Week 8 – Business Continuity Plans / Isolation versus Quarantine

Week 8 – Business Continuity Plans / Isolation versus Quarantine

Continuity Plans:

Contingency (continuity) planning includes the following phases:

1. Establish Organizational Planning Guidelines
2. Business Impact Analysis (the Risk Assessment)
3. Develop detailed Contingency Plans
4. Validate
5. Communicate the Plan

An example I found online of a corporation with a continuity plan for emergency situations is Deloitte Finance:

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,sid%253D119735%2526cid%253D129871,00.html

NASD Rule 3510 requires that a member firm disclose to its clients how its Business Continuity Plan addresses possible business disruption in various scenarios and its response to those scenarios.

Deloitte & Touche Corporate Finance LLC (“DTCF”) has identified the provision advisory investment banking services to its clients as its critical task with respect to its corporate finance engagements. DTCF has a contingency plan in place for various scenarios which may cause a significant disruption of DTCF’s business, and which may affect the firm, the buildings in which the firm resides, or the city or region in which the firm maintains its offices. Types of disasters include but are not limited to:

• Natural causes
  fires
  hurricanes
  earthquakes
  floods
  tornadoes
• Technical causes
  hardware/software failures
  prolonged loss of utility service
• Human causes
  riots
  strikes

Isolation vs. Quarantine:

"Isolation refers to the separation of persons who have a specific infectious illness from those who are healthy and the restriction of their movement to stop the spread of that illness. Quarantine refers to the separation and restriction of movement of persons who, while not yet ill, have been exposed to an infectious agent and therefore may become infectious. Both isolation and quarantine are public health strategies that have proven effective in stopping the spread of infectious diseases."

Week 7 – Chapter 6, Questions 2 and 5

Week 7 – Chapter 6, Questions 2 and 5

Chapter 6, Question 2:

I don’t think that any of them would have liked it. It was unethical. Boo.

----

Chapter 6, Question 5:

Only if the front organization is clearly working for the greater good and is operating ethically.

Week 6 – Starbucks Case Study

Week 6 – Starbucks Case Study

For some reason, the link to the Homeland Security Warning system wouldn’t open, so I’m blogging on the Starbuck’s case study in Chapter 6.

Starbucks Coffee Company ran into some trouble when an employee of the company sold a bottle of water to a paramedic in NYC on September 11, 2001. It was intended by the company that the bottles of water be given away to rescuers. When news of this got back to the company, they immediately issued a statement responding to this incident and apologizing for the miscommunication. The company also took the time to track down the paramedic and have the person reimbursed for the error. The employees in New York continued to reach out into the aftermath and provide assistance by giving away water, coffee, and other products even when they were told they could stay home along with the rest of the Starbucks employees across the nation. The ethics inspired in these employees is commendable and should be recognized by companies all across the world. By looking at the 6 guiding principles Starbucks has which are listed in the text, you can see that they are a company to be modeled after.

Week 5 – Communication Theory and Public Opinion

Week 5 – Communication Theory and Public Opinion

According to the text, “Aristotle said that persuasion takes three forms: logos, or an appeal to reason; pathos, or an appeal to emotions; and ethos, or an appeal based on personality or character.” This simple statement might be the most important of all statements regarding public opinion.

By definition, public opinion is what the public believes and if you are to change public opinion, you need to understand persuasion. By providing solid reasoning (logos), you can change opinion by appealing to a person’s reason and understanding about a topic.

By evoking emotion (pathos), you can change opinion by striking at the heart of someone’s feeling about a subject- I believe the morality of this can be in question sometimes, considering humans are known to have trouble applying reason over the emotions they are feeling at the time. Rallying people behind a cause due to intensity they are feeling temporarily seems like it could lead to a tricky situation if done wrong.

Then there is appealing to the personality or character of a person (ethos). To me, this seems to be a combination of both logos and pathos. If you are appealing to a person’s character, you are appealing to what makes up that character. Emotion certainly drives it, and with even the moderately educated, character involves reasoning and what a person believes in. In my opinion, applying to a person’s ethos has to be the most appropriate way to change public opinion.

Aristotle… fascinating stuff.