ERM-BC-COOP: Need to know documents

 

Lately there has been some discussion on DRJ's LinkedIn site [**] titled "How many employees should understand your organization’s emergency or crisis management plan?"

Fortunately, it has generated a number of responses.

Most responders think that the only answer is "All."

However, a few responders are concerned with sharing too much information, especially sensitive information and especially with some personnel lacking a "need to know."

That is understandable.

The solution is relatively simple and follows the scheme for most useful ERM-BC-COOP documentation: Create a complete document and distribute parts of the document on a "need to know" basis. The document also can be developed so that it can be distributed to "the world" with critical information easily removed prior to publication.

Basically, The Plan - be it business continuity or emergency/crisis management or any other - starts off with a high level overview.

• What is the plan's purpose
• What the plan includes
• When the plan was created/revised
• Who sponsored the plan; who authored the plan

All the above is "public" information.

In the case of an emergency/ crisis management plan, there might be a listing of several generic scenarios (e.g., building unavailable [for any reason], loss of communication, facility inaccessible [different from unavailable since people may be trapped in the facility]).

The scenarios would be in the "public information" category and distributed to all hands and can even be shared with "the world" much like a sanitized business continuity plan.

Everything else falls into restricted information.

Some of the restricted information can be shared with all hands. Included in this could be:

• Emergency notification process and relevant numbers to call (e.g., in case of fire, dial 0 and tell the Operator the location of the fire)
• Action to take in the event of various events (e.g., fire, smoke, electrical failure)
• Telephone numbers personnel can call to check on operational status (e.g., if the facility is unavailable, when/where to report, what time code to use)
• Policies and procedures relating to emergency/crisis situations

Finally, there is the restricted information sub-section, the "need to know" portion of the plan.

There an be two valid reasons for "need to know" restrictions.

First, and certainly "politically correct," is that there is no reason to burden all hands with information specific to a few people. The Crisis Management Team is a good example. These people are responsible for assessing (or having assessed) damages and making decisions regarding immediate personnel activities. Since "shelter-in-place" is included in an emergency/crisis management plan, there is more to consider than just "return to the facility."

Second, there may be truly sensitive information that must be restricted to a minimum number of personnel. HR-related information falls into this category; likewise InfoTech user information.

The mechanics of plan creation are documented at http://www.drj.com/articles/fall05/1804-04.html but basically require

• Thoughtful document design (organization)
• A word processor's "hidden text" capability
• An editor/proofreader to assure all "sensitive" information can be hidden
• A PDF generator (software)

In this case, both those who think everyone needs to know about an organization's emergency/crisis management plan and those who would restrict information are satisfied.

One caveat: As with all ERM-BC-COOP documents, this one must be exercised and maintained (kept up to date).

---

** http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestions=&gid=117659&forumID=3&sik=1262100736213

 

John Glenn, MBCI
Enterprise Risk Management practitioner (& sometime tech writer)
Looking for a new job

Lover of words

 

I came to Enterprise Risk Management , a/k/a Business Continuity, via tech pubs.

I got to tech pubs via honest (newspaper) reporting ("journalism" is far too fancy a word for what I wrote) and public relations. I came to reporting (and later editing) from the Orlando Sentinel's "back shop" where, back in the day, metal type (slugs) were carefully placed into forms (chaises) on rolling tables (turtles).

I "lucked into" the backshop having put in an application immediately following separation from the Flyin' Corps - don't call us, we'll call you, said the HR person. Two weeks later she DID, to my surprise.

But, as usual, I digress.

Lacking a journalism, or any other, degree, all I had to open the door to editorial was chutzpah (I knew I could write at least as well as the reporters at the Sentinel (and later Today), my journeyman printer status, and a vocabulary that, while hardly a match for either Hubert Humphrey on the Left or William Buckley on the Right - or even Spiro Agnew who also knew how to turn a phrase - was greater than most, and I deliberately chose the word "greater" in this case. Never mind that my spelling was suspect; there are proofreaders to save my copy (and to all the proofreaders - and typesetters - who DID save me from embarrassment, thank you).

My love of words commenced - began, even - before I crossed the threshold of Benjamin Harrison PS #2 for the first time as a first grader. I had an "in" at the Indianapolis Public Library. (As it happens, I still have an "in" at the library; Donna Foster, a different person - my original long since departed this world - but one I value highly.)

As a tyke, I was read to and I read. (I also was taken to hear the Indianapolis Symphony, both kids' concerts such as Peter and that large predatory canid and "adult" evenings, but that is a topic for another time.)

I read everything I could hold in my hands. True, this was before tv, but radio was entertaining, so I had options. But in addition to a floor-model Philco roll-top radio, we had books, and the main library was just a block down the alley. My reading never was restricted - if I could reach it, I could (try to) read it.

One thing about reading is that the reader's vocabulary increases by osmosis; kids especially are sponges and, unknowingly, I sponged up a great deal of what I read. I remembered the words, but to my misfortune, not always how to spell the words.

Rather akin to Eliza Doolittle (Pygmalion, My Fair Lady), how one speaks - and the vocabulary the person has at "tongue" - really does influence how people respond.

Put another way, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." With class, but never condescendingly.

Besides letting me squeeze into the editorial department - I got a cub reporter job on a small northern Indiana daily - my way with words helped keep my nose from being "reshaped" by some folks who may have found my opinions "objectionable."

It's been a few years since I got my first library card - now I have a plastic one with a bar code, progress I can appreciate (but, even though I am "computer literate," I miss the card files) - and I still love to read.

Maybe because the general quality of tv is less than it could be, I still find it easy to pick up a book and ignore the tube. I'm not sure my vocabulary is growing as fast as it did in my youth, but thanks to my reading habits, the library card, and the Internet, it's not for lack of material to read.

John Glenn, MBCI
Enterprise Risk Management practitioner and reader

 

OpenOffice is not MS Office

I hate to admit it, but OpenOffice.org applications and many of the Ubuntu utilities (e.g., Evolution) have a long way to go to compete with Microsoft Office and Microsoft utilities.

Granted, “you get what you pay for,” and OpenOffice IS free versus Microsoft products which are expensive.

But the more I use Ubuntu and the free applications and utilities available to it, the more I realize free apps leave something to be desired.

Since I own Microsoft Office 2007 and I have Vista Home on my new laptop, why did I install Ubuntu 9.04? For the same reason I am abandoning Yahoo mail.

Both Microsoft and Yahoo keep fixing things that “ain’t broke.”

Every time Redmond comes out with a new version of its products – be it OS or application – the User Interface (UI) is revamped. My productivity takes a serious hit when the latest and greatest is installed. As my productivity dips, my frustration level rises.

I’ve been using MS Word since V1.0 for DOS! It’s a great word processor. It never was anything more. Claims that it can be used for long, complex documents are, in my not-at-all-humble opinion so much hot air. If you are cobbling together a technical manual of 100-plus pages, with graphics and tables, get a page composition application and a decent graphics generator. Over the years I used a variety of applications – for page composition, FrameMaker, Interleaf, and Ventura (which still remains my favorite). Graphics? I’ve had Corel Draw, Deneba Canvas, and Micrografx Designer (nee’ In-a-Vision), among others. Using those apps, and Word, I’ve created long manuals, short newsletters, various length articles, brochures, and even a few resumes. By the way, there apparently are no free/low cost real page composition applications for Ubuntu.

When I tell you I LIKE Ubuntu and OpenOffice.org and Evolution (email handler), trust me, I do.

But I also will tell you they lack features and functions I take for granted in MS offerings.

Small frustration.

I created a document for my Web site (http://JohnGlennMBCI.com). I put files up in three formats: html, PDF, and text.

First, the “Web” looks for certain extenders; html, pdf, txt. Using some of those extenders confuses Ubuntu. It’s not a show-stopper, but it does slow down things. The text files are created from the word processor and saved as plain text. With Word, I can force line feeds; I can’t (seem to) do that with OpenOffice.org Writer.

With Vista, and XP before that, I could shrink an application to the ribbon at the bottom of the screen; when I do that with Ubuntu I usually loose the application and have to relaunch it. Ubuntu is fast, but why can’t I see the app in the ribbon?

There is a lot that can be said for Ubuntu and OpenOffice.org and all the rest of the FREE applications available for Linux and I suspect as I spend more time with them I’ll find work-arounds.

But for now, I feel like I’m caught between a rock and a hard spot (or anvil and hammer, if you prefer) – Microsoft is driving me up the wall with its constant mucking about with the UI (and the apps get fatter and fatter) while Linux lacks many features and functions I’ve come to take for granted.

Maybe I should chuck it all and by myself a good fountain pen. Do they still make them?

John Glenn
Scrivener & other things
Hollywood/Fort Lauderdale Florida

Life on an Idiotorial Review Board

I find myself on the Editorial Review Board of a fairly prestigious professional journal.

I was offered the uncompensated post because I am verbose and possibly because I tell one and all that once, about 100 years ago, I was an honest (read "print") journalist: reporter, feature writer, and editor of many titles.

As I read the articles submitted for ERB member consideration, I am reminded that the authors are, for the most part, not professional writers; they are vendors, sometimes techies, sometimes marketing or sales, sometimes execs.

Some have trouble writing their own name - or so it seems..

The prestigious professional journal is supported by advertising revenue; translation, find a way to clean up an advertiser's copy and run it.

Sometimes clean-up is easy, and then other times ... well, suffice it to write that - never mind, this is a family blog.

I do wonder why some folks at larger organizations don't ask their PR people to ghost the articles.

Egos, perhaps. Or they have reason to believe that if PR gets involved, Legal also will get involved and by the time the internal review cycle is complete the product will have been discontinued and the only thing that will remain from a 1,200-word article is the company name.

Having figuratively worn eye shade and sleeve garters, the sign of a "real" copy editor, I cave into my inner pressure to edit the copy on my desktop. Not every fractured phrase, but most tortured text gets at least a comment. One or two articles were so bad - to my mind - that I confess to tossing in the towel and suggesting a rewrite. (Turned out the rewrite was worse that the original article. No good deed, etc.)

I am finding that my "take" on articles frequently is at odds with a few of my fellows on the ERB.

Some reviewers post their comments using REPLY ALL so that "all" will have the benefit of their opinion. Others, this scrivener included, prefer to let everyone - except the Editor-in-Chief, of course - come to their own, independent, conclusions.

I gather that some reviewers want academic-length articles; articles that run to 10 times the allowable 1,200 to 1,500-word length for our publication.

No matter how focused an article, it seems one or two reviewers criticize the author for not providing sufficient information.

Others nit-pick an article because the author is a vendor (remember, vendors finance this publication) and even though the vendor's product may not be named in the article, it's "too commercial." 'Course sometimes the nit-picker happens to sell a competing product and that might color the reviewer's critique.

Back in the day when I was a managing editor, I could call a writer aside and provide some mentoring; usually that was sufficient to get our budding journalist back on track.

That luxury is absent in my present role as an "idiotorial" review board member.

I'm flattered, of course, that I was considered worthy of this uncompensated (did I mention that before) and apparently anonymous honor.

For once I'm glad someone else is Editor-in-Chief, the one who has to balance the comments of the ERB (and make a final decision that is bound to raise the hackles of some) and who has to diplomatically return really awful copy to its author who probably works for an important advertiser (and trust me, almost ALL advertisers are important).

Maybe I'm a masochist , but in my heart-of-hearts, I enjoy the challenge of the honor. Just knowing that the burden of dealing with opinionated people like me falls on someone else's shoulders lets me perform the assignment with a bit less concern for the final product - or the author's feelings.

Sometimes, however, I'd really like to share my thoughts about a few of my fellow ERB members ... but then I mellow out until the next critique crosses my desk.

Meanwhile, I'm having second thoughts about authoring articles for the journal; I couldn't take some of the criticism that is dealt out in the way it is dealt out.

John Glenn, MBCI
Enterprise Risk Management/Business Continuity practitioner
Hollywood/Ft. Lauderdale FL
http://johnglennmbci.com/
Planner @ JohnGlennMBCI.com