pre-determined word or phrase being disseminated to all ECO members (eg ‘NO DUFF’).
Bomb Threats
- The new standard now includes the acronym HOTUP for identifying an item as suspect (Hidden, Obviously a bomb?, Typical of its environment, Unauthorised access?, perimeter breach?).
Other Changes
Definitions
- The new standard contains additional definitions including assembly area, Class 1a buildings, competent person, emergency mitigation, emergency plan, emergency preparedness, emergency prevention, emergency response exercise, emergency response procedures, emergency response team, evacuation, evacuation diagram, evacuation exercise, facility, facility operational incidents, occupant, occupant warning system, personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP), refuge, staging area, test, visitor, warden intercommunication point, workplace.
Abbreviations
- The new standard includes a list of abbreviations.
Maintenance and review of the emergency plan
- Advisors for the emergency planning process should hold recognised qualification/competencies in a relevant discipline.
Emergency phases
- The emergency plans shall include all phases of emergencies – prevention, preparedness, mitigation and response.
Hazard assessments
- The new standard provides more guidance in the requirements for identifying and assessing potential emergency events and scenarios.
Roles and responsibilities
- The new standard outlines for each ECO and Emergency Response Team member their pre-emergency roles, response roles, and post-emergency roles.
First aid identification
- The identification for the First Aider is now a white cross on a green background.
Reviewing the Lessons of the QLD Floods
January 31, 2011
Written by Jodie Wentworth, Senior Consultant – Business Continuity
On Monday 17 January, the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, announced a Commission of Inquiry into the floods that devastated approximately 70% of the state, and affected around 60% of the Queensland population1, a disaster that is amounting to be the worst ever to impact Australia. Ms Bligh declared, “We need to learn the lessons of this event so that we can protect ourselves better in the future.”2
It is only a few weeks since the disaster peaked and already Bligh is looking forward, wanting to harness the immediate experience of emergency response teams, individuals and businesses to understand how the response was managed, and indeed if anything more could have been done to prevent such a devastating and tragic situation.
For those organisations that are still managing the crisis, now is the time to take Anna Bligh’s lead and look back on the experiences of the last month, then look forward.
Now is the time to capture the thoughts and reactions of crisis teams, staff, customers and suppliers to analyse the lessons that can be learned. The experiences of the last month, whilst at times stressful and tiring, are unparalleled and unique. There is so much to learn and there is always room for improvement.
Conducting a post incident review – the 3 Ws
A post incident review can be undertaken in a number of ways, and will depend on the size and breadth of your organisation. However an effective, yet simple, process is to ask three questions: What happened? What went well? What do we need to improve or change? Answering these questions can be achieved by a number of different approaches:
- Workshops and Interviews with key groups. It is vital that those who had direct involvement in the management and implementation of the response and recovery are involved in facilitated workshops, where possible, or interviewed on a one-to-one basis. Facilitating a workshop with teams such as the Crisis Management Team, will enable an in-depth analysis of all aspects of the response, and will also create long term buy-in to the Business Continuity process if it isn’t already there.
- Staff debrief. Feedback can be gained from staff via team based discussions – perhaps a team meeting dedicated to discussing the experience and the perception of staff. Alternatively, questionnaires can be a useful way of receiving feedback from staff who may not otherwise express their views. Experience shows us that feedback from staff is critical. The perception of staff can highlight where communications may not have worked, and can expose weaknesses, and applaud strengths, in leadership and direction.
- Supplier Review. Establish dialogue with your suppliers. What difficulties did they face and how did that impact your organisation? Review the Service Level Agreements and indeed your expectations of your suppliers and discuss with them areas that need to be further improved.
- Understand the customer impact. Speak to those staff who are customer-facing. What feedback did they receive during the disruption and what issues did your customers face?
Whilst key themes for improvement will have emerged throughout the disruption, specific areas that should be included in a review are:
- Communications. Given the external and internal feedback you will have received during and after the disruption, consider the communications strategy you applied, as well as the media and messages you used. What additional tools did you require? Did your IT and Telecommunications infrastructure support your efforts?
- Infrastructure. In a disaster of this scale, it is inevitable that there were challenges in continuing IT and telecommunications services. The substantial ingress of water, and disconnection of power will have proved challenging for some organisations. Review the capability of your infrastructure and any recovery efforts. Were your recovery plans and solutions sufficient? What did the IT downtime cost your organisation, either by direct financial losses, or as impacts to reputation and customer service?
- Crisis Team. Did you have a designated crisis team and how did it perform? Staff and recovery teams will have feedback, as will the crisis team itself. Consider the roles and responsibilities of the team members – were they filled adequately? Were there sufficient tools to support decision making? Did team members feel capable of the task at hand? A difficult question to ask, but it is vital that each crisis team member considers their own response to the disruption, and the tools and support they need for the future.
- Business Continuity Plan and processes. For many organisations, this will have been the first time they have used their plan in anger. Was it adequate in providing guidance and support to the Crisis Team as well as the disrupted departments? Consider not only the content, but also the structure and usability of the document. Review the processes you followed to implement your recovery solution such as activating alternate arrangements, and critical business functions. Did you achieve your recovery time objectives?
Implementing the improvements
The output of the review must be action based, with clearly assigned responsibilities and timeframes for completion. Ensure all participants, and the organisation in general, are informed of the lessons and can see that there is commitment to implementing changes where they are required. Ensuring the actions that were identified are implemented is a key challenge for any Business Continuity Manager. As the organisation returns to ‘normal’ and the day-to-day demands return, the focus of senior managers as well staff will change. It is important that the crisis management team takes ownership of the outputs of the review and commits to ensuring all the actions are implemented.
Learning from others
Whilst the many affected Queenslanders are faced with the daunting task of cleaning up, as well as the long term recovery of infrastructure, businesses, homes, and tourism, those of us not directly affected, can take this opportunity to learn from their experiences, and to reflect on the preparations in place for our own personal situation, and that of our business.
How would your organisation cope with an event such as the Queensland floods? Would your business continuity plan, your training and testing, prepare you for managing a disaster with such widespread and unpredictable consequences? Anna Bligh mentioned in one of her press conferences that it had been said that if a scenario of the magnitude of Queensland’s floods had been suggested as an exercise, some people would have said, “That will never happen.”
From a fundamental level there is one significant lesson to be learnt – and that is, it does happen. We cannot be complacent in our consideration of the risks we face, nor in our efforts to implement a valid and workable business continuity plan. Now is the time to ask ourselves, if this was us could we manage our business through such a disruption?
***
RiskLogic recognises the importance of the experiences of those who have been responding to the floods throughout Queensland, and are speaking with our partners and clients affected by the event to understand the lessons from their response.
Should you require assistance in conducting a post incident review or would like to have any assessment of the plans you currently have in place, please contact us at info@risklogic.com.au.
1 – Queensland Government Press release Monday January 17 2011
2 – Queensland Government Transcript press Conference – 2.15pm Monday 17 Jan
