How Worried Are You?

| FROM THE PRINT EDITION |
 
 

Recent events in Japan have caused some businesses to worry about whether they are prepared to keep operating after a major earthquake, especially since the greater Seattle area is situated on the Cascadia fault.

Given the economic climate, disaster preparedness is often the last thing on an executive’s mind these days, but creating a plan can save your business. It cuts the number of decisions you have to make during the disaster, reduces your legal liability and can safeguard your business brand and reputation. Absence of a plan could include your business among the 25 percent of companies that fail after a disaster, usually because they had no plans.

Having worked through these issues at Washington Mutual by managing problems caused by hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires and winter storms, I’ve devised some questions you might use to test your preparedness strategy.

1. Which of your business functions are most critical and which can be suspended during a disaster?

2. Do you have streamlined emergency response plans that can be activated?

3. Which of your critical business functions are handled for you by vendors? What types of backup plans do those vendors have to keep your business up and running? At WaMu, we made sure that our third-party courier companies had good backup plans, since we depended upon them to move our cash around the country. Our branches could not operate without cash, and we knew that dispensing cash was a critical business function.

4. Once you have such business priorities identified, which parts of your business can be run manually, without technology’s assistance, if power is not available? Can you invoice customers? Can you pay bills? Can you supplement your existing inventory? Can you deliver goods to customers? Have employees been trained to step in and do more than one job?

5. Does your business already have phone trees with employee contact information so you can pass along vital information and ascertain employees’ safety?

6. Assuming that power is available outside the affected area, do you have alternate data centers from which you can operate in case your primary data center was damaged in the earthquake? If not, have you considered storing data in an internet cloud so it is available from your home or office via a secure internet connection?

7. Have you identified and rehearsed employees on locations in your buildings where they can “duck/cover/hold” while an earthquake is taking place?

8. If you are a larger company, do you have sufficient diesel fuel to power the generators you will use to keep on working?

From this list you can see there are a number of ways to anticipate issues and not all of them are expensive. Sharing your plans with employees is vital so they know what their roles will be in an emergency. And communicating with both customers and employees becomes even more important in the midst of an earthquake. In this situation, both email and social media tools come in handy. There is no way to communicate too much in a disaster, especially to lead your people and reinforce key points for your company.

Finally, if you’re the CEO, be prepared to be vilified in the press if you don’t move quickly enough and if you don’t communicate clearly. You’re paid to do everything possible and to think outside the box so that your company does not end up with a black eye. Given the lives and resources at stake, having a plan is the least you can do now to reduce your risk after a natural disaster ... or two or three disasters, as we have just seen in Japan.

Annie Searle is founder of Annie Searle & Associates, a consulting firm that helps clients identify program gaps and manage risks. A former executive at Washington Mutual, Searle served for seven years as chair of the bank’s crisis management team.

Creating an Affordable, Inclusive Puget Sound

Creating an Affordable, Inclusive Puget Sound

Making room for our growing population will require more density in urban areas as well as innovation in transportation and office use.
 
 

Seattle has an enviable problem. More and more people are moving to the Puget Sound, so many that, by some estimates, the region’s population could increase by one million residents by 2040. At the same time, Seattle is constrained geographically by water and hills. Our topography is scenic and beautiful, but it also makes it difficult to build new housing.

Further complicating matters, approximately 65 percent of Seattle’s land area is zoned for single-family residences. The hourglass shape of Seattle, at its widest point—between Ballard and Magnuson Park, along 65th Street—is zoned for the lowest density. Meanwhile, the area zoned for the densest development—downtown—is narrowest and where land is most scarce.

Water, land and zoning regulations: these are the facts. If population trends continue, how will people live in our city? As Seattle densifies, how can design provide a more humane environment and housing that all residents can afford? These are some of the questions I’m interested to explore at a panel discussion on October 5, “Seattle 2040: Where Will All the People Live?” at NBBJ’s Seattle office.

 

As an architect, I’m particularly interested in how we might insert greater density, for people of all incomes, into our existing street network including the single-family areas that constitute such a high proportion of Seattle. Mother-in-law apartments, residential units over garages, duplexes and townhouses are just a few options. Done right, we could increase density and affordability without dramatically changing the character of those neighborhoods.

This November a major ballot initiative, Sound Transit 3, could raise billions of dollars to expand light rail. If that happens, it would substantially increase the number of transit-oriented centers in our region, which would lessen the impact of building because we could spread it across more light rail stations.

There are other options. We could look at reusing and densifying public rights-of-way. High-rises like the “no-shadow tower” could mitigate the impacts of tall building on the urban environment. Or driverless cars might create a new transportation system in the next 25 years that fundamentally changes how we get around and where to encourage development.

If you think about the design of office space, 25 years ago, a majority had a private office with limited public amenities; now office space is moving in the other direction, asking people to have less personal space at their desk, but having access to a wider range of shared amenities. I almost think we need a similar approach whereby people move from large single-family houses to smaller homes or apartments. The key to making this work is to have access to more shared, semi-private amenities or nearby public open space.

Some of the issues Seattle faces also challenge many other U.S. cities, but these challenges cannot be solved by design firms single-handedly. A city’s growth affects everyone, young and old, rich and poor, newcomers and long-time residents. We are in this together, and it will require everyone to bring about our shared future. 

David Yuan, AIA, LEED AP, is a partner at global architecture and design firm NBBJ.