Google Docs for business intelligence: Security, Crisis, Travel, Safety, Operations and Marketing

How the killing of Osama Bin Laden will affect business travel

Introduction

 

The death of Osama Bin Laden does not conclude the global threat of terrorism but in many instances it will trigger a new wave or business travel threats. If you want to know more on how the killing of Osama Bin Laden will affect business travel then you need to read this article. This article will identify the major delays, disruptions, risks and threats to business travel as a result of this high profile leader’s death. By the end of the article you will know the key issues affecting business travel as a result and be able to identify the primary areas for travel planning and risk management focus. 

 

Bin Laden’s Death

 

The death of Osama will no more signal the collapse and conclusion of global terrorist events than if the CEO or chairman of a major multi-national were to die also. Global and local terrorism threats are made up of networks, many redundant and independent of any one single point of leadership. Standing Armies, Air Forces and Navies are also constructed along such lines. Would the death of a General bring an Army to a halt? Not likely. Therefore, while being a major news and emotional event for many it will have little to no effect on the command and control of sympathetic terrorist groups. It will embolden some to act, rally to the cause and even further elevate Bin Laden as an icon for their actions, much the same as Che Guevara has evolved as the face of freedom fighters the world over. 

 

Terrorism

 

Terrorism remains a minor threat to business travel based on the volume of travel and those affected. The responsibility and duty to combat such a threat still remains within the government realm and not that of corporate entities although they do need to be aware of developments and capabilities for local governments to combat or prevent attacks to ensure their travellers do not become targets or affected. Business travellers will still be more likely to be affected by delays, disruptions and threats from more routine and frequent issues such as motor vehicle accidents, illness, airline disputes and bad weather. 

 

The Real Threat to Business Travel

 

The real threat to business travellers in the wake of the death of Bin Laden will be the subsequent response by the global aviation security and government intelligence agencies. Most will view this result as a success but also be immediately focused on the potential for reprisal. Many individuals and groups are already in the advanced stages of planned attacks but others may rush to action and attack in support of Al Qaeda or Islamic extremists. Their single-minded attention on these issues will result in greater inconsistencies, delays and threats to business travellers. 

 

Airport Security

 

Airports will become even more unpredictable as to what and how security measures are implemented and changes are all but guaranteed. These changes will further disrupt the efficiency and flow of check-in, boarding, screening, arrivals and departures. However, the effects and approach will not be universal nor predictable to the average traveller and delays, disruptions and missed flights will results and further impact the effectiveness and efficiency of business travel. Company risk and security managers may also be on a hair-trigger and cease, suspend or defer business travel until they get “more information” on the situation, further compounding the issue. If history is any indication, any minor or major incident in the coming weeks and months will result in knee-jerk security treatment solutions that impact more travellers than it prevents terrorists. 

 

Affected Demographics

 

Profiling and heightened security measures will be applied to specific ethnic groups, nationalities and those traveling through identified travel corridors. Once again this will be inaccurate, inconsistent and opaque to the majority of travellers who will suffer the wider effects and possibly even personal effects of such changes. Those traveling from the Middle East, of Pakistani ethnicity, Muslims, single males, those with beards, women in burkas, travellers with no check-in luggage, those paying by cash or even those that “act funny” at the airport will all draw the attention of someone who is looking at reasons why someone poses a threat or could jeopardize air safety and security, therefore requires interception. 

 

Conclusion

 

The world is no safer or riskier than it was the day before Osama Bin Laden was killed. The subsequent actions and reactions following his death however will impact the landscape in which business travellers journey through. Hopefully it will be short-term but should we see the slightest hint of threat or reports from the government agencies then we are all likely to be subjected to greater delay, disruption and risk due to this relatively low level threat. Osama’s death will not signify the end of terrorism, business travellers need to remember there is continued and greater threat from the more routine, airport security will have it’s ups and down in the coming weeks/months and the color of your skin, accent, religion and point of origin will all play a role on how you are viewed by the various security agencies. 

 

While this event should not have had any major impact upon business travel, in reality it will. Now you know what the real threats are, you should prepare yourself and your travellers for the road ahead to ensure they continue to remain productive, efficient and safe during the course of their various business travel demands. 

Human Capital Risk Management-What’s Missing?

In spite of the considerable investment and development around the preservation of assets and the mitigation of risks across conventional corporate assetssuch as facilities, information, equipment and products, the same methodology and motivation remains far less advanced in regards to human capital.

Before any organization even explores risk management strategies for their human capital it is fundamentally important that they first determine the value at risk. Not only is it a case of valuing the contributions of the individual or groups of personnel but differentiating the value in which they contribute to the company, whether it be through the provision of specific skills and services or the commercial value they present the company. These distinctions also need to be made between job functions or management/executive levels. No two individuals are contributing to the company in the same manner, much less two diverse business functions. How many companies even know this definitive financial value of their people?

Following the basics of valuation, and any other unique considerations that the company may have (mobile work force, fixed laborers, knowledge capital, research and development) a unit cost can then be applied for prioritizing strategies or expenditure. For example, an individual that reflects a unit cost/investment per hour of $1 will be less likely to addressed as a priority when compared to an individually that presents a unit cost/investment per hour of $100. However, if there are significant numbers of the basic unit cost of $1 at risk, that group as a whole may be a greater priority than that of a single or limited $100 per unit cost individual.

Threats and residual risks associated with human capital are many and varied. Over time a detailed and thorough analysis can be conducted to determine the probability, velocity of onset and other governing factors that will provide a single or annual loss expectancy to the company. A single loss expectancy, such as death, may cost the company significantly more than just the forecast value identified in the first stages. Conversely, an annual loss expectancy, especially in light of the fact many companies are unable to even quantify this loss, may equate to millions of dollars in lost productivity, administrative burden or opportune costs.

To truly understand or appreciate the current or potential losses to a company through their human capital it is imperative to model the disruptions and time loss (inclusive of management and departmental support) to a cellular and group level. If someone falls ill, how long are they unproductive? What does it cost the company? Should the become a victim of crime or their business activity disrupted due to a natural disaster, what is the cost to the company? When applied to our entire human capital asset base, what is our single and annual loss expectancy?

“You can’t improve what you can’t measure” If you are making a truly informed decision on where your assets are distributed, you can then make informed decisions around strategies to preserve their value. You also enjoy the benefits of comparative investment/management. Most companies are surprised to discover that despite their commitment to their people, they actually devalue their contribution by not acknowledging them as an asset and preserving it accordingly. Are you one of those companies?

Companies that have undertaken to approach the management of their human capital consistent with other corporate assets have found the process highly rewarding and very confronting. Conversely, those adverse to such strategies or behind the curve continue to loose more money than the cost of such preparation and mitigation. They too find over time that penny wise turned out to be pound foolish.

Threat Analysis and Risk Management-Asleep at the Wheel?

Despite countless events and incentives to change, a startling number of companies are still behind the business curve with regards to their risk management. In much the same way a train travels on a set track that has been planned, surveyed, laid and maintained for predictable routes between key locations it doesn’t permit for deviation or adaptability. Given a large enough obstacle it can even be derailed, damaging the train, goods, passengers and requiring major repairs before service is returned. Shareholder value may be affected and the reputation of the company called into question. While the business demands swift and timely movement between locations, the business decision making process is likely to be much slower than the business operation.
Enterprise resilience is a relatively new term and still foreign to most. Outdated risk management structures are functional silos of threat identification, budgets, management and risk mitigation with higher than average potential for duplication, wastage and blind spots not covered by the functional departments or managers. The people overseeing the strategy or implementing the objectives may also be inexperienced or lack authority to encompass all the necessary business aspects.
To further frustrate the process is the human trait that ensures the longer one is exposured to a situation, activity or location results in complacency or diminished ability to identify emerging risks. We have seen this in action most recently with companies operating in Thailand. Despite repeated and almost obvious changes in the situation across the country, but more so in the capital Bangkok, thousands of people and hundreds of companies were taken totally unawares when protesters blocked streets, business environment altered, airports closed and open violence on the streets. The situation was largely predictable and measured preparedness and planning would have negated any major disruption or continuity issues. Thanks to the legacy emotion of Thailand being a “great place” companies almost refuse to accept the new status and many have dismissed the past events as “isolated” and still remain vulnerable to what is the new order until resolution is evident. A similar situation is emerging in Malaysia at present. With a large foreign investment, multinational headquarters, expatriate placements and active international travel, the affects of the changing state in Malaysia will have similar impact on companies and personnel. The signs are there; rule of law, emergency services, crime, religious fragmentation, social unrest, health crisis and financial division are not easily remedied and constitute a here-and-now threat that must be mitigated accordingly.
Enterprise resilience begins at the top. If your board, C-suite or executive leadership is not engaged, the process is doomed from the outset. If the identification and preparation for threats are not inclusive of the enterprise and a representative counsel, the results will be similarly weak. Modern management and competitive advantage lays with those that are hard-wired to the assets and issues in parallel. To know what constitutes value, and the priority to the business along with emerging and dynamic incident surveillance rounded out with a replicatable and efficient decision making process will ensure survival of the fittest. This is an even more poignant issue for those with there manufacturing, management, back office processing or supply lines in developing economies where even the most basic of enterprise resilience strategies are specks on the horizon and not perceived to be an economic imperative. The vehicle is in motion, its speed increasing and the business may be depending on you as the designated driver. The question is, are you asleep at the wheel?

Health Crisis-It’s Not Just About Swine/Bird Flu

The evolving threat from any health crisis should be a major concern to all those charged with ensuring their company’s resilience. When Swine Flu first surfaced, the public interest was akin to the gold medal tally board during the Olympics, if my country isn’t represented in the top five, who really cares?

Sadly, with planners and medical advocates focusing on an inconsistent and flawed measurement tools such as the WHO’s running tally, most will not recognize the threat until it is literally upon them and rife within their communities. Much like the stock exchange, if the S&P 500 is surging, it is no guarantee that you are inclusive of the rally, alternately if it is plunging you could very well be unaffected. Why should the WHO’s numbers be any different?
When it is widely acknowledged that most governments, certainly within developing countries, are not the most dynamic of organizations and the list of failings by numerous administrations remains long and varied; why have so many placed such absolute trust in their ability to manage this particular crisis?

Are so few people aware of the already over extended healthcare system in even the most developed of countries? When people are already waiting lengthy periods for non-life threatening surgeries and general practitioners are dwindling in number do they really believe that thousands of people even mildly ill simultaneously will be serviced in a timely manner? Not to mention the issues over any drug or vaccination that is rushed to market exclusive of any standardized clinical trials. I agree that the current trial periods may be too long but look at the countries that are mandating or implementing widespread vaccination programs of the first round of vaccinations. Concerning? Volunteers?
Even the most progressive multinationals have turned a blind eye to the inequalities of everything outside their home country when addressing planning and prevention for a major health crisis like swine flu. Their “home ground” view seems to be the same assumptions and standards for addressing the issue abroad. Since when has India had the same labor laws as the US? Since when has Indonesia enjoyed the same level of broadband connectivity to enable for employees to telecommute? And who in their right mind would assume that employees in China will stay at home and monitor their own health to ensure they do not contaminate the rest of the office/factory?

Contractors and consultants in the UK recently declared that they were unlikely to stay away from the office if sick as they are on an hourly/daily rate which would be reduced should they not turn up for work. So much for that assumption! How many people do you think fill in the health declaration forms accurately when entering a country with such screening? Even Hong Kong’s current attempts are nothing more than superficial and mere inconvenience rather than anything of substance or consistency.
Malaysia has acknowledged their citizens are oblivious to Swine Flu and its affects. India is in a growing state of fear over the sudden realization they could be affected too, and they are helpless to do very much at all. Many employees in companies within India simply walk off the job to care for family if they think or confirm an ailment. How much of the world’s back office is situated in India? What do you think the impact will be from thousands who don’t turn up for work or significant diminished service capacities within India? South Korea, Taiwan and China all have major problems. They thought it was a European and Americas problem. Their population is ill informed, suspicious of the government, dependent on them to do something, have very underdeveloped risk management strategies and little to no budgets for such countermeasures, not to mention the care of extended family responsibilities well beyond that of the European and American cultures. Forget what the conflicting medical opinion is, do you really believe this will not be a problem?
Swine Flu is not a human health issue exclusively. It is not limited to public health and safety. Like never before, company resilience to this issue will be determined by their actions and implementation, not industry standards or piecemeal government efforts. More concerning is that while these companies will be well prepared, their vendors, suppliers, consumers, affiliates, distributors, advocates and just about everyone else will not enjoy the benefits of their planning and be at the mercy of dynamically shifting environmental influences. You don’t need an economist to confirm the impacts of the economic downturn, equally any similar announcements by the medical fraternity will come well after the obvious, and at present, inevitable impact. On the scale of victim to survivor, where do you fall?

Buying Security Services–Buyer Beware!

Due to the often abstract manner in which security is applied to an enterprise’s assets, determining standards and associated costs is typically quite challenging for even the most experienced of companies and their procurement departments. Furthermore, the final sense or achievement of security is unlikely to be the result of any one department or service and dependent on numerous supporting elements, some from within the company and some externally, to result in the desired objective. It is therefore puzzling as to why a company that does not produce or commercially distribute security products and services would believe they were proficient in determining the financial cost of such services and if they were to apply a margin of error; believe that they were within a mere 10-20% of the provider’s price.
Companies regularly direct their internal departments to determine fair-market-value for their prescribed security demands. Some companies also engage the services of consultants with alleged expertise to assist in this process. Where the plan fails is from the very outset with the majority not even having any first hand experience in running such commercial services, let alone within the terms and conditions set by the company. This excites and frustrates service providers as it presents a headache to educate the company or and opportunity to profit from their hubris or ignorance. Further amplified in developing markets where less scrupulous vendors abound or operate unregulated.
At the pinnacle of this phenomena are those companies that apply a technical and commercial selection criteria. Their first stage presents grossly limiting criteria such as minimum 3 years operating within that sector, prior sector experience, specified office locations, set employee number and so on. This all but removes any possibility of competition within markets outside of the most developed of countries. The second stage then hinges on all the errors accumulated by the company and their advisors to determine what they would charge or see as fair value for such services; with a small margin for error. Quite likely they will also then select the lowest tender.
For companies that want to maximize their budgets, get true value for money or not suffer from ex-post ransom (cheap bids that manipulate the company after the successful contracting to drive the initial price up for fear of re-tendering costs and processes due to potential service failure) or winner’s remorse (you get your service at a bargain price at auction, only to discover that you could have purchased cheaper or better quality items if only you have been better prepared) they should consider the following options:
Get better advice! Only use vendors or individuals that have supplied the same or very similar commercial services continuously without incident/failure.
Develop a specific model for security purchasing. Factor in all the demands, including the required peace of mind or loss mitigation, then work towards a price range relative to the location and industry for such desired quality. Don’t assume your threat assessment and treatment solution approach is accurate either.
Work in a collaborative solutions outcome approach with your providers, not a carrot and stick or contempt approach. If you choose wisely, seek a win-win outcome, listen to advice and modify your initial concepts to include those of the providers and you will get a much better sense of the costs and limitations and avoid surprises/disappointments later on. After all they will be protecting your most precious assets once you commit to a solution.
Caveat emptor applies equally to the foolish and the wise. The difference being that the wise have either read the instructions first or the fool learns from experience, most likely bad.

Business Resilience–Priority of People or Process?

The vast majority of companies, regardless of what they themselves believe, are significantly influenced in their resilience planning by the personalities that represent the process. Whether it is a sole champion or a department that is charged with the enterprise resilience strategy and execution of planning, it is most likely that their personal passions, skills, experience or even comprehension will dominate the overall corporate preparedness and response to actual threats. This phenomena is further compounded by the degree of humility or hubris of these executors and their ability to assimilate, even in the wake of such shortfalls, to rapidly and effectively respond to such oversights. Regrettably, it is often all too late to change at the 11th hour and many of the failing are dismissed/justified by environment, market forces, mother nature or just bad luck. Not the root cause. Sizeable amounts of money is lost, unrealized or expended on unnecessary opportune cost daily or annually as a result.
The scope and demands of modern and dynamic corporates, especially multinational or geographically dispersed entities, is by no means an easy task. A vast amount of knowledge and planning may be required and then resources/strategies applied to areas that warrant countermeasures/treatment solutions that then must be simplified or distilled for consumption and action by numerous stakeholders or line managers. Limited scope, ego, protectionism, arrogance, incompetence, budget constraints and many other issues act in unison to prevent a less than optimum result for all involved. The most resilient companies and the most efficient departments acknowledge all these issues and build such human failings and influences into the methodology to achieve superior results. Paradoxically, these companies are often the most competitive companies also thanks to this vision and forethought.
If this were not challenging enough, the character, charisma, communications skills or business acumen of the lead/executive representative of such functions could signal the final success or failure of all the accumulated work conducted that comes to then convincing the CEO/COO/CFO that a particular threat is credible or a specific investment is necessitated on the strength of the threat and the potential impact if left unchecked. Should they be found wanting, the threat remains unchecked. The squeaky wheel gets the oil!
Financial management has moved past this similar challenge (for the most part) by means of audits, internal checks, disclosure, review or external validation of findings. Risk management, of a non-financial nature, has a long way to go before such approaches become mainstream.
Resilience is based on a comprehensive understanding of all the assets/investments/capital at risk. Qualifying and quantifying the threats and the residual risk present; once current and proposed mitigation/treatment/corrective measures are implemented. A subsequent project plan based on budgets, tolerances, practicalities, strategies and threats is then initiated. None of this is possible or conducted until executive or leadership elements are consulted, convinced and contribute to the outcome, not retrospectively. The sheer diversity and complications of modern and fast paced business operations mandates that this process be a team sport and a collaborative approach.
If you have never met your risk manager, or contributed to the demand or have no budget for such measures, you are part of the problem and less a part of the solution and remain symptomatic of this chronic disease.
Like all addictions or dependency behavior, the first step in breaking the cycle begins with asking yourself some fairly honest and confronting questions. If you can’t affect change then you need help, not time, but actionable collaboration. If not, are you merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing, only to be discovered when most needed?