Almost every year, businesses confront multiple critical events, resulting in millions of dollars in unexpected costs, disruptions to operations, and real threats to the workforce, customers, and suppliers.
Today, the risk extends beyond financial risks to include worker safety, company morale, and business continuity. Therefore, CHROs and CPOs can no longer reactively address these risks. Therefore, Critical Event Management (CEM) has become the new operational imperative.
As the digital and physical worlds become more interconnected, the cascading safety, brand, and revenue impacts of critical events are more severe. These events require a rapid and unified response from organizations.
Table of Contents
Approaching Critical Event Management (CEM)
Organizations invest substantial resources into sophisticated controls designed to prevent critical events from affecting people, brands, and assets. In addition to operational losses and brand damage, these disruptive incidents can also raise concerns about health and safety.
The optimization of critical event management (CEM) operations remains a challenge despite the sustained investment, causing response times to slow down and confusion. Due to this, companies are turning to continuous resolutions and a unified approach to data protection.
Enhancing Event Detection and Response Capabilities
Businesses are increasingly unified in their approach to minimizing the damage caused by catastrophic events. These companies combine internal resources, technology, and business services so that operations are responsible for detecting and managing events beyond strictly securing premises.
Firms are seeking a unified approach to CEM in response to increasing pressure. This approach may be able to lessen the impact of events when coupled with mature tools and metrics.
In spite of unified approaches and maturing tools and procedures, many companies still show a maturity disconnect in their performance metrics. Despite what they believe, companies aren’t as mature as they think.
In terms of CEM metrics, less than half of companies track repair, replacement, or improvement costs following an event. Only a small percentage of companies track other metrics, like mean time to detect, react, and recover from events, and lost revenue.
As far as measuring the overall cost of events, companies place a disproportionate focus on them compared with tracking the success of CEM measures designed to minimize loss and damage over time. This is further proof that companies have a long way to go before they can call themselves mature.
Companies will not be able to understand what tools and procedures are making the difference, and, therefore, how they may be wasting investment funds without mature metrics.
Analyzing data and analytics
A shift towards an integrated, unified approach is undoubtedly the right strategy. The CEM tools, procedures, and metrics of companies without this approach are even less mature.
Although companies are using unified approaches, they are still having problems measuring robustly, especially to detect and respond. In the absence of more rigorous metrics, companies are likely to squander their wise investments, losing the competitive edge.
Are Unified Approaches Worth The Investment?
With CEM, a unified approach can dramatically increase detection and response times. It is imperative that companies optimize not only their tools and procedures but also the formal metrics they use to measure outcomes in order to stay ahead of the competition.
Integrated CEM strategies help companies reduce the meantime to identify, recognize, diagnose, and correct events. This is a measurable indicator of a successful CEM strategy. The impact of critical events on safety, reputation, and revenue is significantly reduced by companies that integrate their approaches across silos.
However, the benefits don’t end there. CEM has been beneficial to more than half of these companies, resulting in more efficient critical event reporting, improved communication workflows, and more defined roles and responsibilities for the personnel involved.
In contrast, when companies without a unified approach significantly underestimated the benefits across the board. The companies responsible for responding to and managing these events are not fully aware of a few of the shortcomings in their approach. In addition, they are unaware of the potential dangers that can result in greater consequences.
With CEM, siloed units become connected in continuous event resolution, allowing for fast response and incident resolution. In the absence of this approach, companies lose out on significant operational benefits.
Although unified approaches allow companies to maximize their toolsets and metrics, they must continue to optimize them. To continuously improve CEM, companies must adopt best practices in tools and metrics, not just good intentions and a unified approach. It is important that they seek out their peers and partners to ensure they have best practices in place and to work to follow them.
Looking to implement a unified CEM for your Business? Get in touch to learn more about transforming your Critical event management with Zapoj’s end-to-end CEM platform.
Read More: What Is Wealth Management?