Aug 24
Mock disasters are meant to find flaws
A while back, I read a newspaper article about a mock disaster designed to test the response capabilities of emergency management officials in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant.
The headline and the gist of the story centered around how the mock disaster had uncovered flaws in the response efforts and that several responders may have been injured had it been a real event. The article acted as if the mock disaster or exercise had been a failure.
As someone who evaluates graded emergency management exercises for the nuclear industry and routinely engages in mock disasters for many other industries, I question whether uncovering a flaw in your response efforts should be considered a failure.
To my way of thinking, that is what mock disasters are all about.
Certainly, I would not want to see professional emergency responders fail to demonstrate they knew how to handle a major disaster, but I would be totally surprised if they ever performed absolutely perfectly in a drill or exercise. If they did, then the exercise, drill or mock disaster wasn't tough enough.
In preparing for a major mock disaster for a large chemical company several years ago, I was told by my client that he wanted us to develop an exercise that was tough, but not impossible. I remember him saying, At the end of the exercise, he said he wanted every single participant to say, “Whew, I'm sure glad that's over.” And, at the end of the exercise, participants did feel a degree of exhaustion, but also a degree of pride in knowing they had handled a major disaster – albeit a mock one – in a very professional matter. Were there mistakes made? Absolutely. Did they change the outcome of the exercise? Not at all.
The important thing was that they learned from their mistakes and had an opportunity to correct them so they would be even more prepared in the event of a real disaster. The fact that the exercise had some flaws – even some serious ones – doesn't mean it was a failure.
In one of the first mock disasters I ever put together, our team uncovered numerous problems that were significant and our final report included more than 100 recommendations for improvement. Yet that mock disaster may have been one of the more successful exercises we've ever participated in. Why? Because that particular organization realized it wasn't as prepared as it thought it was to handle a major disaster. As a result, the CEO had his people engage in rigorous training and subsequent drills and exercises over the years to test their crisis management capabilities. Today, that organization is one of the best prepared organizations within its industry to handle any kind of real disaster.
To me, that is the real purpose of mock disasters and emergency drills. You can participate in all the training you want to, but if you really want to test your crisis management capabilities, there's nothing quite like a well-organized mock disaster.
To this day, we still design our mock disasters to be tough, but not impossible. If we find the responders are having too easy of a time with our scenario, we typically find ways to crank it up. Mock disasters have to be challenging.
As a general rule, we videotape our mock disasters and present the client with an edited “documentary” of the exercise, along with a report that indicates what they did right and where they might need improvement. Over the years, those documentaries have been real eye openers for organizations who wanted to see for themselves how prepared – or not prepared – they were to combat crises.
To quote one of my early clients who engaged his people in extensive training and mock disasters,
The more prepared I am, the luckier I get.”
I've quoted that Louisiana chemical plant manager quite a bit over the years and I have to agree, there's a lot of truth in what he said.
Jun 10
BP Response Plan "reads like fiction"
If there was ever a reason to make sure your corporate crisis plan is always up to date and is maintained to have accurate contact information, BP made that point this week.
In an Associated Press story out of Venice, Louisiana, a team of reporters noted a series of wrong information in BP’s response plan for a Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
For starters, the 2009 plan listed Prof. Peter Lutz as a national wildlife expert.
Fine, except Prof. Lutz died in 2005.
The plan reads, the headline said, “like fiction.”
Under a heading of “sensitive biological resources, “the plan listed marine mammals including walruses, sea otters, sea lions and seals." Fine, except none live anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico.
The names and numbers of several Texas A&M University marine life specialists were wrong, the AP reported. So are the numbers for marine mammal stranding network offices in Louisiana and Florida, which the AP said, are no longer in service.
The Associated Press analysis said BP’s 582-page regional spill plan for the Gulf of Mexico and its 52-page site-specfic plan for the Deepwater Horizon rig, “are riddled with omissions and glaring errors."
The Associated Press concluded that BP officials “have pretty much been making it up as they go along.” They said the plan, approved by the federal government before BP drilled the infamous leaking well understated the dangers posed by an uncontrolled leak and overstated the company’s preparedness to deal with one.
A Google search for “BP Emergency Response Plan” finds hundreds of hits with most of the news stories reporting the plan was woefully inadequate.
Now for years, I have always said crisis plans (or emergency response plans) are only one part of the equation in crisis management. It still takes people, I have said, to manage crises. Plans can’t do that for you. But if you are even thinking of having a crisis management or emergency response plan, you ought to take the time to make sure it not only makes a little sense, but would actually help you out in a crisis. BP’s plan, outdated and apparently inaccurate in many ways, was probably as good as no plan at all. “Making it up as you go along” is not really a solid crisis management philosophy.
In writing crisis plans for the past quarter century, I have heard many clients or prospective clients argue that the type of crisis I wanted them to consider “could just never happen.” It is just that kind of opinion that may have gotten BP into the crisis it is trying to deal with today. Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to be ready to handle a huge crisis that may never happen than to just try to cast a blind eye to that potential catastrophe and ignore it as even a remote possibility?
Would it be so wrong for an oil company to be over prepared for a major oil leak rather than the other way around?
Being prepared starts with at least having a management plan that has correct information in it. BP’s doesn’t seem to pass that test.
Remember Prof. Lutz, the University of Miami expert resource for dealing with Gulf wildlife in BP’s plan? Not only was he dead four years before BP published its plan, but he left Miami nearly 20 years ago to lead the marine biology department at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton.
Wonder who was in charge of updating BP’s plan and making sure the contact information was current? I’m sure a lot of people at BP, the federal government and a whole lot of people in Louisiana are wondering the same thing right now.
For more on this story, go to:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2010/06/10/bps-plan-for-spill-reads-like-fiction.html?sid=101
May 10
Why weren't they better prepared?
If we have learned nothing from recent crises such as the West Virginia mine disaster, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Toyota recall, it is that the American public has absolutely no patience with organizations that even appear to be dragging their feet.
Another lesson learned is that both consumers and the news media are in awe that organizations aren’t better prepared to deal with crisis situations. “Why didn’t they have a plan to deal with that?” Americans seem to be asking in the wake of recent crises.
And thus far, it doesn’t seem like any of the corporations involved seem to have a good answer. Why weren’t they better prepared? Were they prepared, but just weren’t able to communicate that point effectively? Or, was the crisis just larger than any plan or amount of preparation could cope with?
While investigations continue and speculation increases, we may not know for a long time why these organizations and the many others that have been involved in news-making disasters recently seemed to be slow out of the starting gate.
As a crisis management specialist, I have tried to avoid the role of second-guessing the actions of corporations in a crisis. If you weren’t there at the time with the information that was available at that time, it’s difficult to say if they did the right thing or not.
But after more than two decades in the crisis management business, I can say that organizations that take crisis planning and disaster drills seriously seem to cope much better when things go wrong.
A crisis is the absolutely worst time to discover that you aren’t as prepared as you thought you were. Or, as a chemical plant manager in Louisiana once told me, “The more prepared I am, the luckier I get.”
That’s why our firm writes crisis plans, but has never totally tried to depend on them during a crisis. Along with the plans, we put an extreme amount of effort, money and resources into mock disasters and training. We’d rather have our clients prepared for something that never happens rather than the other way around.
Would a better response plan or additional training have helped speed the crisis management program along in the rash of recent disasters? We may never know for sure. But for those of us sitting on the sidelines, it sure gives us something to think about.
Do we have a good response plan? Are we prepared to deal with a disaster? Would we actually have done any better than BP or Toyota?
Don’t wait for a crisis to find out.
Mar 23
Take the lead and take control in a crisis
It’s almost a sure bet that when you hear me speak on crisis management, some where along the way, I will talk about the need for organizations to “take the lead” when they are involved in a crisis.
I can guarantee you that “taking the lead” is more than a just a sound bite to get the audience’s attention; it is a vital element in gaining control of a crisis.
After almost a quarter of a century of crisis consulting and media training, I have found out all too clearly what happens when organizations drag their feet and take too long to respond to crisis situations. The story, particularly in a crisis, will continue with or without your input. And then you find yourself reacting to what others are saying, rather than allowing the story to unfold more on your on terms.
In researching television coverage of various chemical and refinery fires recently, it became obvious after a while that those organizations who took even more than an hour or two to talk to the news media had already lost control of the story. In some cases, they were reacting to what their own employees were saying, along with what local residents were telling reporters.
In one particular case, they were reacting to charges leveled by a local emergency management agency that they had reacted too slowly in notifying local residents of a potential threat posed by the incident. By that point, no amount of “concern” or “apology” was probably going to change public opinion that the plant had acted improperly.
In another case, a public affairs spokesperson got word that a television station was preparing to air a report on one of their chemical plants, alleging that the plant was polluting the local water supply. At the company’s urging, the TV station went out of its way to interview the plant manager to get the company’s side of the story. Had the company not pro-actively decided to make itself part of the story, the story would have been a one-sided report that they would have been forced to react to later.
Because of their very nature, most industrial accidents are reported quickly by the news media and many of those first being interviewed on television are emergency responders, workers or local residents. While they can provide sometimes sensational interviews, it is not likely they share the key message points you’d like to get across to the news media. And, it is quite possible, the only news a viewer may see about your plant’s accident and your response came from someone other than you.
Over the years, I’ve heard the excuse from prospective spokespersons that, “We don’t have enough information yet to talk to the news media.” My reply: “It makes no difference.” Chances are you will never have all the information you’d like to have before committing to news interviews in a crisis. As a result, you go to the interview with the information you have, not the information you’d like to have.
The way I look at it, I’d rather have the news media, public officials and the general public reacting to what my client’s saying, rather than have a client forced to respond to everyone else. It may not always guarantee you control of the situation, but not taking the lead almost always guarantees failure.
Or, as one of my colleagues at Wilson Group says, "The media is going to find a crisis spokesperson sooner or later. If it's not you, it will be someone else."
Feb 02
Tell it all and tell it fast in a crisis
In our media training and crisis management workshops, I usually show a slide with the simple phrase, “Tell it all and tell it fast.”
I came across that phrase probably 25 years ago when I was first getting into the crisis management business. The words graced a page of the first crisis plan I had ever read. Although very basic, that simple sentence has helped guide our firm in helping organizations cope with crisis situations for a very long time.
With some major crises in the news recently, I was wondering if the folks at Toyota and Johnson & Johnson might have benefited from that simple sheet of paper.
Although Toyota was initially praised for its unprecedented actions in halting the sale of cars that may be dangerous due to sticking accelerators, the talk seemed to change rapidly to “why didn’t they act more quickly?” A similar complaint was lodged against Johnson & Johnson, once praised for its swift and deliberate actions in recalling tainted Tylenol in 1982. Now with customers complaining of “moldy” medicine tablets – including Tylenol – the Food and Drug Administration and others are saying Johnson & Johnson should have acted sooner in recalling the drugs.
I have always interpreted the “Tell it all” phrase to mean that in a crisis, an organization should release as much information regarding the crisis to the public as fast as it can. That doesn’t mean holding back information that the company thinks might not ever become public. When under the media’s microscope, it is unlikely that few corporate secrets will remain secret, anyway.
And while organizations will probably never act as quickly as the media and their consumers would like, they need to act as quickly as they possibly can.
Reporters will always be asking the prosecutorial question: “What did you know and when did you know it?” If you can’t answer the question, “We acted as fast as we could, once we knew there was a problem,” then in the court of public opinion, you didn’t act fast enough.
Just reviewing some of the newspaper and internet comments on the Toyota crisis, it seems much of the public feels Toyota knew about its problems long before it ever announced actions to cope with it.
In an environment in which the media and much of the public is skeptical of big business to begin with, a crisis is not the time to create suspicions that you are dragging your feet on coping with the problem.
Tell it all and tell it fast. It is more than just a phrase. It is what organizations need to practice to the degree they can in times of crisis.
Dec 23
Dealing with the changing news media
Dealing with the news media has never been more of a challenge than it is today.
For starters, exactly what media are you dealing with? Is it the traditional media, the new media, the social media? Will it be television (cable or broadcast)? Will it be newspaper (print or web site)? Will it be radio (broadcast, satellite or internet)? Or, in stratospherically rising popularity of the internet, will it be a reporter from a web site you’ve never even heard of before?
In the past very few years, the news media have gone through more of a transformation than ever before. Newspapers, the one-time most powerful form of media on the planet, may still have some power, but there are fewer of them and even fewer people reading them as a primary source of news.
Television, according to most recent polls, remains the primary source of news for the majority of Americans. Newspapers, based on most polling information, aren’t even a close second.
The internet is where more and more Americans are getting their news. And it is growing as a primary source of news for more Americans every day.
“All I know is what I read in the newspaper,” the late humorist Will Rogers is quoted as saying back in the mid-20 Century. If he were alive today, he’d be in an absolute minority.
Newspapers, although declining in circulation, size and numbers; are still out there. And so is television, both broadcast and the 24-7 cable news outlets.
But it is the internet that may be creating tomorrow’s news media nightmare, particularly for the unsuspecting and unprepared business spokesperson.
Take the “twitterverse,” for instance. That’s the term used for the community of Twitter and their collective voice. Remember the “Tea Party” demonstration in Washington? Well, think what would happen if a “twittermob” of upset customers appeared in front of your corporate headquarters? A mob organized and activated entirely via Twitter.
The blogosphere is growing in numbers, popularity and power. Some internet news organizations rival their traditional print and broadcast competition today, both in staff size as well as the number of people who depend upon them for news.
What does all this mean for the corporate crisis manager or company spokesperson today? Primarily, it means they need to be aware of the changing news media and they need to be prepared to deal with it.
They need to know not all reporters work for traditional media outlets. They need to know which outlets they need to monitor and which outlets they need to communicate with in times of crisis.
Nov 30
Can consultants make a crisis "go away?"
“Make it go away.” That seemed to be the goal of a one-time crisis management client of ours several years ago.
The client had gotten itself into hot water with the news media and government regulators and instead of seeking advice in how to make the best of a bad situation, they simply wanted to engage a crisis management firm that would perform a disappearing act for them. They didn’t seem to care how it was done. They were willing to pay as long as we got rid of the problem and it didn’t take too much of their time or effort.
Unfortunately for them, crisis management doesn’t really work that way. At least not in the world we’ve been working in for the past 20-plus years.
Crisis management, at the least, takes a degree of cooperation and effort by the organization that’s involved in the crisis. While you may be able to buy your way out of some crises with the right consultant, I have yet to encounter that type of case.
Pardon the comparison, but it almost sounds like trying to hire a “hit man” to get rid of your problem.
Crisis management, I believe, is a team effort. It involves the organization affected, as well as the consultant…and sometimes additional players. A consultant alone – regardless of his experience and talent and how much he charges – is facing an almost impossible uphill battle if he tries to battle the crisis single handedly.
A crisis management consultant can offer advice and they can help implement strategies, but at the end of the day, it’s the organization’s reputation that’s on the line and the organization has to be in the center, starring role of any successful attempt to manage a crisis.
While the vast majority of the clients we’ve had the opportunity to work with over the years have been more than cooperative in providing any help we asked for, we do occasionally run across a prospective client now and then who just doesn’t seem to understand how crisis management works in the real world.
During the past several months, we’ve had multiple occasions where clients have wanted to hire our firm to handle crisis management much as they would hire a gardener to get rid of the weeds in their garden. They wanted us to make the crisis go away, but they didn’t want to get their hands soiled in the process. They seemed to figure with enough money, they shouldn’t have to involve themselves any more than writing a check now and then.
True crisis management begins with the formation of a crisis team. The team needs the talent and resources and expertise to handle the job. Yes, the team will probably need some outside assistance from time to time, but the team needs to maintain control of the process. You simply can’t outsource crisis management to a PR firm or crisis consultant.
In the best of circumstances, the team already has a relationship with a crisis management consultant. In the worst circumstance, they are looking for one at the worst-possible time.
A good crisis management consultant will offer advice and hopefully lessons from past experience that can help resolve the situation. At the very least, he or she should be a good sounding board for the crisis team’s own ideas of what should be done.
The consultant is not a substitute for the team’s own experience, or its knowledge of the organization and the industry. In the end, it is the role of the crisis team – not the consultant – to make decisions on what direction it should take in a crisis. The consultant only provides advice and counsel. Whether the team follows that advice and counsel is up to team members.
Together, the consultant and crisis team – along with the organization’s management and key players – have the best opportunity for forming a successful strategy. That opportunity is severely compromised if the team relinquishes its leadership and simply tries to hire a consultant who can make the problem go away.
Oct 27
Should spokespersons show emotion in a crisis?
In a recent individual media training session, I was asked by the student how I felt about spokespersons showing emotions during a crisis situation, particularly when the crisis involved injuries or possible deaths of employees.
As a female executive in a primarily male-dominated industry, she said she felt it was necessary to put a lid on her emotions as much as possible, if she wanted to be treated seriously by her subordinates and colleagues. It was something she said she had been working on since her early days in management. Now, as a potential corporate spokesperson, she asked if it was something she needed to continue.
I could only tell her what I’ve been telling other spokespersons and potential spokespersons over the years. As a spokesperson, particularly in a crisis, your credibility is your most important asset. And, I told her, that means you not only have to believe what you’re saying, but you have to believe in yourself, as well. That means, you have to be yourself.
A spokesperson can say all the right things and package their statement in perfect sound bites, but it means little if they are not believable. Unless you are an extremely good actor, it’s far better to be yourself than to try to be someone you think you ought to be. There are too many unemployed actors, as it is.
Personally, I feel a plant manager who is not somewhat emotional about the death of one of his or her workers is probably not going to be the organization’s best spokesperson. Sincerity, concern and compassion are all important in tragic situations, but they need to be real, not an act.
Overwhelming emotions, however, can present a problem. There are times when circumstances may dictate that someone with a better handle on their emotions might make a better spokesperson. That’s one reason we try to always have backup spokespersons available “just in case.”
Showing emotion is not only acceptable, it is expected in many circumstances. But, to be an effective spokesperson, you need to be able to keep your emotions under control. You can’t be an effective spokesperson, if your emotions keep you from speaking.
This debate over whether to show or not show emotions has far too often entered into the equation of who should speak for the company in a time of crisis. Is the person who appears to be a bit more emotional a better spokesperson than the person who genuinely just doesn’t show emotions that often? What about gender? Are women better spokespersons in a tragic situation, than men? Some people think so, including a lot of public relations professionals.
More than once, we’ve seen companies nominate a woman as their spokesperson in a crisis because they thought a woman would come across as more sincere and compassionate than a man. Does it make sense? What do you think?
It’s my belief that the best spokesperson is just that; the best spokesperson. If it happens to be a woman, that’s great. But don’t pick a woman simply because she is a woman. The same goes for her male counterpart.
If credibility is indeed the prime consideration in selecting a spokesperson, it stands to reason that the best person for the job is someone who knows what happened, is concerned about what happened, and is in a position to do something about it. Whether that person is male or female would appear to be irrelevant.
Ultimately, that person has to feel comfortable with what he or she is saying. They have to believe what they are saying. They have to be able to speak with conviction. And, to do all that, they have to believe in themselves and be themselves.
Sep 29
How much does media training cost?
Over the years, our firm has received literally hundreds of inquiries from prospective clients asking how much our media training sessions cost. When we tell them, some feel our prices are a bargain while others continue shopping for someone with a lower-priced package.
How much media training should cost is always a dilemma, both for the buyer, as well as the seller. Obviously, no media training firm wants to price their product out of reach for potential buyers, but at the same time; they can’t afford to lose money. And for the buyer, the best media training program in the world is worthless, if they can’t afford the purchase price.
Part of the problem, unfortunately, is that potential buyers often only see the quoted price as an equation that goes something like this: Fee + expenses divided by # of students (or program hours) = cost per hour or cost per student. Either way, the result can appear to look a bit hefty.
What they don’t see and sometimes don’t take into account is the cost of developing the program, equipment, staging and fine-tuning a workshop to make sure it is applicable to the client’s needs. Unfortunately, all clients’ needs are not alike and the expense of tailoring a program to meet the clients’ expectations can be formidable for the media training firm.
We were once asked to basically justify our workshop fees for a government agency that required annual contracts for our services. A simple flat fee for a daily workshop of media training, or a mock disaster, was insufficient, they said. They wanted to know how we arrived at the fee we were charging. They wanted it broken down to an hourly rate that would translate to the proposed fee.
To honor their request, I began keeping detailed records of the amount of time I spent in preparing for a workshop, along with the time spent by my colleagues. We also calculated what it would cost to rent the equipment we provided, the cost of workbooks, travel time, admin costs and everything else that went into the program. We did not include our costs for developing the program in the first place, or even attempt to put a price tag on the experience and expertise we brought to the equation.
The final result: if we had charged them our standard hourly rates – not including anything for developing the program - the price would have been dramatically higher than the fee we had proposed.
In the final analysis, however, the client rarely cares how much it costs the firm to conduct a media training workshop or mock disaster. Their concern should justifiably be centered on how much value it provides to them. Just as the media training firm can’t afford to put on programs that lose it money, the client can’t afford to pay for programs that provide little or no value.
In response to a question on media training costs posed on Crisis Management Forum.Com a few months ago, I commented there is some truth that you get what you pay for and advised against going with any firm, based on price alone.
Here are some factors I feel you should definitely think about before ever hiring a media training firm.
First, what is the firm’s experience? How long have they been doing media training and is it their full-time business, or just one of the services they provide? There is no certification nor licensing of media training firms, so just about anyone can put themselves out as a media trainer. Look up “media training” on Google sometime. There are literally thousands of firms to select from. Of those, relatively few work with major corporations and organizations day in and day out on a continual basis.
Who has the firm worked with in the past? What’s their client list look like? Does it include companies or organizations like yours? Can they provide references?
Who will be providing the training? What are their credentials? What is their experience? How long have they been doing training?
What’s the program look like? What does it include? What kind of instruction? How many on-camera interviews and critiques? Will it be tailored for your organization?
What’s included in the price? Does it include the camera and camera operator, study guides or workbooks, travel time and time for preparation?
Do you go to them, or do they come to you? Which way works best for you?
How large are their classes? Do they cap it at six or eight, twenty? Is it an “open enrollment” workshop for a number of students, or is it one specially designed for your organization?
Does it sound like it would fit your specific needs?
As I mentioned on the forum, fees for media training can range from a few hundred dollars to $10,000 or more. The industry standard, if there is one, probably lies somewhere in the $4,000 - $7,000 range for one-day group workshops, excluding expenses.
So how do you know if you’re getting the “right price?”
Talk to the firm. Talk to some of their clients. Make sure you’re comfortable with the firm, their presenters and their program. And, hopefully, you’ll find a firm that meets your needs, along with your budget.
Sep 15
When mock disasters become real
Sometimes a mock disaster can take on a life of its own.
Take September 11, 2009, when the Coast Guard in the Washington, D.C., area held a mock disaster on the Potomac. A CNN reporter picked up some of the radio traffic believing it was real. President Obama was speaking at the Pentagon for the 8th anniversary of 9/11. The story ran on CNN until they found out later that it was just a mock disaster. NBC ran it on their nightly news.
I’m sure CNN would like to have known from the start. The Coast Guard said they will review their operations procedures for disaster drills in the future.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported more recently that a pharmacy technician in New Jersey is suing her company for staging a mock holdup that included a masked gunman demanding OxyContin. She said the man burst in and told her he was holding another worker hostage. When she called for help, the phone didn't work. She later found out that it was all a drill. She is claiming assault, false imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress. Another mock disaster gone bad.
For more on that story, go to http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20090914_Lawsuit_in_Burlco_over_mock_holdup.html
The point is that while mock disasters or disaster drills can be extremely valuable in preparing organizations to handle real disasters, those participating need to know exactly what they are from the beginning. They are called "mock" disasters for a reason.
Every phone call, every walkie-talkie call needs to begin and/or end with the words, "This is an exercise." Signs stating that the event being seen by passers by is a mock disaster need to be placed in public areas.
Everyone participating in the drill needs to know it is just a drill, not the real thing.
Believe me, I learned the hard way.
Years ago, our firm did a mock disaster for a hospital in which the CEO asked that only a handful of players would know that it was a drill. We went along with his request, figuring that everyone would know within minutes that it was an exercise. It didn't turn out that way. Even when we told them it was an exercise, some people didn't believe us.
Today, we won't always tell people what the exercise is about or exactly when it will take place, but they certainly know from the beginning that it is an exercise and not the real thing.
I heard about another hospital a few years ago that staged a mock disaster involving a gunman in the emergency room. They didn't tell people and the "mock" gunman almost got shot himself.
So if you want to stage a mock disaster, go ahead. Make it as realistic as you can. You don't have to spill the beans on what scenario you'll use or when or exactly where it might take place. But please, please make sure everyone participating and even those who may be watching from the outside know from the very beginning that it is a mock disaster.
There's no reason why a mock disaster needs to become a real one.
8:18 PM Sep 3