The FFIEC recently released some guidance on how to create a pandemic plan.But my question is, if you have a well documented and easy to follow Disaster Recovery Plan, isn’t a Pandemic Plan a little excessive?
We did a pandemic drill a few months ago, and I found it useful because of the randomness of who was and wasn’t available. I think that’s the main difference between a pandemic and most other sorts of disasters. Oddly enough, I think it’s also a good preparation for the randomness of non-disaster-level failures, ie the ‘employee-hit-by-bus’ thing: if N is out w/out warning, can that job still get done, even at a minimal level?
We also had an actual disaster around here last month, and I was VERY impressed by the performance of the branch folk, who had to deal with all sorts of weather-related craziness.
I’m reminded of disaster drills at school, too; you do a variety of drills, based on what’s most likely in your area, and then you’re prepared for the kinds of things that might happen in that circumstance. (A childhood in So. Cal means I can duck under a desk before I even consciously realize an earthquake is happening.)
Good points Elaine. I look at these pandemic tests as a way to find out how really important some staff members are. Like the ‘operations lady’ that knows everyone and everything about the bank or the loan officer that doesn’t use the CRM tool, but still funds tons of loans.
Okay, you’ve convinced me….these tests can add value, if you get employee buy in.
About 11 years ago, a woman at the children’s museum where I was one of about 10 employees was killed in an auto accident (52-car pileup, she was the only fatality, after 2 weeks in a coma).
She was in charge of both marketing and educational programs. It took months for us figure out what she had been working on and where everything was, and that was in the midst of a lot of personal grief. It was a painful but also illuminating experience.
Elaine N.
We did a pandemic drill a few months ago, and I found it useful because of the randomness of who was and wasn’t available. I think that’s the main difference between a pandemic and most other sorts of disasters. Oddly enough, I think it’s also a good preparation for the randomness of non-disaster-level failures, ie the ‘employee-hit-by-bus’ thing: if N is out w/out warning, can that job still get done, even at a minimal level?
We also had an actual disaster around here last month, and I was VERY impressed by the performance of the branch folk, who had to deal with all sorts of weather-related craziness.
I’m reminded of disaster drills at school, too; you do a variety of drills, based on what’s most likely in your area, and then you’re prepared for the kinds of things that might happen in that circumstance. (A childhood in So. Cal means I can duck under a desk before I even consciously realize an earthquake is happening.)
Heath S.
Good points Elaine. I look at these pandemic tests as a way to find out how really important some staff members are. Like the ‘operations lady’ that knows everyone and everything about the bank or the loan officer that doesn’t use the CRM tool, but still funds tons of loans. Okay, you’ve convinced me….these tests can add value, if you get employee buy in.
Elaine N.
About 11 years ago, a woman at the children’s museum where I was one of about 10 employees was killed in an auto accident (52-car pileup, she was the only fatality, after 2 weeks in a coma).
She was in charge of both marketing and educational programs. It took months for us figure out what she had been working on and where everything was, and that was in the midst of a lot of personal grief. It was a painful but also illuminating experience.