Tag: risk management

Getting Started on Emergency Preparedness

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

We seem to live in a world filled with unpredictable risks: a banking crisis, potential Greek debt default, H1N1 flu, gulf oil spill, Icelandic volcano ash, terrorist attempts, etc.  Many small and medium-sized businesses defer emergency preparedness planning because they are unable to find the handle to get started or they fear a bottomless pit of cost with no expected benefits.  Doing nothing is a choice, but it is not the best choice.

Any firm can complete the first three steps of an emergency preparedness plan in less than one day: outline the potential risks, prioritize their likely impact and outline the required preparedness measures which would address the risks.  Most potential risks are generic.  The attached checklist can be modified to highlight any other risks.

The identified risks can be prioritized through a simple weighting scheme.  For each risk, rank its probability of occurrence in the next 10 years as 1-5, with 5 being highest.  For each risk, separately evaluate the potential human and property/asset risks from 1-5, with 5 being the highest damage.  Calculate the potential impact as the probability score times the SUM of the human and property impacts.  Sort the risks from high to low.  There will be a natural division of scores that highlights your top 5-15 risks.

 For each risk, determine what emergency preparedness steps are required.  Most will be addressed by a small number of generic recovery steps.

  1. Shelter on-site for 4 hours, including emergency air supply.
  2. Shelter on-site for 16 hours, during threatening weather.
  3. Shelter on-site for 72 hours.
  4. Quickly evacuate building and account for occupants.
  5. Activate emergency communications plan/alternate command authority structure.
  6. Activate emergency business recovery plan
  7. Activate long-term quarantine plan.
  8. Other specialized recovery steps.

 Once these first three steps have been completed, progress can begin on developing the recovery plans, including any immediate action steps that can be taken to reduce the risks or impacts of high potential impact threats.

 Emergency preparedness is a major investment.  Getting started is the most important step.

 Group   No.   Risks 
     
 Brand      1  Key executive or representative incident 
 Brand      2  Product recall – safety, functional problems 
 Brand      3  Public relations crisis, fraud, suppliers, legal, political 
     
 Hazard      4  Biological – plague, insects, animals, malaria, anthrax, terror 
 Hazard      5  Chemical – on-site, storage, warehouse, adjacent, terrorist, gas leak 
 Hazard      6  Communicable disease – long-term impact (Avian flu, H1N1 flu) 
 Hazard      7  Explosion – natural gas, terror, plane, truck, car 
 Hazard      8  Fire – on-site, garage, storage, adjacent, roads, utilities 
 Hazard      9  Local  accident, making buildings inaccessible for 30 days+ 
 Hazard    10  Nuclear accident, truck, terror, bomb, other radiation release 
     
 IT    11  Computer virus or malware infection, major 
 IT    12  Major internet access failure for more than 1 day 
 IT    13  Servers and co-location servers destroyed, restart 
     
 Natural    14  Earthquake – structural damage, fire, water, utility damage 
 Natural    15  Flood – on-site, nearby, preventing access 
 Natural    16  Severe winter storm, ice, heavy snow 
 Natural    17  Tornado, high wind storm, hurricane, hail storm, lightning 
     
 Personal    18  Armed threat, violence, hostage, robbery, escapee – nearby 
 Personal    19  Civil disturb, riot, war, occupation – on-site, nearby, country 
     
 Supply    20  Bank, fin system, invest failure, long-term recession 
 Supply    21  Critical supplier, shipper, facility or resource failure 
 Supply    22  Labor supply disruption 
     
 Transport    23  Major loss of staff due to travel accident 
 Transport    24  Major transportation interruption – road, train, air or ship 
 Transport    25  National travel emergency requiring alternate travel
 Transport    26  Vehicles – collision, liability 
     
 Utility    27  Communications, utility service interruption 
 Utility    28  Long-term electrical power outage 
 Utility    29  Safe drinking water failure 

Prioritize, If You Dare!

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

“Managers do things right; leaders do the right things”.  In the current environment, where the “right things” of new products, customers and deals are on hold, the best leadership may lie in prioritizing existing operations.  In essence, prioritization is choosing to “do the right things” within the existing portfolio of activities.

Prioritization begins with the calculation of net benefits.  Maximizing benefits or minimizing costs is insufficient.  Priorities reside in those activities with the greatest net benefits.  This can be defined as benefits minus costs, as a payback period or as return on investment (ROI) or net present value (NPV) for large projects.  The comparison of costs and benefits is the essence of this approach.  Calculating risk-adjusted discounted values of after-tax cash flows within an asset portfolio is usually just “nice to have”.  Rank ordering available projects by their net benefits is the next greatest source of value.

The Pareto Principle says that 80% of net benefits are delivered by 20% of activities.  Mathematically, with any reasonable range of costs and benefits, this relationship holds true.  In simplest terms, the Pareto Principle says “cut off the tail”.  It also focuses on the concept of relative value.  We want to compare the ratio of benefits to costs, investments or activity. 

This applies to time management, where a log of time for one month reveals 10% of activities that should be eliminated.  The bottom 10% of products, product categories, stores, bank and library branches face the same indication that they are not cost justified.  Customers, divisions and business units face the same reality.  Some make money, while others do not.  Activity based costing calculations indicate that the lowest performers cost the firm more than was apparent.  Even individual performance can/should be considered on a rank-ordered basis.  The bottom 5-10% should be identified annually and considered for performance improvement plans in every group of 10 or more employees.

In emergency situations, triage must be applied.  Limited resources must be applied ONLY to the activities that can benefit and survive.  Those which will fail receive no investment.  Those which will succeed anyway, receive no investment.

At times, a two-dimensional grid should be used to determine activities which will deliver benefits.  In the classic Boston Consulting Group approach, business units are categorized by high and low growth and margin potential.  The top right units with high growth and margin potential get all of the investments and high-powered managers’ attention.  Low growth and margin businesses face divestiture.  High margin, low growth businesses become the proverbial “cash cows”, generating cash flows to feed other units.

Opportunity cost is a fundamental concept in prioritizing opportunities.  There is no absolute scale of expected returns.  There is only the “next best alternative”.  Even when business units have poor prospects, they must be compared with the realistic opportunity costs of doing nothing or divestiture.

Prioritization does not apply just to eliminating the negative end of expected business results.  Investments should be made in those activities with the greatest potential.  The Gallup Strengthsfinder approach applies this to human performance, demonstrating that natural talents provide the greatest relative return.  Firms should invest in those products and markets with the greatest potential.  They should also invest in facilities, equipment, IT projects, researchers and sales staff who deliver incremental value.  Many firms are inappropriately constrained by ratios and potential future change management costs.  Investment and product portfolio managers understand that there is value in starving losers and investing in winners.

The most sophisticated version of prioritization is employed in the principle of comparative advantage.  David Ricardo’s theory of international trade applies to countries, companies and units.  Comparative advantage says that relative benefit/cost ratios between countries, firms and units determine the best possible distribution of production.  ONLY those who are comparatively most productive should produce goods or services.  More than a century later Michael Porter applied this to companies, determining that those with true core competencies would succeed in the long run. Treacy and Wiersma’s book on “The Discipline of Market Leaders” indicates that firms can only have competitive advantages in one of the three areas of product innovation, customer intimacy and operational excellence.  Only the “best of the best” will prevail in the long run.  Outsourcing of non-essential functions is indicated.

Given the clear economic advantages of prioritization, why is this not universally applied?  Net benefits, the Pareto Principle and comparative advantage are beyond the comprehension of some economic actors.  Comprehensive, systematic calculations are applied only by a specialized subset of firms and functions. 

Perhaps more important is the personal cost-benefit calculation of individuals.  I could prioritize activities by relative benefit-cost, but I would be subject to criticism for eliminating the bottom 10%.  Perhaps it is better to not “rock the boat” and avoid the penalties of change management.

Some sophisticated managers follow the advice of Dr. Deming who highlighted the great risks of overreacting to random variations.  Managers should set an appropriate time-frame when using relative performance measures.

Dr. Deming also preached that managers need to “drive out fear”. For some employees, any rank ordering or evaluation of performance creates fear.  Some individuals believe that people should not be subjected to performance standards or rankings because this is not “fair”.  For most organizations, the essential competitive nature of employment and corporations is understood and accepted. Highly risk-averse individuals should not be employed by firms which face competitive pressures.

This does not contradict Maslow’s theory that security/safety is at the base of employee motivation.  Security oriented individuals should be guided to careers and positions which meet their needs.  The other 80% of employees should be counseled to understand the long-term competitive nature of labor markets.

Prioritization is an effective and essential business strategy in all business conditions.

Building an Integrated Planning and Control System

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

In the process revolution since WWII, we have seen every business function discover that input-process-output descriptions of activities followed by a “say what you do, do what you say, be able to tell the difference” feedback structure are the key to long-run success.  Firms need to evaluate and consolidate these planning and control systems into a single fully integrated system, since they are all attempting to reach the same goals using the same tools.  There are at least five different sets of systems independently active in most firms today.

Strategic planning systems operate at the highest organizational level, attempting to evaluate the situation, set direction, identify critical success factors, define strategies and key performance indicators, and approve major investments and projects.  More evolved frameworks, like the balanced scorecard, attempt to link strategic goals to operational performance.  Many firms have learned to link strategy to measures and projects.

Modern financial planning and control systems have evolved for more than 100 years.  Strategic plans are translated into long-term financial plans to guide borrowing, investment, operations and risk analysis decisions.  The financial plan is translated into a negotiated annual budget.   A financial performance management system evaluates managers against business unit, department, product, customer and project goals.  The key transaction processes are defined and monitored.

Risk management has evolved to become a separate discipline apart from classic P&L management.  Regulatory compliance and external financial reporting have become more technical and legal.  Internal controls have moved to secondary and tertiary levels of safety with an emphasis on “defensible positions”.  Emergency preparedness and disaster recovery have developed into new disciplines.  Risk management tools have evolved from insurance policies to include hedges, contracts and outsourcing.

Human resources systems have grown to become parallel factors.  The regulatory side has greatly increased the emphasis on compliance and risk reduction.  HR performance management systems have become linked to business performance through SMART goals.  HR has been charged with helping managers professionally address frequent change management issues.  HR has also become a senior management partner in attempting to create cultural alignment.

The process or quality systems approach has been the greatest innovator.  At the highest level, a management or total quality management system attempts to incorporate all activities.  The quality approach requires clearly defined customer goals.  All processes must be defined and documented at the staff and system level.  Operations measures are defined to provide simple and direct feedback.  Quality goals are set and quality improvement is defined as a separate goal.  Processes are defined within the generic framework of product, sales and delivery.  IT systems are positioned as facilitators, requiring technical and user documentation.  Individual application systems become more complex, incorporating best practices, but allowing many exceptions.  Change management becomes a sub-discipline, with growing project management expertise.  Process changes are driven by re-engineering, kaizen and continuous process improvement efforts.

Ideally, a firm defines and operates a single planning and control system which integrates the strategic, financial, risk, human resources and quality management dimensions.  Failure to integrate these components leads to added costs, political conflicts, waste and missed opportunities.  A performance management cross-team with representatives from sales, product management, finance, HR and operations is needed to coordinate this effort.

There ARE many components.  We need to overcome the desire to have a fully integrated system that encompasses all possible components as exhibited by the US military in their Afghanistan plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html

Goals of an Integrated Planning and Control System

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

The proliferation of planning and control systems has led to a large number of goals.  Fortunately, they can be consolidated and categorized to facilitate the development of an understandable consolidated system.  The essential goals are eternal, but the growing complexities of the business environment and processes have increased the number of goals worth monitoring.  On the planning side, firms need to prioritize, clarify, align, communicate and prepare. 

In spite of the countervailing winds of entrepreneurship and empowerment, in a dynamic world with greater value at stake, firms need to set key priorities at the top for direction, values, strategies, investments, projects, critical success factors and key performance indicators.  Without them, even in the best conditions, managers and staff will ineffectively make decisions “as well as they can”.  Clear priorities and expectations can significantly reduce the zero-sum game of internal politics.  Senior management needs to proactively clarify the priorities, trade-offs and commitments made to all stakeholders, including investors, customers, suppliers and internal departments. 

A well-designed strategic plan and its related structures effectively align the decentralized, specialized, outsourced, matrixed and virtual resources of today’s firm.  Intentions, decisions, opportunities, authorities and best practices are clearly communicated.  The well-defined expected and desired future state allows individual functions to optimize within their frameworks.  Long-term commitments are made and managed, allowing business units and functions to flex within the context and pursue immediate opportunities.  Commitments are made at every level at the right time, with confidence.  Scarce resources are devoted to priority objectives and secondary projects consume no resources.

An effective planning process prepares the firm to face the unknown.  Participants at all levels have devoted time to organization level thinking about direction, situation, gaps and solutions.  If simulations, sensitivity analysis and emergency preparedness work has been done, some level of preplanned formal responses and tools has been defined, providing a base and confidence for managing the challenges that were not expected.

On the controls side, the system needs to deliver results while managing assets and risks.

“What gets measured gets done”.  Objectives that are measured and reported receive priority management and staff attention.  Today’s digital dashboards expand the number of goals to be pursued and more clearly communicate their status to everyone in real-time.  This greatly increases the motivation by staff to improve their real performance (and sometimes beat the system).  The quality revolution attempts to move this feedback loop to a higher level, with staff understanding customer needs, defining their own goals, measuring performance and developing quantum leap improvements to serve easily understood definitions of success.

The accounting staff has always been charged with safeguarding the firm’s assets.  In the analog world, this was straightforward.  Today, it requires a deeper understanding of intangible assets such as patents, supplier relations and brand value.  In spite of the loss of firm loyalty, it is apparent today that employees are the most valuable assets for most firms.  Employees need to feel valued for their skills and contributions, and be given opportunities to build their skills and apply their talents.  The human resources management system (job descriptions, evaluations, compensation) needs to be effectively integrated into the overall planning system.  An effective process system also builds the knowledge management value of the firm by documenting processes, accumulating knowledge and improving the rate of knowledge transfer through training and sharing.

In the post-Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley informed world, risk management has become an important board level topic (because board members have new responsibilities).  Developing basic and advanced internal controls to prevent and detect theft is a classic controller responsibility.  Administrative policies and procedures have long been used in large and small firms to increase the degree of compliance with management’s expectations by managers and staff.  Most firms have been subject to some level of regulatory oversight, audit and compliance.  All firms have reported financial results to external stakeholders within generally accepted accounting practices and tax laws.  Firms have always thought about the risks of natural disasters, but today’s decentralized and electronically supported worlds require much more attention to a variety of 10%, 1% and 0.1% risks.  Firms have used insurance policies for basic risks for centuries, but today they must evaluate and guard against a much wider variety and degree of business risks.  Finally, complex and decentralized firms are subject to Murphy’s Law and the role of the weakest link.  The sheer number and impact of risks has caused them to make openness and transparency a top value.

An integrated planning and control system needs to address all of these goals.  Planning must prioritize, clarify, align, communicate and prepare.  Reporting must deliver results while managing assets and risks.

Good Riddance to Utopian Views of 2000

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Much of the anxiety being expressed in the political arena today stems from the discovery that the turn of the millennium consensus views of steady assured progress were exaggerated, or just plain wrong.  The events of the last decade have shown that simple, deterministic conclusions are usually wrong.  This is not the first time that western society has had its “progressive” bubble burst.  Even the recent triple play natural disasters (hurricane, tsunami and earthquake) have a parallel in the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, which lead Voltaire to attack the belief that man was living in “the best of all possible worlds”.

In 2000, we thought that representative government would prevail as an increasing number of countries became functional democracies and established democratic traditions.  Cuba was the special exception.  Even China was seen as a potential convert.  Progress was being made in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America.   We now see that China’s leaders intend to maintain power, that progress in Russia and Eastern Europe is fragile and that a new Bolivarian revolution justifies dictatorships.

In 2000, the division of state and religious spheres was clear and settled in Europe, allowing a variety of religions to work within a set of rules.  The Pope spoke out for radical changes to society, but had limited impact.  Some progress in conflict areas lead to hope for progress, as nations from Turkey to Indonesia to Ireland found solutions.  The “consensus” was an illusion.  Islam, Christianity and other religions are not content to work within the context a secular humanist state.  We now see that “true believers” do not fit within the tidy scheme.

In 2000, a decade after the fall of the “iron curtain”, the U.S. stood tall as the only superpower, even after cashing in the peace dividend.  The US, Europe and the UN began to make significant progress in handling the remaining “trouble spots”, in areas that seemed unfamiliar and insignificant.  We now see that Brazil, Russia, India and China would like to join the US, Europe and Japan in a multi-polar world.  The shifting alliances of earlier centuries are the model of our future.

In 2000, after dodging the ironic Y2K threat, the world saw an unlimited future of technological progress.  The older physics, chemistry and energy based economy continued to grow at a healthy pace.  Agricultural and biological innovations promised to feed the world and heal the sick.  Information technology continued to evolve through the internet, telecommunications and knowledge management.  Even the environment was improving, as 30 years of focus on clean air, clean water and eliminating toxic waste had a cumulative positive impact.  We’re still making progress, but concerns about energy and water shortages, Frankenfoods, genetic manipulation and climate change become greater with time, as no simple “solutions” have appeared.

In 2000, international economic progress was in full-stride.  Individual, regional and global trade agreements increased trade and cross-country investment.  International financial crises were managed and outlier countries were guided through an agreed upon recovery plan.  European economic integration continued to deliver benefits with each new step.  Today, we struggle to find common ground for major trade deals.  A variety of crisis recovery models seem valid.  Further European economic integration is possible, but the benefits are not so certain.  International sensitivity to trade, labor, environmental, property rights and investment differences is growing.

In 2000, a mixed capitalist economic model dominated.  There were two flavors, traditional European and Atlantic, but these were differences in style and degree, not in fundamental substance.  Success stories in all areas of the world indicated that this model could and would be replicated.  Today, there are several varieties of state capitalism (Russia, China, France, Japan, and Venezuela) that offer alternatives.

Finally, in 2000, there was a widespread belief that we had moved into a new economic model where the rough edges of capitalism had been tamed.  The business cycle could be managed through independent monetary policy (and a touch of fiscal policy).  Productivity, inflation and unemployment goals could all be attained.  Financial guidelines like price-earnings ratios had been superseded by a “new economy”.  And, risk and volatility had been tamed through portfolio theory, hedging and new financial instruments.

The world is not in worse condition today than it was a decade ago.  Only by moving past the unrealistically utopian views of the turn of the century can we make progress in addressing the challenges we face.