XBRM

Enhanced BIA

Blending the Human Factor into Business Impact Analysis

Author: Steve Crimando and Marv Wainschel

Concerns about people and their contribution to the corporate bottom line do not fit neatly into recovery plans for operational failure. Still, the landscape of potential hazards has shifted dramatically over the past decade, ushering in a need to plan for novel and complex crisis scenarios wherein a focus on people cannot be avoided. Analyzing such crises as pandemics, dirty bombs, and economic meltdowns, and developing effective contingency plans for them requires new approaches to traditional hazard vulnerability assessment (HVA) and business impact analysis (BIA).

There is growing awareness in the scientific and professional communities, as well as within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, that some hazards will leave facilities and systems largely unaffected but result in substantial behavioral disruption to the workforce and surrounding communities. Failure to accurately anticipate the behavioral consequences of these kinds of threat scenarios can render disaster plans ineffective and even jeopardize lives. Yet, in recovery plans for operational failure, little to no thought has been given to protecting a corporation’s primary asset during a crisis-its people.

Human-focused Crisis Scenarios

The recent H1N1 influenza outbreak, declared a Phase 6 pandemic by the World Health Organization in May-and arguably overblown by the media-showcased the impact of behavioral issues on business continuity. Even in an outbreak of what was considered a mild flu strain, school closings in many jurisdictions had immediate and profound ramifications for students and parents, ultimately impacting employers.

Parents unable to arrange child care on short notice found themselves homebound even though they and their children were healthy. The impact on hospitals and healthcare systems was also dramatic with a substantial surge of “worried well.” Public health emergencies, CBRN incidents, and other hazards that lack clear parameters are known to produce high numbers of psychological casualties often not factored into traditional BIA models.

Traditional BIA-What’s Missing?

Continuity professionals who focus on operational failure know that a BIA will yield acceptable downtimes for business processes, which, in turn, leads to the identification and quantification of recovery resources, including personnel resources over pre-defined recovery phases. Longer downtimes correspond to slower recovery of resources. Corporate recovery strategy addressing operational failure is based upon the need for such resources over time.

What’s missing? Pandemics, terrorist attacks, and civil strife fall outside the discipline of operational recovery, but require planning for mitigation. While such events are not in themselves operational failures, they can affect operations- and planning for mitigation is not so much about recovering resources as dealing with behavioral issues.

Chemical, biological, and radiological events are fraught with uncertainty and fear. Disease and radiation cannot be seen, felt, heard, or smelled. Pandemic fears are compounded by additional uncertainties: persistence (duration), recurrence (in waves), geography and speed of spread, as well as the change in virulence of the virus. In a June 24, 2009 Washington Post article, John Barry, author of The Great Influenza, cited the two most significant aspects contributing to impact: the virulence of the virus (over which we have no control) and interventions.

Corporate interventions include the establishment of employee assistance programs (EAPs), stocking of antiviral drugs, awareness and educational programs, increased hygiene, and social distancing. These mitigations can be costly, and the question a BIA can answer is, “How much is enough?” Current BIA protocols that address only operational failure do not answer this question, because the impact on personnel contributions is not a factor in the BIA.

While BIA protocols for operational recovery depend upon acceptable process downtimes, impacts to personnel contributions depend upon the human condition. Determination of acceptable downtimes is rooted in losses that have a lasting effect on customer service, financial position, corporate image, and the ability to meet legal and regulatory obligations. Traditionally, those four measurable exposure areas have been the central issues of business impact analysis. However, there is a fifth measurable area of exposure that can have a lasting effect on the corporate bottom line. That area is the potential

degradation of personnel contributions.

BIA Evolution Needed

It’s obvious that personnel contributions affect operational recovery, but what issues affect personnel contributions? How realistic can our strategies be for meeting recovery time objectives (RTOs) if the likelihood of people remaining or returning to work in various hazard scenarios is not fully anticipated? On a process and enterprise level, what long-term losses to personnel contributions will ensue if a company’s human factor mitigations are insufficient? Philosophical responses are barely helpful in quantifying solutions. Astute executives look for measurable indicators of impact. What could the business stand to lose if it didn’t protect and enable surviving personnel?

From a corporate welfare perspective, the humanitarian view of protecting people is not germane. It’s not the people; it’s the contribution they make to the organization. The distinction is non-trivial. People have characteristics like family, the need to survive, hunger, personalities, leadership abilities, skills, knowledge, the ability to operate under pressure, friends, experiences, hopes, etc. While the combination of those things supports their contributions to the firm, they are not the contribution. They are not what we need to measure in analyzing impact when things go awry.

To determine the need for human factor mitigation, what continuity professionals need is a tool that can reflects the downside of personnel contribution. The downside is more than “the lack of personnel contribution,” it includes obstruction to the corporate mission in the form of poor decisions, lowered morale, and the contagion of reduced productivity.

Business continuity professionals, take heed. The risks that lie ahead require a new approach to assessing and integrating the complexities of operational risk and human factors in a manner that go beyond today’s best practices. Evolving risks require further evolution of BIA models. Enhanced BIA featuring the seamless integration of a human impact audit or human factors assessment may represent the next generation of BIA. CI

___________________________________________________________

Steve Crimando is the Managing Director of XBRM, a company focused on the human factor in business continuity. He can be reached at steve@xbrm.com.

Marv Wainschel is the CEO of McWains Chelsea, a business resilience consulting firm. He can be reached at marv@mcwains.com.

Print/Mail/Save

To contact us for more information, click here to go to our Contact Page, email us at info@xbrm.com, or call us at 212.366.8200

Terrorism, Trauma & Tragedies: A Counselor’s Guide to Preparing and Responding, Third Edition

The American Counseling Association Foundation (ACA), has recently published it’s third edition on terrorism, trauma and tragedies, which focuses on current events, the field of disaster mental health, and how counseling professionals respond to various forms of disasters, and set strategies/ techniques for coping before, during, and after a traumatic occurrence.

The first two editions focused on events like the Columbine High School shootings, and the aftermath of September 11. This third edition has been revised to reflect more recent tragedies (Hurricane Katrina, the devastating hurricanes in New Orleans and Haiti, the Gulf Coast, Multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.), to show the dramatic growth in knowledge and experience within the field of disaster mental health. The goal of these editions are to share experiences, strategies, and lessons learned from the front lines, in hopes of ensuring that counseling professionals are well-prepared for future  events that lie ahead.

This book is a collaboration of 51 authors including XBRM’s Steven Crimando, and Cynthia Simeone. Their contribution to this edition, Coping with Financial Crisis,  focuses on the correlation between financial collapses and pandemics.

Excerpt:

“A great deal of time, effort, and money has been spent in the United Stated and  abroad developing plans and procedures to mitigate the effects of a pandemic on the workplace. The financial crisis has triggered  many of the same workplace dynamics anticipated by pandemic planners, including high levels of stress and fear; diminished or depleted workforce; decline in retail, travel, entertainment, construction, and many other economic sectors; escalating unemployment; and disruption or closure of financial institutions.”

To purchase this book please click here to visit: The American Counseling Association Foundation

Click here to view a PDF of  the: Front Matter

Contact us for more information about how XBRM can help your organization, click here to go to our Contact Page, email us at info@XBRM.com or call us at 212.366.8200

Leaders Struggle with Crisis Risk Management

Australia’s leading risk management magazine recently caught up with XBRM’s Managing Director, Steve Crimando MA, BCETS, to discuss leadership in crisis situations. According to Crimando, it takes more than just a cool head.

Click here to view the article, “Leader’s Struggle with Crisis Risk Management“

Contact us for more information about how we can help your organization by clicking here to go to our Contact Page, email us at info@XBRM.com or call us at 212.366.8200.

Prepare for the Unexpected: Continuity Planning and Behavior

[April 2010 – New York, NY] – Steven Crimando, Managing Director of XBRM, was interviewed for Financial Management Network (FMN) by SmartPros to discuss best practices in crisis situations, and the similarities between the current global financial crisis, pandemic disease outbreaks, and various types of sudden and ongoing crises. In this interview, Steven Crimando will reveal some core concepts used during natural disasters which can also be helpful tools used to cope with a variety of crisis situations.

This is an informative segment on how businesses can also incorporate these best practices in developing and updating their organizational resilience plans and enable themselves to not only prepare for crises, but deal with the emotional aftermath of traumatic events.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE INTERVIEW

This is Steven Crimando’s second interview with SmartPros. To view the first segment, click here: Swine Flu: Are You Pandemic Ready?

About SmartPros Ltd.:
SmartPros’ FMN Video programs make it easy for finance professionals to stay up to date on the issues that affect them. SmartPros is a leading provider of professional education products to Fortune 500 companies, as well as the major firms and associations in each of its professional markets.

Founded in 1981, SmartPros is an industry leader in the field of accredited professional education and corporate training. Its products and services are primarily focused in the accredited professional areas of corporate accounting, financial management, public accounting, governmental and not-for-profit accounting, financial services training, banking, engineering, legal, and ethics and compliance. Visit http://www.smartpros.com.

About Steven Crimando:
Steven M. Crimando, MA, BCETS, Steve has more than 20 years experience in disaster planning, consulting and training.  Steven is Managing Director of Extreme Behavioral Risk Management.  He is a clinician and educator specialized in crisis intervention, disaster recovery, and traumatic event response. He has been conferred the status of Diplomate of the American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress and is a Board Certified Expert in Traumatic Stress. He also holds Level III Certification in Homeland Security through the American College of Forensic Examiners International, where he serves as the Vice Chairman for the Division of Forensic Counseling.

He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGuard program and serves as a consultant and trainer for the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Emergency Management Agency and United Nations. He has served as faculty member at the Rutgers University Center for Management Development and Fairleigh Dickinson University graduate program in Management of Organizational Behavioral

To contact us for more information, click here to go to our Contact Page, email us at info@xbrm.com, or call us at 212.366.8200.

Print/Save/Email

Telephone Threat Management & Crisis Communications

American Board for Certification in Homeland Security National Conference — Steve Crimando, Managing Director of XBRM will be giving a presentation on “Telephone Threat Management & Crisis Communications” at the 2010 ABCHS National Conference, which will be held on September 22-24, 2010. This presentation is intended to help those working in homeland security, emergency management, and related fields manage the full-spectrum of telephone threats and crisis situations, ranging from irate, rude, and abusive callers, to bomb threats, kidnapping, and CBRN terrorism. Attendees will be introduced to a structured approach to managing initial crisis contacts and the first moments of what can potentially become a difficult, distressing situation, and will also begin to develop the skills and confidence necessary to handle high-pressure, high-consequence telephone contacts.

When/Time: Friday, September 24, 2010: 2:15PM – 3:45PM
Session: Telephone Threat Management and Crisis Communications
Where: Renaissance Orlando Resort at SeaWorld -  Orlando, Florida

For more information on this event, click here to view the: 2010 ABCHS Conference Brochure
To register, click here: American Board for Certification in Homeland Security web site

Leadership During a Crisis

Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit: TableTop Exercise (TTX): Leadership During a Crisis–

In conjunction with Eagle Rock Alliance, facilitators Steve Crimando (XBRM) and Marv Wainschel (McWains Chelsea) will be conducting a TableTop Exercise for the Gartner Security and Risk Management Summit. Attendees at will be able  to interact during a mock crisis event to enhance their skills and comprehension level in responding to a Dirty Bomb scenario.

When/Time: Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 9:15AM – 11:30AM
TableTop Session Title: Leadership During a Crisis
Location: Wahsington, DC

To register for this session, or for further details, click here:  Gartner Summer Events

To contact us for more information, click here to go to our Contact Page, email us at info@xbrm.com, or call us at 212.366.8200

A Different Kind of Disaster:

Human Factors in Complex Emergencies

by: Steven Crimando

[March 2010 - Disaster-Resource.com] — From a psychological standpoint, public health emergencies are very different kinds of disasters. Unforeseen emotional and behavioral reactions the workforce, among clients and vendors, and in the general public can undermine even well developed continuity plans. There are two ways in which the human factors in any disaster, but especially a threat like a pandemic, can trip up planners. The first is the failure to integrate human factors into the BC plan. The second is basing plans on flawed assumptions of how people are likely to behave in certain disasters or emergencies.

Planners should be aware of three behavioral reactions to disasters and develop effective countermeasures to mitigate their impact. Consider these responses as they may shape reactions to the H1N1 flu, as well as other event types:

• Type I: Neighbor-helps-neighbor: In most disasters people are willing and able to reach out to friends, neighbors and co-workers affected by a crisis. Planners count on this, the most common behavioral response, which preserves community and organizational cohesiveness.
• Type II : Neighbor-fears-neighbor: When a contagious, invisible threat,
  like disease, chemical, biological or radiological hazards are present, fear becomes an obstacle and breaks down the social networks and sources of support we all count on in disasters. This can magnify many of the operational and human factor challenges in any crisis.
• Type III : Neighbor-competes-with neighbor: Panic is unlikely in most
  disasters. It is more common in situations in which people perceive there is a limited opportunity for escape or limited availability of critical supplies. It brings out a survival instinct, breeds competition between people and pits neighbors and coworkers against each other.

A Type II reaction is very likely in the unfolding pandemic scenario. Common sense and repeated messages from public health authorities instruct people to stay away from others if they’re sick, to cover coughs and take other  distancing precautions. While Type III reactions are not common, they should be a consideration in the H1N1 risk profile. There are also the seeds of a Type III reaction due to potential shortages of vaccine, antiviral medications, masks, sanitizer gels and other flu-related supplies. This is likely to breed competition between otherwise cooperative individuals. The UK experienced
a run on pharmacies in late July when the number of H1N1 cases there doubled in one week. People raced to stock up on masks, thermometers and
sanitizers. If the pandemic significantly disrupts the supply chain, competition
for even basic goods at the local grocery store is foreseeable.

Effective Behavioral Countermeasures
Planners can use the three general behavioral response types as a way to test
their assumptions about how people may behave at different stages or phases of the evolving H1N1 situation. It is unlikely that there will be a sudden or dramatic increase in mental health or Employee Assistance Program (EAP) services for PTSD or other psychological issues typically associated with disasters. Fear and anxiety are likely to be the dominant emotional themes and as such, planners can apply some common fear management
strategies and techniques:

• Create openness. Acknowledge employee fears openly and confidently. Let them know their fears are understood and appreciated by management. When people feel that others are not “getting it” or recognizing the emotional impact of the event, they are likely to escalate their reactions. Don’t invite an escalation; get out in front of emotional response early with a supportive posture.

• Provide links and other resources specific to the emotional challenges of the pandemic. Many of the national mental health organizations have createdhelpful downloadable brochures, FAQ sheets and Web-based materials discussing the psychological impact of H1N1 and ideas for coping. Examples of this are the American Psychological Association’s, “Managing Your Anxiety about H1N1 Flu”¹ or the American Red Cross fact sheet, “Preparing for a Swine Flu (H1N1) Pandemic: Coping and Emotional Well-Being.²

• Redirect emotional energy into actionable tasks. The noted risk communicator, Peter Sandman (www.psandman. com) is credited with the saying, “Action binds anxiety.” People are at their most anxious when threats seem uncontrollable and unpredictable. While pandemics are predictably unpredictable, there are action steps that can help ground the types of stress and anxiety that, left unchecked, can further disrupt operations. Whether at home or in the workplace, suggest tasks, assign roles and otherwise focus people on what is controllable. The national pandemic planning website, www.pandemicflu.gov provides checklists and other tools that can help people and organizations take greater control over what otherwise can seemlike an overwhelming hazard. There is both a physical and mental health benefit to taking preparedness steps. Championing readiness pays substantial dividends.

Don’t Go it Alone
There are many good sources of behavioral health information that can be valuable to general disaster planning efforts, and specifically to pandemic preparedness. These resources are often known to local health departments and Offices of Emergency Management. Nearly all states and many nations have some degree of disaster mental health response capability and these are often very accessible sources for this important information. Regardless of how the H1N1 flu unfolds, it is a safe assumption that there will be significant behavioral consequences. Ignoring the human factors in a pandemic is ill-advised. Proactively recognizing and managing these reactions can help.

To contact us for more information, click here to go to our Contact Page, email us at info@xbrm.com, or call us at 212.366.8200

Print/Save/Email

Turning Your Front Line Staff Into Your First Line of Defense

When an incident-creating call comes in, or an on-site incident occurs, staff can open TeleCrisis™ on their desktop. TeleCrisis™ will immediately offer event-specific expert on-line guidance to help them deal with the incident, collect relevant information, dynamically notify internal and/or external emergency authorities, and provide a post-incident report. (more…)

Perfect Practice Makes Perfect

Accurate Behavioral Assumptions are an Essential Element of

By Steven Crimando and Marv Wainschel

[February 2010 – DRJ, Winter 2010] – In law enforcement training circles there are legendary stories from the old days, where officers were killed during a gun fight and empty shell casings were found in their clenched hands or pants pockets. Pausing to catch their brass as they were trained when reloading a revolver, more a matter of range etiquette than for any tactical reason, is thought to have contributed to officer deaths. Under stress, we perform as we have practiced. For practice to be useful, we must be certain to rehearse the response to a threat or hazard accurately. The bottom line is that, “Practice doesn’t make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.” Flaws in any aspect of drills or exercise repeated often enough are likely to surface in a real-time response and perhaps with dire consequences.

The Need For Accurate Behavioral Assumptions

One of the most difficult areas to effectively model in exercise planning is predicting and preparing for the actual human behavior associated with a particular exercise scenario. Exercising around flawed behavioral assumptions can compromise the effectiveness of response and recovery plans and lead to potentially deadly results. Recent research, including the “Redefining Readiness Study” (New York Academy of Medicine, 2004), expose critical flaws in emergency preparedness. A summary statement from the study says it best: “Research shows that even if the nation gets all of [the logistics] right, the plans that are being developed now are destined to fail because they are missing an important piece of the puzzle: how the American public would react to these kinds of emergency situations.”

For plans to be effective they must be based on accurate behavioral assumptions, that is, what people are most likely to do in an actual emergency, whether they are executives, front line employees, or the general public. David McEntire, in the popular “Wiley Pathway Disaster Response and Recover” textbooks, has cautioned would-be emergency managers that, “In order to react successfully to a disaster, you must understand human behavior better than anyone else in your community.” Understanding and anticipating human behavior across a variety of hazard scenarios and around the entire cycle of emergency planning is critical to developing sound policies, plans, and protocols. These same accurate behavioral assumptions must also be present in exercises to make them as realistic and useful as possible.

The importance of infusing emergency plans with behavioral accuracy is reinforced by the recent establishment of a human factors/behavioral sciences branch within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s science and technology directorate. Among the various “thrust areas” for this new branch is exploring “societal resilience” and the behavioral aspects of disaster response and recovery. It is important that human factors incorporated into emergency planning be scientifically sound. Most research in this area is considered “evidence-informed” rather than “evidence-based.”

Evidence-based behavioral research is derived from highly structured and controlled experiments. There are several obstacles, ethical and otherwise, to experimenting with human subjects in high-stress or traumatic situations. Most disaster-related behavioral research is considered “evidence-informed” and rests upon a combination of field observations, case studies, literature reviews, expert consensus, and the real life experiences of those involved in disaster response and recovery.

Ascertaining Behavioral Response
Another example of recent efforts to use a behavioral sciences approach to reinforcing traditional planning methods is the PLAN C project at New York University’s Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response and the NYU Bioinformatics Group. PLAN C (Planning with Large Agent-Networks against Catastrophes) represents the cutting-edge of planning using a novel simulation computational tool to help emergency managers, planners, and public health officials to prepare and evaluate plans designed to respond to catastrophic situations in urban environments.

The sophisticated algorithms have been able to simulate the complex dynamics of emergency responses in different urban catastrophic scenarios (chemical agent, bomb explosion, small pox, etc.). One planning scenario examined a hypothetical sarin nerve gas attack in Manhattan, similar to the 1995 attack in Tokyo. Some of the behaviors modeled and analyzed included the movement of New Yorkers out of the subways, through the streets and toward hospital emergency departments, and emergency medical services.

To develop advanced tools like PLAN C and the common drills and tabletop exercises used to inform decision-makers to prepare for disasters, depth of understanding about human behavior in emergencies is required. A critical human factors learning point in the Tokyo gas attack was that the number of psychological casualties outnumbered the actual medical casualties by a ratio of 4:1. In examining the “worried well” phenomena, other important cases pertain, such as the accidental release of cesium-137 in Goiânia, Brazil, in 1987. In this instance, the ratio was on the order of 500:1, with the Brazilian government opening the Olympic soccer stadium as a medical screening site to handle the 112,000 area residents who turned out for medical screening believing that they were exposed to potentially deadly radiation. Of the first 60,000 who arrived, more that 5,000 had symptoms consistent with radiation sickness, though none had been contaminated.

The “worried well” effect has proven critical in the first wave of H1N1 experience earlier last year. On May 25, 2009 – the worst day of the swine flu outbreak – New York City hospital emergency departments saw more than 2,500 patients with flu symptoms compared to only 150 on the same day in 2008. These patients, many driven by fear and misinterpretation of other symptoms (allergies, stress responses, etc.), and very few required hospitalization. From the second to the third week of July, the UK experienced a doubling of new H1N1 cases with more than 100,000 new cases triggering a run on pharmacies for gloves, masks, antibacterial gels, and thermometers. A key lesson learned in many countries was that the overwhelming surge for healthcare services or supplies slowed or stopped response efforts in their tracks.

Including Behavioral Response In Exercises
Organizations cannot afford to ignore human response to adverse and unusual situations. The behavioral response may be so significant that it must be anticipated and incorporated throughout exercises and drills to ensure that plans will hold up to the realities presented by these behavioral challenges. The exercise design challenge lies in developing a scenario that participants can recognize would likely evoke potentially harmful human behaviors if the event were real. Exercise participants should be expected to react to such behaviors and make decisions about how their organization would manage the situation. In order for participants to make informed decisions, they need to know something about potential human reactions to dire events and what options they may have for mitigation. Such an exercise is not merely an opportunity to practice decision-making and team play, but also an opportunity to learn the nature of extreme and rare situations – such as a dirty bomb, pandemic, or civil strife – and what their options may be in dealing with the human response to such situations. Such response may be based upon their organization’s actual readiness to react or may be based upon some presumed preparedness not yet actualized. In either case, accurate behavioral assumptions are critical to mitigation activities and decision-making, and participants need to be briefed on these matters at the outset of the exercise and all during the exercise as the scenario introduces new concerns.

Some exercise designers attempt to evoke genuine emotional reactions among participants with the use of graphic videos and panic-laden interventions. These attempts are not likely to be fruitful. Exercise participants are unlikely to indulge in fear-motivated behaviors themselves for two reasons: (1) they know it’s only an exercise; and (2) typically, even in a real event, only a small percentage of the population will exhibit potentially disruptive behaviors. The way to inject them into an exercise efficiently is to describe them succinctly.

• “Distraught employees indicate they regret coming to work and are wandering the office creating disruptions.”
• “Employees are reporting symptoms of radiation sickness –nausea, rashes, etc.”
• “Crowds are huddled around newscasts, and rumors abound as the press raises concerns.”

More important than emotional provocation is the realistic presentation of management concerns that are likely to occur and a sense of urgency in making informed decisions. This is accomplished by simulating a realistic decision-making environment, establishing roles and accountabilities, and providing repeated scenario escalations that challenge decision-making capacities in short time frames. The facilitator needs to encourage thoughtfulness about the realities of the scenario, including mitigation options resulting from organizational readiness and the likely human responses in carrying out these mitigations. Where the organization is not well-prepared to deal with the human factor, the exercise can serve to raise awareness about that requirement.

Emergency response and recovery plans that ignore behavioral response invite failures when the plans are needed. Management needs to be aware of likely behavioral responses and needs to practice decision-making in the light of accurate behavioral expectations. Exercises that do not incorporate such considerations are imperfect, and imperfect practice makes for imperfect action.

About the Authors

Steven Crimando, MA, NCCM, is the managing director of the Extreme Behavioral Risk Management division of AllSector Technology Group, Inc. He is an internationally-known consultant and trainer specializing in disaster and emergency management human factors. He can be reached at Steve@xbrm.com.

Marv Wainschel is the CEO of McWains Chelsea, a business resilience consulting firm that has provided leading edge concepts to the business continuity industry since 1983. Wainschel currently serves as advisor on the NYC-based Contingency Planning Exchange Board of Directors. He can be reached at marv@mcwains.com.

Print/Mail/Save

XBRM Services
XBRM provides professional services that include: development and audits of business continuity plans, table top exercises/tests and training and education that reduce your organization’s risk level by improving  it’s ability to respond to an incident or event. Click here to learn more about our: Products and Services; Click here to learn more about our: Training and Education

To contact us for more information, click here to go to our Contact Page, email us at info@xbrm.com, or call us at 212.366.8200

Swine Flu: Are You Pandemic Ready?

Swine Flu: Is Your Organization Pandemic Ready?

First declared pandemic in 40 years – what you need to know.

[October 9, 2009 – New York, NY] – Steven Crimando, Managing Director of XBRM, and other key experts, were recently interviewed for Financial Management Network (FMN) by SmartPros to discuss businesses’ responsibility during a pandemic.

The questions, and their answers, are both informative and revealing about what business executives should expect in the coming months, how they should prepare, and the behavioral/mental health issues they will face in the workplace.

Click here to watch the interview

About SmartPros Ltd.: SmartPros’ FMN Video programs make it easy for finance professionals to stay up to date on the issues that affect them. SmartPros is a leading provider of professional education products to Fortune 500 companies, as well as the major firms and associations in each of its professional markets.

Founded in 1981, SmartPros is an industry leader in the field of accredited professional education and corporate training. Its products and services are primarily focused in the accredited professional areas of corporate accounting, financial management, public accounting, governmental and not-for-profit accounting, financial services training, banking, engineering, legal, and ethics and compliance. Visit http://www.smartpros.com/.

About XBRM: Extreme Behavioral Risk Management (XBRM), a division of AllSector Technology Group, Inc. is a crisis management consulting practice specializing in the human factor in disaster and emergency preparedness. This includes responding to economic and financial turmoil, workplace violence, terrorism, and other crisis situations. XBRM helps prepare an organization’s decision‐makers, employees, and first responders by providing education, training, resources, and software products to accurately address emotional and behavioral responses across all phases of emergency management.

Steven Crimando is an expert who provides high level support to organizations including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Public Health Service, and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

To contact us for more information, click here to go to our Contact Page, email us at info@xbrm.com, or call us at 212.366.8200

Print/Mail/Save