Introduction
A crisis is an extraordinary disaster that is unforeseen by people, business structures economies that cause widespread damage to human life, ordinary and social environment (the academy of management executives (1987). It threatens to cause mischief to the organization and its stakeholders. In addition, catastrophes can impinge on all sections of society. It could be caused by a wide range of factors (crises management workbook 2007). Crises management on the other hand is the attempt by people to foresee, put down measures to avoid, take action and manage emergencies when they occur (Edward P. 2005). According to the academy of management executives (1987) the field of crises management is still in the young stages of development and thus more is required to be done so as to get the required effectiveness. The authors of this article contended that crises sent prior signs before it occurs hence measures could be taken to stem it at those early stages. They however presented four distinct phases involved in effective crises management. These were prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery management. In this analysis therefore we look into a crises case regarding an ice storm that hit the New England region and parts of New York on the night of 11th December 2008 (according to Unitil’s report of December 2008 ice storms, 2005).
The North America Ice Storm of 1998
This is an ice storm that hit North America in January 1998 and is also identified as the great ice storm of 1998 causing devastating destruction to trees and electrical infrastructure all over the area leading to long spells of power disruptions. Millions of people were left in darkness for a period ranging from days to weeks and left more than 30 people dead. In addition, the storm blocked several large cities hindering the reconstruction of the power grid. In the same way as the 2008 storm in the New England region, the 1998 storm in North America toppled down trees and electricity lines thus causing power disruption for over 4 million people in the region. The fallen snow made roads treacherous thus hindering reconstruction progress (Ice storm gazette, 98).
Scientific Developments Contribution to Crises Management: Storms Case
The science of winter storm prediction has been enhanced progressively over the past decades. According to the U.S Geological survey 2008, the United States forecast precision had improved by almost double in two decades. Fabulous developments have been made in the forecast and succeeding warnings of heavy snow events. In the 1970’s geologists could only foresee less than 12 hours advance notice for snowfall of greater amount greater than 4 inches. Currently according to the survey geologists are able to give alerts of heavy snow 3-5 days in advance and can distinguish between 4, 8 and 12 inches snowfall amount up to 3 days in advance (U.S geological survey)
The Overview
On this date, a heavy ice storm hit the region toppling down tree branches and at times whole trees onto the power lines causing power cuts to more than 1.2 electricity customers in the affected region. The worst hit region was however Massachusetts and New Hampshire who were left without power for days and even weeks. Unitil a utility company serving Massachusetts was largely affected by the crises.
It had all of its 28500 customers affected by the electric power cut. This was overwhelming for them and fast response was required. In no time their customers were at a very fast pace growing impatient with the frequent statements of the utilities central communicating center. According to the report released by Unitil in February. Unitil admitted that they had not anticipated damage of such a great magnitude to its systems. Despite having maintained a compliment full-time all year round workers for normal operations and an arrangement to get contractors and persons from other utilities, the crises at hand were overwhelming and demand for the outside workforce was extraordinary.
Unitil’s Efforts to Manage the Crises
Efforts were put in place to restore powers, the workforce was beefed up, communication was enhanced and all resources were mobilized to meet the overpowering demand of this crisis but were totally inadequate. According to the report, it took more than a week for Unitil to get considerable resources for adequately meeting the reinstatement demands. At this point, the state of preparedness of Unitil to handle emergencies of this magnitude is questionable/ not adequate. Reinstatement of the power was also time-consuming and the team ought to have been intensified in the shortest time possible. As a result of this slow response to the crises, Unitil clientele had to wait between the 11th and 23rd of December(12 days in the dark) when the power was finally put back in place. Unitil, therefore, had no full capability to take action in times of crisis with the speed that is due.
The communication systems available in Unitil were not adequate to handle communication in crises times; of course like this one. During the emergency, the communication gap between Unitil and its customers was actually widening every other day. They could not provide accurate restoration dates to customers. Customer’s calls as well of the public were not going through due to congestions (presumably). Customers were growing frustrated every coming day and Unitil’s frequents statements to customers were no longer believable. Customers and the public were losing confidence in the statements from the utility firm. To them, restoration and repair were taking unexpectedly long and customers were becoming impatient.
Phases of crises management: Unitil’s case
Disaster Preparedness
From the crises, Unitil had learned important lessons which could help them develop effective crises management strategies. In order to be repaired for storms of this magnitude, Unitil intends to carry out activities all year-round to prepare itself and the electric transmission and distribution systems for significant storms. The review and modification of the emergency recovery plan as it is indicated in Unitil’s February report will be a major score towards preparedness
Response to Crises/ Reactive Phase
Unitil is not adequately capable to respond fast to emergencies. The response to the power disruption by the ice storm was very slow. According to the customers and public it took unexpectedly long to fully respond to the emergency, mobilize available resources, and assess the damage. Retention of outside workers would be an effective measure for Unitil’s effective and first response in the future.
Recovery and Communication
Communication is a very useful and crucial tool for effective recovery. For Unitil, its current communication system is faulted by its inability to handle these particular crises. It was difficult to provide accurate power restoration dates, affected by congestion due to a large number of callers. It also failed to convince the customers that Unitil was indeed doing its best to fix the situation. The company needed to add additional call lines so as to expand it current system capable of handling a large number of callers in emergency times, changes on how the company communicates with the public during the crises times are necessary for a smooth recovery and public relation during such emergency times.
Work Cited
- Bowdziz Edward. P, Risk Crisis and Security Management, West Sussex, England, John Willy and sons’ Ltd, 2005
- Crisis management workbook. Office Security and Risk Management Service Fairfax County public school, 2007.
- Ian. I et al. Effective Crises Management. New York: Industrial Crises Center. Academy of Management of Executive vol. l.3.no 1 pg 283-292, 1987
- Uccelini Lous. w, Written Testimony, National Center for Environmental Predictions, Hearing on severe winter weather, 2006
- Unitil’s response to December 2008 ice storm summary of DPU, 2009