Implement Disaster Recovery Processes - Communications

Implement Disaster Recovery Processes

Communications

The organization will need to have the capacity and resources for two types of essential contingency communications: internal and external.

In the event of a disaster-level event, the organization will need to reach all its personnel to inform them of the proper actions expected of them (such as evacuation if they are at the work site, staying home if they are not yet at the work site, reporting to the alternate site if they are responders or critical personnel, etc.).

This might include push capability (automatic messaging sent to all personnel) or access capability (a central clearing house of data, such as a website, that all organizational personnel can reach in order to receive updates of the situation).

Essential elements of an internal contingency communications plan should include:

COST/BENEFIT TRADE-OFF

There is a cost/benefit trade-off between making information widely available in a timely fashion and spreading critical information about the organization's operation outside authorized channels; senior management needs to establish strategic direction in this matter for the organization.

THE ABILITY TO RAPIDLY CONTACT ALL ORGANIZATIONAL PERSONNEL

Planners should bear in mind:

• During a contingency event, normal communications channels may be unavailable. This could include public mobile.
• Phone/texting services, internet connectivity, and so forth. Alternate means of mass communication should be a priority.
• Employees rarely update their emergency contact information (typically this is only done when the employee is changing insurance status), and access to that information may be limited (by jurisdictional regulation and by internal process/compartmentalization). Regular updates and tests of mass communication for employees should be a facet of the organization's policy and practices.

• A single voice is optimum. When multiple people from within the organization make statements (especially to the public), there is a significant chance that the facts in the disparate statements will conflict (unintentionally, due to the nature of the pace of contingency responses, and differing perspectives from people with different jobs); this can lead to public mistrust of the organization, and loss of faith, which can eventually lead to severe negative impacts (loss of market share, funding, etc.). It is far preferable to have one single authorized representative from the organization make all external communications, especially to the public.
• Trained communications professionals are extremely valuable in this effort; crafting external communications such that they inform, have uniform voice, do not admit/incur liability, and reach the target audience in a desirable manner is a great benefit to the organization.
• When information is not immediately verifiable or may be somewhat tenuous (especially at the outset of a contingency event), it is almost always preferable to say that ("the situation is currently developing, and the information is unclear at this time; we will have updates as we learn more") rather than publishing data that might be revised later (such as hypothetical causes and theories about the origin of the event). This is particularly true for predictions of resolution timing, which can be affected by many unforeseen factors when a disaster response is initiated. Making one statement of fact that is repeatedly recanted can make the organization seem distrustful or incompetent, neither of which is desirable.