Recently I had the opportunity to see this obsession with Greenfields approaches taken to the most amazing extreme.
I was asked to review an update of a client’s Pandemic Plan. The plan, like so many, is structured along the lines of the WHO’s Phases – and outlines activities that are intended to be undertaken at each Phase.
I questioned the lack of any obvious escalation from the current position in respect of the WHO and national alert levels, only to be told that this plan had to address a “Greenfields” approach to all possible forms of Pandemic!
- They have outlined the activities they think should be undertaken at PHASE 1, and each Phase thereafter.
So, when the current Pandemic passes AND
- Avian Influenza is wiped from the face of the earth
- Their Pandemic Plan will still be valid
My initial thought was that this was a total waste of time and effort, but then I realised they had listed the same actions to be undertaken at all Phases from 4-6. Less effort implies less waste.
First question they asked in the review was, “Is this a viable plan” – my answer NO!
Second question, “Will it meet the requirements of our Corporate BC Group?” – unfortunately YES (it was their template after all that required the Phase 1 start).
The worst aspect of all this – not a word of it is made up, it is a real example.
How do you respond to something like this?
Have you seen this classic result of template-driven, “bottom up” planning in other aspects of a BCM Program?
Recent Comments