A rational decision making model provides a structured and sequenced approach to decision making.

Using such an approach can help to ensure discipline and consistency is built into your decision making process. As
the word rational suggests, this approach brings logic and order to decision making.

Learn how to make better decisions with our e-guide bundle – 6 guides,
178 pages, 30 tools, for half price!

 Sale! Decision Making Bundle$79.94$39.97More Information

Our rational decision making model consists of a series of steps, beginning with problem/opportunity identification,
and ending with actions to be taken on decisions made.

First though why not take a look at our comprehensive decision making e-guides with a great half price offer. You’ll
find they contain our rational decision making model complete with tools, along with a comprehensive range of other
guides to improve your decision making.

It’s a great half price offer. We talk through the benefits and features of our complete decision making resources in
finding the right decision making model. Why not take look, you’ll see we’ve developed new models, tips and tools
that you won’t find elsewhere.

There seems to be a problem with decision making. According to Ohio State University management professor, Paul
C. Nutt, we only get about 50% of our decisions in the workplace right! Half the time they are wrong, so there is
clearly plenty of scope to improve on our decision making processes. Based on his research into over 300 decisions,
made in a range of organizations, he discovered that

“Some tactics with a good track record are commonly known, but uncommonly
practiced.”

Why? Well one reason that emerged from his research is that:

“Too often, managers make bad tactical selections ….. because they believe that following
recommended decision-making practices would take too much time and demand
excessive cash outlays.”

Nutt argues that using good decision making practices actually costs very little. Our rational decision making model is
our free tool to help you improve the way you make decisions.
This article is part of our series on decision making. Our first article, types of decision making outlines a range of
decision making approaches. Rational decision making forms part of what we have termed types of decision,
categorized by process. In this category we have put two contrasting approaches, that of rational decision making
and that of judgement or intuitive decision making.

A General Rational Decision Making Model

Rational decision making processes consist of a sequence of steps designed to rationally develop a desired
solution. Typically these steps involve:

Identifying a problem or opportunity

The first step is to recognise a problem or to see opportunities that may be worthwhile. A rational decision making
model is best employed where relatively complex decisions have to be made.
Read our new book:
Uncommon Leadership: how to build competitive edge by thinking differently

“a tour de force … all integrated into a fascinating intellectual package”

Professor Dennis J. Garritan, Adjunct Professor, Harvard University

The first decision making lesson should be to ask yourself if you really have a problem to solve or a decision to make.
Then read this article for more specific advice: Problem Solving Skill: Finding the Right Problem to Solve.

Gathering information

What is relevant and what is not relevant to the decision? What do you need to know before you can make a
decision, or that will help you make the right one?

Analyzing the situation

What alternative courses of action may be available to you? What different interpretations of the data may be
possible? Our Problem Solving Activity uses a set of structured questions to encourage both broad and deep analysis
of your situation or problem.

Developing options

Generate several possible options. Be creative and positive. Read The Power of Positive Thinking for our five
questions that create possibilities.

Evaluating alternatives

What criteria should you use to evaluate? Evaluate for feasibility, acceptability and desirability. Which alternative will
best achieve your objectives?

Selecting a preferred alternative

Explore the provisional preferred alternative for future possible adverse consequences. What problems might it
create? What are the risks of making this decision?

Acting on the decision

Put a plan in place to implement the decision. Have you allocated resources to implement? Is the decision accepted
and supported by colleagues? Are they commited to to making the decision work?

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Rational Decision Making Model

The main strength of a rational decision making model is that it provides structure and discipline to the decision
making process. It helps ensure we consider the full range of factors relating to a decision, in a logical and
comprehensive manner. These are a key feature of our comprehensive guide: Making Better Decisions.

However, we should always remember that whilst the model indicates what needs to be done, it’s often how things
are done that characterises effective decision making.

Paul C. Nutt’s research illustrates that bad decisions were usually bad because two things were missing:

1. adequate participation of stakeholders in the decision making process;

2. sufficient time spent generating a range of possible solutions.

Too often those who should have been involved weren’t, and solutions were proposed and acted upon too quickly.
Often with disastrous effects!

A second weakness arises if we attempt to use the model in isolation. This is particularly important where complex or
important decisions are involved.

The principle assumption of the rational decision making process is that human beings make rational decisions.
However, there are numerous factors which determine our decisions, many of which are not rational. In many
situations decisions have to be made with incomplete and insufficient information.
Judgement, intuition, experience and knowledge all come together when making decisions. This critical aspect is
further explored in our article: Intuition and Decision Making.

Regardless of any perceived weaknesses these models are essential tools. You’ll find more on these and other
practical techniques in our related e-guides (below) or in Making Better Decisions. Use the tools in this guide to help
your decision making:

 Tool 1: Do you need to make a decision?

 Tool 2: The POCA decision making model
 Tool 3: Decision levels
 Tool 4: 7 step decision making process
 Tool 5: Team decision making
 Tool 6: Evaluating alternatives

See for yourself that a rational decision making model can help us to make better decisions – and thus help us to be
better managers.

Making Decisions During a Crisis

Sandy Padwo Rogers

“You decide.”

How many times have you said these two simple words? How often have you felt that you just didn’t

have the energy or the inclination to choose?

When faced with a decision that’s not significant (where to go for dinner, what movie to rent),

allowing someone else to take control is often the easiest thing to do. But what happens when you

are faced with a crucial decision that will affect the future health and well-being of your loved one

and yourself? What happens if this decision must be made during a crisis? For family caregivers,

having to make a decision during a crisis is not a matter of “if,” but “when.”

When NFCA first explored this subject a little more than a decade ago, a number of professionals

were consulted and important themes emerged:

1. There are things that all of us can and should do to be ready for an emergency. But no one

can truly prepare for a crisis. If we could, it wouldn’t be a crisis.

2. There is almost never a “right” answer. Faced with a set of not-so-good choices, we do the

best we can. We need to accept the decision and move on.

3. Crises take a toll on caregivers as well as on the care recipient and the rest of the family, so

it’s important to think about the impact of the decision on everyone involved.

Realizing the relevance of this topic to all family caregivers, we decided it was time to revisit these

themes with a new set of experts. Interestingly, the experts we spoke to this time around were all in

the midst of or had recently experienced their own caregiving crisis, making their advice that much

more germane. The good news for all family caregivers is that there are things you can do to

prepare for and ease the decision-making process for yourself, your loved one, and your family.

Plan Ahead

“I’m a big fan of planning,” says Barry Jacobs, PsyD, director of behavioral sciences for the Crozer-

Keystone Family Practice Residency Program in Springfield, Pa. “Family caregivers need to

remember that caregiving is not a static enterprise; it’s a fluid enterprise. They have to be willing to

look down the road and to explore contingency plans. The more people have these conversations

about what’s coming down the pike, the more they will be able to prepare — financially, legally,

logistically, and emotionally.”

As part of the planning process, Dr. Jacobs recommends that family caregivers identify their

strengths and weaknesses, in particular with regard to how they respond during stressful situations.

For example, some people panic during a crisis while others might withdraw. Some stay calm, cool

and collected during the emergency itself but then fall apart later on. By recognizing your own

characteristics, you will be better able to plan for any future emergency. This may mean that you ask

someone you trust to be there for you should an emergency arise. Keep in mind that calling on

others to help you navigate a crisis situation doesn’t mean you are relinquishing control. “You don’t

lose your status as the primary caregiver just because you are willing to accept help during a crisis,”

says Dr. Jacobs.

When dealing with a medical emergency, Dr. Jacobs recommends designating someone you trust to

act as another set of ears to ensure that someone objective hears what the doctors say. “When

anxious, people don’t take in information,” says Dr. Jacobs. Someone who is not emotionally

attached to the situation should be given the assignment just to listen and to help the family digest

the information.

It’s also helpful to begin an honest conversation about your loved one’s condition with all the

members of the family before a crisis occurs. “When family members meet, each member brings a

different strategy to the table,” says Sara Qualls, Ph.D., a psychology professor at the University of

Colorado who often works with families during a crisis. “This often results in the family members

questioning each other’s motives. It’s important to begin these conversations with a discussion about

shared values and each family member’s hope for the care recipient as well as the caregiver. By

focusing on a shared set of values, good decisions can be made.”

Finally, while you can’t predict when a medical emergency will occur, you can keep a current

medical history, medication list, and other important medical and legal documents available so that

they can be easily accessed and shared with emergency personnel. Having this information at your

fingertips not only helps the treating medical team, it gives you more credibility with all those who are

caring for your loved one.

Ask Questions and Share Information

It’s important to give yourself permission to ask as many questions as often as you need. If you are

in a hospital setting and you aren’t comfortable asking questions at your loved one’s bedside, tell the

doctor you will need to speak with him/her again. Find out how to reach the doctor and if someone

else is available to help you understand. “Information processing is affected by your emotions,” says

Dr. Jacobs. “It’s important to ask for a mechanism for multiple conversations. At the very least, the

family caregiver should speak with the nurses, who may have more time to explain the situation and

to answer questions.”

"It’s so much easier to make a decision when you know that you have accurate information and

realistic expectations,” says Dr. Qualls. “You need to make sure you have all the data before you

can make the tough choices. Then you need to share the data with all those who may be involved in

the decision-making process. Family members often don’t agree because they don’t have the same

information. Sharing the data goes a long way toward solving family conflict.”
Let the Facts Guide You While You Temper Your Emotions

Mark Yaffe, M.D., associate professor of family medicine at Montreal’s McGill University and St.

Mary’s Hospital Center, identifies dissension among family members as one of the greatest

challenges that family caregivers face when a crisis occurs. “A common scenario that I encounter is

when there is a family caregiver on-site and heavily involved, while others are out of town and less

involved, or not involved. Generated by a crisis or their sense of guilt, these lesser-involved family

members then try to impose their sense of perspective by coming onto the scene during the crisis.”

Dr. Yaffe explains that when a crisis occurs, the reaction of each family member is influenced by

his/her own unique dynamic with the person who is ill. Subsequently, family members are often not

on the same wavelength in terms of how they think the situation should be handled. “Family
members need to remember that the decision they should be making is what is best for the patient,

not what is best for a particular family member,” says Dr. Yaffe.

How can you ensure that a decision is not made based solely on emotions? One strategy Dr. Yaffe

recommends is to approach the decision-making process initially by trying to apply some degree of

structured logic, rather than relying uniquely on emotions. For example, gather information on as

many options as possible and lay them out visually on a flow chart or decision tree. Follow the tree

branches sequentially and attempt to understand the rational consequences that go along with a

decision in any particular direction. At the completion of this analysis, take time to allow yourself and

your family members to express emotions and feelings: Am I ready to make this decision? How do I

feel about this? Which option feels better? Can I live with this decision? In the course of this

analysis, ask whether you are achieving a satisfactory balance between logic and emotion.

“Whose problem is it?” This is a question Dr. Yaffe believes all families should ask themselves when

making a decision in a crisis, especially if the family members are agonizing over the decision. Are

family members bringing their own emotional baggage to the table? Are they being honest with

themselves and each other? Dr. Yaffe finds that the problems family members experience are often

not the patient’s but their own. By talking openly about their individual issues, family members are

better able to cover all the bases and minimize guilt over the decision later on. These discussions

can also bring family members closer together.

Both Dr. Yaffe and Dr. Jacobs strongly recommend that the care recipient’s primary care physician

be notified of the emergency. This physician may be able to help explain the situation and to make

recommendations with more knowledge of the consequences of a particular decision. Family

members must also educate themselves about and be able to verbalize their understanding of the

specific condition or disease, the course of the disease, and the true medical state of the patient. “I

spend a lot of time explaining the various pathways of a condition or illness so family members can

make decisions that are as guilt-free as possible,” says Dr. Yaffe. “It’s a combination of

understanding the medical alternatives and their consequences as well as understanding our

emotions. What can we live with and what can’t we live with? If the care recipient cannot be involved

in the decision-making process, then family members must also consider what he/she would want.”
Don’t Second-Guess

“It’s not possible to be a family caregiver and not experience twinges of guilt,” says Dr. Qualls. “Just

like with parenting, caregiver guilt is part of the package. Every day you just try to respond the best

you can. Be honest about what you value and be clear with your loved ones about your choice; then

ask them to accept your decision even if they may not agree with it.”

Once a decision is made, accept that you did the best you could and move on. “Everyone is a

Monday morning quarterback, regardless of what decision you choose,” says Dr. Jacobs. “There are

no perfect decisions; there’s no ‘right’ way. You make your best judgment and you try to learn. It’s

important to cut yourself a little slack. No one does it perfectly.”

Recognize the Toll the Crisis Takes

“A crisis often occurs because of a change in the care recipient’s impairment or an increased

awareness of a problem,” says Dr. Qualls. “In the case of an elderly individual, the patient often

doesn’t recognize the scope of the impairment, forcing the family caregiver to take on new roles

within the relationship. This role shift often must take place without the care recipient’s agreement
and the tension involved in a decision of this magnitude takes an emotional toll on the family

caregiver. It’s easier on everyone when other family members help make this decision.”

A crisis can also occur when the care recipient becomes so focused on himself/herself that the

needs of the family caregiver are not heard or ignored. Dr. Yaffe often counsels family caregivers

who are feeling unappreciated, isolated, and even abused. “If you are not being treated

appropriately, you owe it to yourself to be honest with the care recipient,” he says. “It’s OK to say

something like, ‘My role as your caregiver is a difficult one. I accept this, but it is putting my own

health at risk, which will then be bad for both of us.’” Dr. Yaffe admits that these are not easy

conversations to have and recommends the use of a third party to help thoughts be expressed if the

individuals involved are unable to be open to each other about what they are feeling. He adds,

“Family caregivers are dealing with grief, so seeking the services of a grief counselor is not

inappropriate.”

“Guilt and grieving are inevitable,” says Dr. Qualls. “These feelings will come and go. It’s helpful

when someone is there to help walk with the family caregiver and to validate these feelings. When

the intensity of these feelings takes you toward depression, however, it’s time to get professional

help.”

IN-CRISIS DECISION MAKING: FIVE STEPS TO WOW!

The final instalment of Dennis Hamilton’s series about crisis management.

[Read previous articles]

Continuing with our responses to questions and comments regarding this information series, ‘In-
crisis decision making’; a number of questions can be paraphrased as ‘You gave us a lot of great
ideas and things to think about, but how do we assess our existing program in order to
determine which enhancements are required?’ or ‘Our crisis management program is not as
robust as we want it to be – where do we start?’

An additional related question was ‘Why or when should we reassess our existing crisis
management capability’.

There are many reasons why an organization must periodically take a detailed look at its crisis management
program; asking basic questions, such as: ‘Can our organization really withstand the effects of a major crisis; are we
fully capable of responding effectively and decisively’?

It may be time if:

* It has been three years or more since your crisis management program has been assessed;
* Major organizational changes have taken place;

* Significant reductions in key personnel have occurred;

* Budget constraints have prevented effective program maintenance (i.e. training);

* Management are uninvolved with or unaware of the existing crisis management program;

* Makeup of your crisis management organization has substantially changed and / or;

* You have general concerns as to the stability and capability of your existing crisis management program.

While there are arguably twenty plus critical success factors to a fully operational crisis management program; there
are seven key areas that should be your initial focus.

These are:

i. Enterprise level strategy - the policy driven requirement that the crisis management program exists to support or
otherwise safeguard every employee in every company location in the world regardless of political or organizational
alignment or functional role of the individual.

ii. Crisis response team – the enterprise structure, team makeup, roles, responsibilities, qualifications of team
members and overall team capability.

iii. Management policies and operational compliance ‘standards’ – the directives, rules, techniques, strategies
and operational processes applied and employed by the Crisis Response Team in its response to a crisis event or
threatening situation.

iv. In-crisis process – the actions taken by the crisis response team from an event / threat assessment and
notification to response and resolution.

v. Continuing education and training – the type, frequency and quality of ongoing education and training received
by the crisis response team, including; reinforcement exercises, crisis simulation exercises, education forums and
pre-event response planning workshops.

vi. Crisis preparedness program - ensuring all incident, emergency, crisis and disaster response plans are
independently capable of responding to the situation they were designed to manage and sufficiently integrated to
provide a coordinated process should a major threat or crisis situation exist. This is the event-driven integration of
crisis management, business continuity management, technology continuity management and incident emergency
response.

vii. The alignment of management expectations and requirements – ensuring that the crisis management
program and all operational components are effectively aligned to the expectations and requirements of your board of
directors, executive management, line of business leaders and, equally your employees and, to varying degrees, key
external stakeholders.

Each of these components has been discussed to varying levels of detail in previous parts of this information series.
As such, we will not repeat those details here, but rather focus on the process by which you can determine your
overall crisis management operational status, existing capabilities and, as required an enhancement strategy and
plan.

The five steps to wow!

Establishing and maintaining a truly effective crisis management capability can be a daunting task. Keeping
executives interested, keeping your team members engaged, achieving a high level of visibility throughout your
organization and maintaining a high level of preparedness are some of the objectives and challenges of most. When
things go ‘boom’ crisis management gets a lot of attention but unfortunately (and fortunately), not all organizations
experience major crises on a regular basis, therefore; their capability is not really tested.

As such, it doesn’t take long before a crisis management program response capability weakens, often due to neglect.
For those that do not have a formal crisis management program, the challenges to establish one can be even more
difficult. As stated earlier, CRPC received a number of comments and questions related to performing an assessment
of their current crisis management program and their crisis management capability.

We are going to discuss five steps that can be taken by any organization that, while fairly simple in terms of
execution, can have a profound impact on your crisis management program; significantly enhancing your overall
capability to respond to and manage a crisis situation. This is a positive approach whereby you engage management
and those involved with your crisis management program to cooperatively identify deficiencies and corresponding
enhancements.

For this purpose we will be using terminology consistent with the previous parts of this information series. The term
crisis response team (CRT) should be taken as the team you have established or would like to establish as the team
having operational response responsibility for crises that threaten or impact your organization.

Applying the assessment steps described below will allow you to effectively assess your current crisis management
status and overall capabilities, as well as identifying areas of improvement and any enhancements required to attain
a capabilities level acceptable to your organization.

Step 1 Reality check on the pulse of crisis management. Ascertain management’s understanding, expectations,
requirements, support and concerns of and for the organization’s crisis management program. A similar assessment
from the perspective of your existing crisis response team is equally important.

Step 2 Assess the ‘rules of engagement’. Review existing crisis management policies, operational standards,
mandate and current documentation; measuring how well all components are aligned with expectations and
requirements established in Step 1.

Step 3 Conduct a ‘performance assessment’. Using single or multiple scenario based exercises, evaluate your in-
crisis process, the individual performance of team members related to contribution, leadership and cooperation, as
well as the team’s overall performance related to situational assessment, decision making and applying the rules of
engagement.

Step 4 Prepare a crisis management program ‘enhancement plan’. Through an interactive workshop with all
primary members of your CRT review findings, conclusions and requirements established in previous steps to
determine desired / required enhancements. Prepare a CRT approved enhancement plan.

Step 5 Obtain management approvals and implement your plan. Conduct an executive management presentation
focused on the assessment process just completed, major findings and resulting enhancement steps and
recommendations. Finalize your enhancement plan based on management approvals; implement as quickly as
possible.

I suggest you consider using a third party organization as your project director to facilitate the assessment (or use
company employees who are NOT members of your existing crisis response team). This level of independence will
result in a more objective assessment, ensure all of your team members equally participate and generally may have a
higher probability of acceptance within your organization.

Completing the above five steps will clearly confirm the overall capability of your existing crisis management program
and provide a definitive roadmap of enhancement activities to achieve the level of effectiveness required.

The process and a few ideas…..

Step1: Reality check on the pulse of crisis management

The objective of this step is to produce a general statement of awareness and understanding of the existing crisis
management program on the part of key stakeholders. As well, the process will obtain views and opinions on what is
right and what is wrong with the existing program. Expectations and requirements of the crisis management program
should be an additional and important deliverable from the interview process. Establishing some level of consensus
on various matters would be used to shape future program components.

This step commences with interviews of three principal groups by the project director:

* Executive management: Ideally the entire executive management team should be interviewed, but minimally 50
percent of the team must participate to effectively represent management views, expectations, requirements,
concerns and general satisfaction levels.

* Line manager of each member of the CRT: A discussion with the direct manager of each CRT member should be
focused on obtaining their understanding of the crisis management program, its importance to the organization, the
role their representative has on the CRT, their support level and commitment to the program and any concerns they
may have regarding the crisis management program in general.

* CRT members: A one-on-one interview with each member of your existing crisis response team should focus on the
individual’s view of team training, performance, strengths and weaknesses. In addition, determining what each team
member believes should be done to correct any weaknesses identified and improve on the overall capability of the
team should be key deliverables from each interview.

With completion of step 1, an ‘enhancement opportunity analysis’ report should be generated detailing the interview
results along with an overall assessment of the organization’s crisis management program from the perspective of
those interviewed. The report should focus on expectations, requirements, strengths and areas of improvement. The
enhancement opportunity analysis should be shared with those interviewed, providing an opportunity to comment on
or otherwise confirm your findings.

Note: It is highly probable that your executive management know less about your current crisis management program
than you think or hoped they do (crisis management is not uppermost on their minds). As such, you will get as many
questions as answers or opinions. This Q&A should not form part of your enhancement opportunity analysis; the Q&A
will be given further consideration in steps 4 and 5.

Step 2: Assess the ‘rules of engagement’

The objective of step 2 is to validate that the crisis management program’s existing policies, mandate, roles and
responsibilities and operational standards are effectively aligned to the expectation and requirements agreed to in
step 1.

This step should be comprised of:

CRT workshop: A workshop facilitated by the project director with the primary members of the crisis response team
will result in a detailed review of all existing documented, alleged or understood interpretations of existing crisis
management related policies, mandates, operational standards and all other directives that dictate or determine the
roles and responsibilities of the crisis response team before, during and after a crisis situation.

The workshop should minimally consider the following elements:

* Program ownership and maintenance responsibilities,

* Crisis management organization – structure and participation,
* Response priorities, life safety, brand image, business operations, etc.,
* Roles of crisis management team (executive management) versus crisis response team,
* Support of remote dependent sites,
* Authority to act,
* In-crisis decision making (who and how),
* In-crisis event documentation,
* Management notification and status reporting,
* Use of automated tools and services to support response and control,
* Situational assessment and crisis determination,
* Event alert levels and determination criteria,
* Crisis command center operations,
* Compliance management,
* Threat risk assessment process,
* Pre-event response planning,
* Continuing education and training program.

The importance of one item warrants a more comprehensive discussion; the operational integration of crisis
management with business continuity management, technology continuity management and incident emergency
response. The focus here is to ensure there is a clear and well understood process that maintains the operational
independence of the four components of crisis preparedness; while ensuring a well coordinated response in a major
crisis situation. The discussions should include; related policies, operational priorities, ownership, mandate, role and
responsibilities, decision making authorities and integrated or overlapping in-crisis processes.

Preparation of a rules of engagement analysis: A report summarizing the findings (positive and negative),
conclusions, decisions and / or recommendations that the crisis response team want acted upon or considered as
part of the overall program assessment. On its own, this report does not require distribution at this time to persons
external to the CRT.

Step 3: Conduct a ‘performance assessment’

The objectives of this step are to assess the collective capability of your crisis response team using a crisis simulation
exercise and to assess all operational components of your existing crisis management program.

CRT crisis simulation exercise: Develop and facilitate an interactive role-playing crisis simulation exercise with a
predefined outcome and based on an event scenario that has occurred in the past, has a relatively high probability of
occurring and / or one that is of considerable concern to the organization. Some exercise development suggestions to
ensure success are:

* Facilitate the selected crisis simulation exercise applying existing in-crisis processes. All primary and designated
backup members of the crisis response team should participate.

* The exercise should incorporate a large number of event changes (30 – 40), deescalating and escalating factors,
rumours and speculation, political interference and role playing from 6 – 8 internal and external stakeholders.

* The exercise should drive (through scripting) the active participation of each discipline represented on the crisis
response team (i.e. corporate security, business continuity management, human resources, public affairs, facilities
management, safety, technology continuity management).

* The exercise should incorporate interaction with your crisis management team (executive management team)
requiring update sessions (2 – 3), recommendation approvals and joint decision making.

* The crisis simulation exercise should incorporate activities, incidents and / or events that will explicitly require
demonstrated leadership, full participation and team decision making by creating situations of subject matter
discomfort, controversy, objections and differing opinions. Strong arguments / disagreements will often lead to better
decisions.

* To effectively achieve the stated objectives, it will be necessary to develop an exercise that can be concluded within
six hours with a two hour debriefing. All scheduled breaks and lunch should be held in the training center (crisis
command center).

* Do not incorporate testing of your business continuity and technology continuity plans into this crisis management
exercise. The resulting complexity would leave little room for success and alter the response priorities of the crisis
response team. This should be an evaluation of your crisis management capability only.

* The project director or a designate (not a member of the CRT) should function as the exercise facilitator who will be
responsible for development and facilitation of the overall exercise. Utilization of one or possibly two ‘exercise
observers’ (with specific monitoring and assessment duties) is required to fairly and accurately make the required
assessments.
CRT performance self assessment: With conclusion of the crisis simulation exercise (whether deemed successful or
not), the crisis response team should complete an operational assessment of their own performance (self
assessment). Coordinated by the CRT team leader (and excluding the project director and / or the exercise
facilitator), the CRT would critique its performance (not the exercise):

* What the team did well / strengths of the team,

* What the team did poorly / weaknesses of the team,
* What the team needs to improve on,
* What ‘program’ enhancements would improve the team’s performance,
* Other operational concerns related to the organization’s crisis management program.

This self assessment must be an honest and constructive view of the team’s performance, including; makeup of the
team, the active participation of each team member, leadership, team member contribution, understanding the crisis
management program’s mandate and priorities, the application of in-crisis standards and processes,

Facilitator assessment: The exercise facilitator, in conjunction with the exercise observers would coordinate the
preparation of an overall capabilities assessment; consisting of:

* Assessment of CMT members that participated in terms of their impact on or affect on the performance of the CRT
or outcome of the exercise (required to ensure assessment of the CRT is not influenced by unpredictable actions of
the CMT members).

* Assessment of role players that participated in terms of their impact on or affect on the performance of the CRT or
outcome of the exercise (required to ensure assessment of the CRT is not influenced by unpredictable actions of the
role players).

* Assessment of the applicability and workability of the applied policies, standards, in-crisis process and the tools
being utilized to enhance response and control activities. Where applicable enhancement alternatives or
recommendations should be established.

* Assessment of the crisis response team with primary focus on:

- makeup of the team in terms of disciplines represented,

- functional experience and knowledge of team members,
- general contribution of each team member,
- interaction and cohesiveness of the crisis response team members,
- compatibility of the team,
- leadership strengths and weaknesses,
- understanding of their role and responsibilities,
- approach and ability to make time-sensitive decisions,
- team’s application of operational standards,
- adoption of the pre-defined in-crisis process,
- integration to operational components of crisis preparedness,
- interactions with CMT and other external groups or individuals.

Note: It is critically important to understand that this assessment is not questioning or measuring an individual’s
capability to perform their role in the organization (their job), but rather and only, whether or not they possess the
skills and experience demanded by events that must be managed in a crisis situation.

The project director should, through the exercise and assessment, draw conclusions and make recommendations to
correct or mitigate areas of concern for review and discussion in Step 4. The resulting ‘crisis management program
assessment’ reports would at this time only be distributed to the primary members of the crisis response team.

Step 4 Prepare a crisis management program assessment ‘enhancement plan’

The objective of step 4, employing a workshop format, is for the CRT and the project director to collaborate on the
preparation of the crisis management enhancement plan.
* An interactive workshop, based on the findings, results and conclusions of steps 1 – 3 and the crisis management
program assessment reports, should be held with the primary members of the crisis response team to develop a
‘crisis management program enhancement plan’.

* The workshop would be developed and facilitated by the Project director,

* The CRT should consider the findings, conclusions and recommendations from all reports and analysis generated in
steps 1 – 3;

- Enhancement opportunity analysis (step 1),

- Executive management Q and A (step 1),
- Rules of engagement analysis (step 2),
- The five crisis management program assessment reports (step 3).

The CRT analysis should result in an acceptance, rejection or an on-hold status (future consideration) for each
recommendation / decision made.

* The project director should then prepare a crisis management program enhancement plan report incorporating the
analysis prepared by the CRT. The report should be distributed to all members of the CRT for comment and
finalization.

Step 5 Obtain management approvals and implement your plan

The objective of step 5 is to obtain management approval for implementation of the crisis management program
enhancement plan prepared by the project director and the CRT.

* The project director, in conjunction with the CRT team leader, would develop a management presentation reflecting
the crisis management program assessment project and the resulting enhancement plan.

* The project director and the CRT team leader would jointly facilitate an executive management working session to
review the ‘major’ components of the enhancement plan for those components that require management approval
(versus the operational decisions that can be made by the CRT itself).

* If required, as a result of the executive management presentation and discussion, update the crisis management
program enhancement plan for distribution to all CRT members for their review.

* Implementation of the enhanced crisis management program should be based on the new program versus an
update of enhancements and should consider:

- Program awareness training (presentation and discussion) with the executive management team (one hour
session),

- Program awareness training (presentation and discussion) with the organization’s business leaders (functional
heads), (one hour session),

- Program awareness and high level operational training with senior management of each of the functional groups
represented on the CRT (i.e. corporate security, human resources, public affairs, business continuity management),
(two hour session), and

- Operational training for the CRT utilizing the enhanced crisis management program standards and processes (three
hour session based on a scenario based exercise).

The assessment strategy presented above will not fit every organization perfectly; it will greatly depend on the
existence or maturity level of your crisis management program. Nonetheless, whether applied as presented or
customized to meet your needs, the process will deliver a comprehensive capability assessment without going
through an exhaustive and resource intensive review or development project.
Author: Dennis C. Hamilton, Hon FBCI, is the president of Crisis Response Planning Corporation, an internationally
recognized emergency management consulting services company. For over 20 years Dennis has been dedicated to
the discipline of crisis management, earning the recognition and reputation as one of North America’s foremost
practitioners and advisors to businesses in all primary industries. Dennis can be reached at 416-500-5517
or dennis.hamilton@crpccrisismanagement.com

CRPC Copyright 2010

Read the previous articles in this series:

1) In-crisis decision making: resolving the dilemma

2) In-crisis decision making: the authority to act

3) In-crisis decision making: Communicate or expect the worse

4) In-crisis decision making: ‘let them do their job’

5) In-crisis decision making: majority rules decision making

6) In-crisis decision making: practice makes perfect

7) In-crisis decision making: participate or fail

BEHAVIOR CHANGES
The Psychological Impact

Some Americans responded to the September 11 terrorist attacks with fear, anger, as well as a
growing intolerance for immigrants, especially against people who were—or appeared to be—
from the Middle East. In the days immediately following the attacks, while the government
launched a war on terror and searched for suspects internationally, many Muslims and Asians in
the U.S. reported that they were the victims of harassment and hate crimes. Sikhs, who follow
Indian religions, were targeted because they wear turbans, which are stereotypically associated
with Muslims. Balbir Singh Sodhi was fatally shot on September 15, 2001, in Mesa, Arizona.
Like other Sikhs, Sodhi was mistaken for a Muslim. According to the FBI report, hate crime
incidents targeting people and institutions that identified with the Islamic faith increased from 28
in 2000 to 481 in 2001. Mosques were attacked as well as other religious buildings, including a
Hindu temple in St. Louis, Mo., which was hit twice with firebombs in early 2003.

The fall 2010 battle over what has been referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque" was a sign that
opinions haven't changed and emotions haven't cooled much in the last ten years. In reality, the
Ground Zero mosque, officially named Park51, is neither a mosque nor is it located at Ground
Zero. In fact, it isn't even visible from the World Trade Center site. Park51, a 13-story Muslim
community center, will replace a Burlington Coat Factory building that was damaged in the 9/11
attacks. It will be open to the public and will contain a Muslim prayer space as well as a
memorial for the victims of the attacks.
The planned center, located two blocks from the attacks, has sparked controversy and protests.
Opponents of the community center have argued that a mosque so close to Ground Zero would
be offensive since the men behind the September 11 attacks were Islamic terrorists. However,
supporters of Park51 point out that some of the victims of 9/11 were Muslim and that some of
the victims' families are in favor of the project. Various polls show that the majority of
Americans, even New York City residents oppose building Park51 near Ground Zero. However,
residents of Manhattan support it. According to the Quinnipiac University Poll in June 2010,
New York City voters oppose the Park51 by a margin of 52% to 31%, but Manhattanites support
it by a margin of 46% to 36%. A national Rasmussen Report found that 54% of American adults
oppose a mosque being built near Ground Zero, while 20% favor it. There have also been recent
protests over mosque projects in other states, showing that almost a decade after 9/11 distrust of
Muslims in the U.S. still exists.

Anger and fear aren't the only lingering psychological repercussions of the September 11 attacks.
According to figures from three New York City 9/11 health programs, at least 10,000 police
officers, firefighters and civilians directly exposed to the World Trade Center attacks have been
diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Ten years later these people are still having
trouble sleeping and concentrating, among other symptoms.

The Impact on the Physical Health of U.S. Citizens

When the Twin Towers collapsed, thousands of tons of toxic debris containing known
carcinogens were released. Exposure to the chemicals led to illnesses among rescue and recovery
workers. A study of nearly 13,000 rescue workers published in the April 2010 New England
Journal of Medicine found that 30%-40% of the workers who suffered impaired lung functions
still show little or no improvement in symptoms.

Not until June 2002 did the air quality near the site return to the level it was at prior to the
attacks. Residents, students, and office workers in Lower Manhattan and nearby Chinatown have
experienced health problems since the attacks. Several deaths have been linked to the toxic dust.
In 2011, scientists are still speculating that exposure to the dust may have negatively effected
fetal development.

The Global War on Terror's Impact on U.S. Citizens and the Economy

According to the Center for Defense Information, the estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan will reach $1.29 trillion by the end of the 2011 fiscal year. The Pentagon's base
budget increased from $307 billion in 2001 to $529 billion in 2011, a 72% increase. Of course,
these figures don't include the human cost of war, the lives lost or forever altered. As of May 12,
2011, more than 6,000 soldiers have been killed in the Global War on Terror, according the
Department of Defense, and 43,399 service members have been wounded, according to the
Department of Defense.

How the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have affected the U.S.'s economic recession is
a source of an ongoing debate. Economists disagree about whether war hurts or helps the nation's
economy. Defense spending during World War II helped to rejuvenate the U.S. economy in the
years following the Great Depression. Unemployment rates were also reduced during World War
II. However, since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has hit an
economic recession unlike any it has seen since the Great Depression. In August 2011, there
were signs that the recovery from the 2008 recession has been stalled with unemployment rates
rising, the government coming close to a default, and Standard & Poor's downgrading the
nation's credit rating for the first time in history.

How the World Views the United States Post-9/11

Worldwide sympathy has faded in the ten years since the 9/11 attacks. Much of the Arab world
resented the U.S. occupation of Iraq. In May 2011, the hunt for, capture, and killing of Osama
bin Laden, strained relations further with Pakistan. Throughout the Middle East and Pakistan
protests against the United States have continued over the decade since the attacks.

A decade is a long time, but perhaps not long enough for a country to recover from the biggest
terrorist attack on its soil. Security measures have been put in place, but Americans are still
feeling the impact of those measures and of what happened on that early fall day.

Read more: How We've Changed Since 9/11 | Infoplease.com

http://www.infoplease.com/us/history/911-anniversary-civilian-changes.html#ixzz1E9AP7jmq