We cannot predict the specifics of disasters, but we can anticipate them.
Hence, businesses take measures to protect themselves against hurricanes in Miami and earthquakes in Tokyo. The valid assumption, based on prior experience, is that, given enough time, bad things will happen.
But, what of events that are so infrequent and unpredictable that it would be uneconomic, if not foolhardy, to take prior action against them? The likelihood of two airplanes demolishing two of the largest structures in the world is so small as to be indiscernible, but it did happen. No one could have predicted that (with the exception of the terrorists, but they were not talking), but the impacts could have been foreseen.
The impacts, in this case, are meant to be those related to business. Sadly for those who died, no degree of predictability would have sufficed. But businesses, both those in the Twin Towers and those nearby, should have been able to predict destruction of premises and the simultaneous unavailability of premises, transportation and telecommunications. Companies could have planned for the impacts, if not the causes of such an event.
So the question to ask is not how probable an event is, but rather what the response would be to the failure of any of the necessary conditions for running a business, such as access to and use of buildings, computer systems or vital records, availability of people, ability to communicate or travel, preservation of health and safety, etc. We may not know what will make a failure of these things occur, but a company is derelict in not recognizing, prioritizing and mobilizing in the face of predictable surprises.
Download ebooks on http://www.frenchtheory.com/ - See that post with different algorithms in metabole - See the journal French Metablog with today different posts -
No comments:
Post a Comment