Disaster Preparedness 2011 -- Lessons Learned

Tom Winn

Whether an incident occurs locally or overseas, the response to a disaster can become its own storm, pulling people in from their normal daily duties and placing them squarely in the middle of crisis response.

An organization may use a formal Incident Command Structure, variations of that structure, or take a completely different structure. No matter the direction taken, all organizations should have a formalized plan in place to address as many foreseeable disasters and crises as is reasonable.

The author’s personal experience has been that if a well-developed plan is put in place, with some minor adjustments that plan can be adapted to fit the odd, unforeseen crisis. The critical part is in the plan preparation and the maintenance of the plan after its creation.

This article will focus on lessons learned from recent crisis situations and the knowledge garnered from those experiences, which those who write plans can potentially incorporate into their own plan development. A parallel theme is, if you don’t have a plan now, or if the plan you have has not been updated in a year or more, creating or updating one should be a priority for your organization.

Plan writers can take note of the experiences discussed and apply them to their own situations. In the end, it is better to anticipate as many pitfalls as possible. While it is close to impossible to foresee every possible problem, the more potential issues that are considered, the more likely a solution will be included in the plan that is applicable to any odd-ball problem that may arise.  

These systems are limited in that they are reservation-based. If a traveler is not on the flight for which he or she is scheduled, it will not be changed in the system. The same can be said for hotels -- if an organization does not require travelers to stay at the hotel where they were originally booked, that change will not show up in the system. However, the quick, at-a-glance availability of the information is well worth the minimal investment, especially in times of crisis.

Who is under the protection of an organization during a crisis?

This question needs to be asked well in advance of a crisis. The author has witnessed that confusion over who will be evacuated can create unnecessary delays during an evacuation. Family members, house staff, local office personnel, pets, etc., should all be considered while writing and reviewing a plan. There is a natural human desire to want to take care of those people an organization considers “family,” especially during a large-scale disaster or political crisis. 

The reality is, the more people an organization must evacuate, the higher the cost. Also, relocating local nationals can present passport and/or visa issues. Something as simple as the definition of “family” can add complications. The group of individuals that people in the U.S. consider “family” is traditionally smaller than that which is seen in other cultures. A number of five to eight can easily grow to be 15 or 20 or more, further adding to the cost and complications of an evacuation.

Any service provider will need to know the exact numbers, locations and nationalities of the personnel they are moving. These numbers impact everything from vehicle selection to evacuation strategy and eventual destination. 

Another challenge the author has encountered is the issue of family pets. Pets present an entirely new set of complications, ranging from quarantine issues to whether or not the pets will be allowed on the evacuating vehicle (aircraft, boat, bus, etc.) The care that is necessary for a dog or cat can add further frustration to what may already be an extremely taxing and confusing situation. Attempting to evacuate with a pet may cause unnecessary delays and, in a worst case scenario, can preclude an evacuation from taking place at all. Again, it is critical that an organization answer the question of who, or what, will receive our care.

Preparations