Global Risk Mitigation & Response Leadership

Communication

Multinational incident response requires quick and concise communication across all organizational levels as well as providing clear leadership for the response teams. Over ten years, I led enterprise-wide response to incidents associated with natural disasters, pandemics, and manufacturer/supplier quality. In addition to response, effective leadership requires continual process improvement. The following provides additional context and summary of incident response leadership.

Natural Disaster

In 2011, a 9.1 earthquake struck off the northeast coast of Japan’s largest island (Honshu) followed quickly by tsunami. In addition to the loss of life, the area suffered significant and widespread infrastructure damage. This infrastructure damage impacted housing, utilities, manufacturing, warehousing, and transportation. Within hours of the event, I convened a cross-functional and cross-geographical team of eighteen technical resources with subject matter expertise across multiple disciplines (also included engagement of external subject matter experts). This team shifted their focus from their ‘day jobs’ to fully supporting our technical response team for more than two months. I established a daily routine whereby our response team met with our colleagues based in Japan every evening and conveyed what support they needed (e.g., instrumentation, supplies, subject matter expertise, funding). Early the following morning, our response team met to task our team with gathering the support requested the evening before. Then, at the next evening call we provided the Japan-based team what they requested and then the Japan-based team provided a new list of needed support. This meeting/support cycle lasted seven days per week for about two months. At same time, I provided communication at least two times per day to functional and general leadership. As a result, although under significant stress, the Japan-based team received information and material to support their business response and recovery efforts.

Pandemic

Beginning in 2014, I led the technical response to two pandemics – Ebola in west Africa (2014) and Zika primarily in Brazil, but with reports of breakouts in other South American countries and in North America (2015-2016). Like the 2011 Japan response detailed above, again, I convened a cross-functional and cross-geographical teams to provide information and instructions on personnel screening, primarily through direct engagement with the Centers for Disease Control, and through material support. Material support included assembling and shipping internationally kits of medical supplies and personal protective equipment to eighteen operations across west Africa along with materials for the Brazil team. This meeting/support cycle lasted for about two months with varying weekly schedules. At same time, I provided communication at least two times per day to functional and general leadership. As a result, team based in Africa and Brazil received information and material to support their business response and recovery efforts. Specific to the west Africa response, the kits supplied provided materials not available to their local markets.

Manufacturer/Supplier

Beginning in late 2011 and lasting through mid-2012, we received notification of technical issue with equipment placed in retail outlets across a large country in southwest Asia. Again, like the natural disaster and pandemic responses, I led the response to these incidents. Due to lack of local capability, I led the response with US-based resources and by utilizing a third-party engineering company. Over the course of nine months, we met twice per day to capture updates on root causes and corrective actions that included the suppliers of the equipment. Once we identified the root causes and implemented short-term corrective actions, we completed significant retrofits for 21,000 pieces of installed equipment. From a communications standpoint, in addition to regular team update communications, I kept c-suite leaders apprised of the problem, risks, and resource needs – senior leader updates provided in-person and typically two times per week for the duration of the response.

Process Improvement & Process Development

While working for fast moving consumer goods company with an established incident response process and after taking a leadership role for the process, I developed and implemented two significant process improvements. While incident summaries existed for more than five years, no one conducted analysis across the incidents. I developed the process and supporting tools and led the ongoing analysis of all historical and new incidents. Data communicated across the global organization as the means to drive system-wide awareness and prevent future incidents. By simply raising awareness, we realized a 28% decline year-over-year in reported product quality incidents.

This same fast moving consumer goods company sponsored global events (e.g., Olympics and UEFA World Cup). To maximize these sponsorships, the company used these events to introduce new products, packages, and technologies. At the same time, having a significant presence during these events necessitated using new routes-to-market and new ways to get products into the hands of the consumer. These introductions and distribution channels introduced new risks to the local business. To mitigate these risks, I created the Major Event Risk Assessment (MERA) that drew upon prior global events and incidents along with certain subject matter expertise. I piloted and refined MERA in advance of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics and then deployed MERA to subsequent global events (e.g., 2012 London Summer Olympics, 2014 Brazil FIFA World Cup, and 2016 Rio de Janeiro Summer Olympics). As a result, identified risks received proper mitigation and critical roles with succession plans in place to ensure continuity. While for working of an e-commerce company, I led the development of a response process for regulatory compliance incidents and integration with the company’s operational incident process. As a result of the implemented process, corporate-based regulatory compliance teams defined their primary and secondary points-of-contacts and communication protocols. Establishment of this new process reduced regulatory incident response time and engaged necessary resources sooner to support the response.