Crisis Management Planning

Crisis Management Planning

Problems management planning is an organized way associated with mulling over the misfortunes that could impact an organization or individuals. In problems management, flexibility is highly essential as opposed to a step-by-step process to support feasible dynamics. Flexibility assists in the analysis and addressing associated with specific issues. Even though a crisis will be, usually, seen because a negative scenario, it can assist an organization to understand and change based on the aspects of an incident. Quite simply, a crisis forces an organization out associated with its comfort zone. New points of see can be created for making an business withstand and successfully overcome possible potential crises (Crandall, Parnell, & Spillan, 2013).

Businesses that do not really learn from past crises are probably to experience a replica of such or more severe incidences later on. Organizations, individuals, plus government institutions ought to undertake role plus value evaluation via a learning process in which they detect and correct errors observed whilst resolving past bad events.

Analysis

Organizations and organizations can identify plus rectify errors mentioned in their past crises management within various ways, which includes single-loop and double-loop learning methods. Within single-loop learning, people, organization, or organizations change their activities depending on the way they accomplished results from a past negative incidence plus the anticipated results (Crandall et ing., 2013). Depending on observations regarding their existing situations, people, organizations, and organizations adjust new behaviors plus actions to alleviate plus improve circumstances. Inside double-loop learning, aside from changing their own behaviors and activities, organizations, individuals, or groups also alter the factors responsible with regard to the problematic activities.

The crisis management group should help within the improvement associated with communication in a good organization, system, or individuals. Miscommunication can lead to misunderstandings, which may, within turn, cause issues and delay inside finding an answer to a crisis (Astramovich & Coker, 2007). When an business realizes, from the past incident, that its crisis administration team does not really offer clear assistance on effective conversation, it can make use of that as a good insight of building a more strong and confusion-free info network (Crandall ainsi que al., 2013).

For example, in 2009, dust accumulation just next to a railway monitor with electrical cables started to smolder due to a moving trains’ braking steering wheel spark in Amsterdam (Steenbruggen, Nijkamp, Smits, & Mohabir, 2013). Alarm calls were made to the Schiphol Coordination Centre, which responded by sending airport fire and medical services.

The Railway Traffic Controller (RTC), who was working remotely, was also informed about the train conductor’s smoke but was hesitant to declare it an emergency case. The trains that were in the tunnel tube adjacent to the fire during the incidence stopped for 30 minutes due to the breakdown of the signals and switches (Steenbruggen et al., 2013). RTC then declared the incidence of an emergency issue, but the ultimate solution was to arise from the communication between Emergency Operations Coordinator (EOC) of the railway and the Airport Fire Officer (AFO).

The AFO requested Emergency Operations Director (EOD) to drive the trains out so that the fire brigade could have a safe space for extinguishing the fire. However, EOD requested EOC to ensure that the trains do not get out of the tunnel since he thought the firefighters were inside it. The firefighters could not establish the cause of the fire as they surprisingly found the trains in the tunnel, compelling them to request their immediate drive out.

Although no injuries or fatalities were reported, the details from Temporal Trace Language (TTL), a crisis management analysis tool, indicated that passengers whose trains were in one of the tunnels could have lost lives due to the delay arising from the miscommunication between the responsible personnel. After the incident, all the authorities involved in the safety and security of the Netherland’s railway transport system came together to establish an information network supporting quick, clear, and effective decision making.

Crisis management analysis helps to bring on board all vital players in the handling of the impacts of disasters (James & Gilliland, 2012). Most countries leave the responsibility of disaster management to their governments only, excluding other possibly important organizations and individuals. An analysis of poor disaster management as a result of limited resources provided by a few disaster management providers can be a lesson of encouraging broader collaboration.

For instance, after Hurricane Sandy stroke the United States, hundreds of lives were lost. Besides, many survivors could not access medical services due to the destruction of health facilities and congestion in the existing ones. The government seemed to be unprepared for such a disaster as it took longer to give an evacuation order for the survivors. To make the matter worse, non-governmental and faith-based organizations, religious leaders, as well as businesspersons, did not participate in the disaster recovery process as expected. As a result of the reluctance, Redlener and Reilly (2012) recommend that such individuals and organizations should be included in disaster management planning so that they can voluntarily promise on what they can offer when such crises recur. The incorporation of such organizations and individuals can be very helpful since they act as first responders who can later offer longstanding relief and other recovery services to the victims.

Conclusion

Role and value analysis is essential in crisis management for the successful handling of future negative situations since it offers an opportunity to identify and correct the existing flaws and weaknesses. It is paramount to assess the effectiveness of crisis management strategies regularly, especially after each crisis. With such an evaluation, the negative impacts of disasters will become minimal.

References

Astramovich, R. L., & Coker, J. K. (2007). Program evaluation: The accountability bridge model for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development , 85 (2), 162-172.

Crandall, W. R., Parnell, J. A., & Spillan, J. E. (2013). Crisis management: Leading in the new strategy landscape . New York, NY: Sage Publications.

James, R., & Gilliland, B. (2012). Crisis intervention strategies . Toronto, Canada: Nelson Education.

Redlener, I., & Reilly, M. J. (2012). Lessons from Sandy—Preparing health systems for future disasters. New England Journal of Medicine , 367 (24), 2269-2271.

Steenbruggen, J., Nijkamp, P., Smits, J. M., & Mohabir, G. (2013). Traffic incident and disaster management in the Netherlands: Challenges and obstacles in information sharing. Research Memorandum , 2 (24), 1-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.