 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
||
Home > Business Continuity Resources > Business Continuity Case Studies > 2011 Japan Tsunami, Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster > Transcript - Harvey Betan2011 Japan Tsunami, Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear DisasterHarvey Betan on the 2011 Japan disaster from a Business Continuity perspectiveModerator: So, Harvey, I think we all know that Japan is certainly a country that's well prepared for earthquakes; they're familiar with earthquakes and that's a threat that's commonly on their radar. What are your initial thoughts just about the events that have taken place there? Harvey: Well, first of all one can't play down the fact that a 9.0 earthquake is going to have a huge effect on anyone. Japan is probably, as you said, the most prepared country in the world for earthquakes, and yet they got devastated by the intensity of the tsunami that suddenly affected them. It caused a lot more damage and a lot more follow through, and coupled with the nuclear scare that they got really makes you think about the fact that you have to prepare for more than one eventuality. And preparing for a single eventuality, the follow-up may be worse than the initial reaction. Moderator: That's interesting what you mentioned -- single eventuality. Do you think that's a common pitfall when it comes to planning? Harvey: As a planner I would like to say no, but as a person who deals with organizations, . . . a particular plan. For example, "I want a pandemic plan." "I want this kind of plan." "I want that kind of plan." There may be issues within that, that cause problems. If you're talking about earthquakes, for example, or something that would affect not just you but the surrounding areas, there are infrastructures you forget to deal with; road damage -- you can't evacuate people the way you had anticipated in your plan. You may say, "OK, my earthquake plan, I expect people not to come in, or certain hours that it occurs," but one can't control what events happen and when they happen. So, you have to start thinking about various things. I used to -- usually we put that into tabletop exercises and throw some curves that way. Moderator: Oh, I see. Okay. Harvey: And it makes them think about -- Moderator: Well, that actually goes into my next question, how do you think businesses or companies can actually learn from this even in terms of planning for their own efforts? You mentioned going beyond that narrow focus of planning using tabletop exercises? Harvey: Yes, I'm a strong believer in using exercise, especially tabletop. It's the least structured and the least expensive way of getting . . . to start thinking. And if you set up the tabletop properly you get a good mindset, and people can brainstorm, and just let them go with the flow. And . . . comes up and . . ., and then as necessary to come up with whatever you're looking at in the target. However, when you're doing that you can throw in a lot of different issues that are sort of not related directly, yet indirectly can affect the event you're planning for. As I said, if you're talking about something that happens regionally you've got to be concerned about the infrastructure, you've got to be concerned with what happens with government control, police, fire. And those first responders are going to come in when you're trying to get people. There are a lot of things that can occur that you can throw into a tabletop without scaring people and just making them think about the issue. Moderator: You know, Harvey, I think it's interesting what you mentioned about the events happening indirectly, as a result of a primary threat. What advice can you offer businesses to help prepare? Harvey: When planning don't just plan for specific events, try and make it as generic as possible, and think about things that occur outside your perimeter that may affect you. Continue reading:
Go back: |
