>> MIM Speaks
BE PREPARED TO DEAL WITH CRISES
SEPTEMBER 21, 2003 -
THE STAR
By HERMAN B. DUTCH LEONARD
WHEN Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) first appeared, it
had all the hallmarks of a true crisis: urgency, potential to
create widespread and substantial (and perhaps even
catastrophic) damage, and significant novelty. The novelty is
that there were no obvious similar experiences that could
provide reliable guidance about how best to respond.
Situations of high urgency that are not novel – a modest
earthquake, for example, in an area long known to be susceptible
to such events – should not create a crisis; public officials
and the larger public should be prepared with plans, trained and
practised response teams that are adequately resourced, and a
command and communications structure that should permit
effective response to the situation. Thus, a reasonably
predictable situation should produce only a routine emergency –
not a crisis.
By this definition, the outbreak of SARS last winter and spring
was clearly a true crisis. The crucial question for today is how
should we be organising and preparing public and private
organisations and the public at large for a possible
reappearance of SARS.
Leonard: Preparing for the unexpected. A central responsibility
facing public officials and relevant private organisations now
is to ensure that if SARS does reappear (in some reasonably
predictable form), it does not again become a crisis.
There are several forms in which SARS could reappear that are
reasonably predictable based on its behaviour over the last
eight months. We can distinguish four different possibilities,
each of which calls for different elements of an overall prudent
response:
CASE 1: SARS could simply disappear. This is, obviously, a
widely shared hope – but hope is an emotion, not a policy. We
can hope that this scenario has high probability, and we can
hope that it comes true, but it is not safe to rest policy on
this assumption by itself.
Response: If our hopes are realised, we will not have to deal
with a recurrence of SARS. We should remain ready, with a
well-developed reporting and response system, in case it does
recur – but if it does not, we will not need to expend resources
beyond those necessary to support reporting, reasonable
planning, and appropriate readiness for action.
CASE 2: SARS could disappear for an indefinite period and then
reappear episodically in a form similar to its recent
appearance.
Response: If we find ourselves in Case 2, with episodic
recurrences of SARS outbreaks, we will find the prudent
investments in reporting, planning, and readiness made in
response to the possibility of Case 1 both wise and useful.
In addition, Case 2 will require the expenditure of operational
funds to provide an appropriate response in the case of each
outbreak.
Thus, the possibility of Case 2 calls for the same reporting,
planning, and readiness funds as Case 1, and also for
maintaining availability of resources to pay for an operational
response where it is needed.
Prudence would also suggest investments in medical research on
SARS.
CASE 3: SARS could emerge this fall in essentially the same form
as it took last year, and thereafter exhibit a reasonably
consistent annual cycle.
Response: Like Case 2, Case 3 calls for investments in
reporting, planning, and readiness and for available operational
funding – but now all of these resources would have to be
arranged on an expected annual basis.
CASE 4: SARS could reappear in some completely unpredicted and
unpredictable form.
Response: If we find ourselves in Case 4, the reappearance of
SARS would again present significant novelty, and we would have
to face it, as before, with ingenuity and improvisation.
There is no good way to prepare for the additional features that
this kind of event presents – except to maintain
high-performance public organisations and infrastructure and to
practise improvisational responses.
Given the uncertainty about which of these four cases will
occur, reasonable prudence would call for building an effective
and comprehensive reporting system so that the authorities are
able to recognise the reappearance as quickly as possible.
Which cases should we be preparing for?
Case 1 is, of course, our fondest hope – but it is only that.
Thus, we have at least to prepare for Case 2 (episodic
recurrence). We would have to consider ourselves lucky if SARS
does not reappear at least episodically, so we clearly need to
be prepared if it does.
Do we need to prepare for Case 3 (an annual recurrence)? Since
we are prepared for an episodic recurrence, then we should be
ready for the first annual recurrence; if SARS does appear next
fall and disappears again in the spring, then we will have a
reasonable presumption that it has an annual cycle, and we can
prepare accordingly.
But what about Case 4? We always need to be prepared for the
appearance of unexpected, potentially deadly diseases.
How do we do this? Much of the first line of response will be
provided by the public sector – and therefore we need to
maintain strong public sector administrative, planning, and
response capacities, together with robust systems for being able
to raise resources when necessary.
In summary, given the range of possibilities we face regarding
future SARS outbreaks, prudence would counsel:
(1) Development of a comprehensive reporting mechanism to
provide early detection and early notification to public health
and other relevant officials should there be a renewed outbreak;
(2) Reasonable efforts at planning and maintaining readiness to
deal with the possibility of a renewed outbreak;
(3) Identification of operational resources that would be
required in the event of an outbreak;
(4) Development and maintenance of a general public capacity to
respond to novel dangers – for example, by improving
coordination among different government agencies, practising the
ability of different response organisations to work together and
to improvise in unusual circumstances; and
(5) Aggressive efforts to inform the public about (a) the
possibility of future SARS outbreaks, and (b) what may be
required from the public and from individual members of the
public in the event of future outbreaks.
The overwhelming implication of our existing knowledge of SARS
is that if it recurs and we are not ready, we have failed in the
most elementary of public duties – the duty to anticipate and
prepare for likely hazards to public health.
Such a failure will turn what should be a routine challenge into
a true crisis. This would then be a crisis of our own making.
Herman B Dutch Leonard is a Professor of Public Management,
John F Kennedy School of Government Harvard University and
Visiting Professor at Harvard Business School University. He
will address a full-day seminar on ‘Leadership in Crisis
Situations’ in Kuala Lumpur on Sept 25 2003. Please call MIM at
tel. 03-2164 5255, see www.mim.edu or e-mail
enquiries@mim.edu for further details.
|