How emergency preparedness can save your business

What is a business continuity plan? SAP’s global HR value advisor, Chiara Bersano, has a unique perspective on the question. In 1999, she was working for a global company that operated a factory in Izmir, Turkey, when a devastating earthquake ultimately left more than 17,000 dead and 250,000 homeless. Her company’s employees, however, fared better than most.

So, what is contingency planning? If you ask Bersano, it’s creating an emergency-response framework that results in retaining a healthy, motivated, dedicated workforce during and after crises.

“The power of relationship building from a crisis is extreme,” Bersano says. “It’s building a relationship based on trust with the employees.”

US Defense Planning

The RAND Corporation (from the phrase “research and development”) is an American nonprofit global policy think tank created in 1948 by Douglas Aircraft Company to offer research and analysis to the United States Armed Forces. It is financed by the U.S. government and private endowment, corporations, universities and private individuals.

The company assists other governments, international organizations, private companies and foundations with a host of defense and non-defense issues, including healthcare. RAND aims for interdisciplinary and quantitative problem solving by translating theoretical concepts from formal economics and the physical sciences into novel applications in other areas, using applied science and operations research. (Source: Wikipedia)

Be prepared when ‘what if?’ happens.

Natural disasters. Power outages.  Mechanical failures.  Events like these may be rare, but if they happen your business could be at risk, potentially costing you millions in lost sales and productivity. In today’s complex world a simple checklist won’t do when ‘what if?’ happens.  

Only a thorough contingency plan ensures you have properly assessed your risk and have the right backup systems and strategies in place to activate on a moment’s notice.  Trane can help.  Our experts work closely with you using a strategic, multi-step approach to identify, prioritize and mitigate the risks you face. You get an action plan to safeguard your critical operations and peace of mind knowing that you’re prepared.

U.S. Army War College

Contingency Plans

Contingency plans are developed by Combatant Commanders (CCDR) and Joint Force Commanders in anticipation of a potential crisis outside of crisis conditions. These plans are either directed by the classified Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) or Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF), or may address scenarios internal to the CCDR’s theater. 

Level 1 Planning Detail – Commander’s Estimate.
This level of planning involves the least amount of detail and focuses on producing multiple courses of action (COA) to address a contingency. The product for this level can be a COA briefing, command directive, commander’s estimate, or a memorandum.

Level 2 Planning Detail – Base Plan (BPLAN). 
A BPLAN describes the concept of operations (CONOPS), major forces, concepts of support, and anticipated timelines for completing the mission. It normally does not include annexes or time-phased force and deployment data (TPFDD).

Level 3 Planning Detail – Concept Plan (CONPLAN). 
A CONPLAN is an operational plan in an abbreviated format that may require considerable expansion or alteration to convert it into an OPLAN or operations order. It may also produce a TPFDD if applicable.

Level 4 Planning Detail – Operations Plan (OPLAN). 
An OPLAN is a complete and detailed joint plan containing a full description of the CONOPS, all annexes applicable to the plan, and a TPFDD. It identifies the specific forces, functional support, and resources required to execute the plan and provide closure estimates for their flow into the theater.

“Plans are useless, but ….”

As the supreme allied commander of allied forces in Europe during the Normandy invasion in World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower explained the importance of military planning when he said, “In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable.” 

JFK – New Look military strategy

The New Look policy, though initially useful, quickly became obsolete with the introduction of inter-continental delivery systems that undermined the credibility of a deterrence threat. The cornerstone of U.S. and European defense strategy was then threatened as the U.S. could no longer rely on nuclear threats to provide security for it and its allies.

John F. Kennedy won the presidency by claiming that the Republican Party had allowed the U.S. to fall behind the Soviets into a missile gap. Upon entering office Kennedy cited General Maxwell Taylor’s book The Uncertain Trumpet to Congress for its conclusion that massive retaliation left the U.S. with only two choices: defeat on the ground or the resort to the use of nuclear weapons.

Technology had improved since massive retaliation was adopted. Improvements in communication and transportation meant U.S. forces could be deployed more effectively, quickly, and flexibly than before. Advisers persuaded Kennedy that having multiple options would allow the president to apply the appropriate amount of force at the right place without risking escalation or losing alternatives. This would improve credibility for deterrence as the U.S. would now have low-intensity options and therefore would be more likely to use them, rather than massive retaliation’s all-or-nothing options.

Flexible Response was implemented to develop several options across the spectrum of warfare, other than the nuclear option, for quickly dealing with enemy aggression. In addition, the survivability of the retaliatory capability was stressed, leading to the diversification of the strategic force, development of the strategic triad, and half the Strategic Air Command force being put on permanent alert status.

The Kennedy doctrine did not include the ability to fight nuclear wars because of the idea that it would undermine deterrence, was technologically unworkable, would fuel the arms race, and was not politically feasible.

understand-culture
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.