Include at least 250 words in your posting and at least 250 words in your reply. Indicate at least one source or reference in your original post. Please see syllabus for details on submission requirements.
Module 2 Discussion Question
Search “scholar.google.com” for a company or school that has defined the role of end-users in the creation of a contingency plan. Discuss why it is (or is not) important to include end users in the process of creating the contingency plan? What are the possible pitfalls of end user inclusion?
Reply -1 (Praneeth)
Chevron infrastructure is one of the largest energy companies who uses seismic imagine technologies in their corporation which helps them to improve the efficiency of the process and give best outcomes. Since, risks and uncertainties are the part of the recent days business world this organization take all the security mechanism which helps them to protect the business networks. They implemented the contingency plan for the organization, which helps them to continue the business operations as long as possible to face the business risks and uncertainties.
End users plays a crucial role in the contingency plan, end users involved in the development of contingency plans and design the best security mechanisms to control the effects of the uncertainties and risk. End user is the person responsible for taking care of the entire contingency plan and design the effective system to meet the business objectives. They use all the strategic and business plans to target the key areas of the organization. Contingency plan is the best course of action that organization prefer so that they can quickly respond to the business emergencies and unplanned events like disasters.
Along with the several advantages of involving end users in contingency plan, have couple of pitfalls and other issues. End users designed tools and applications for the contingency plans, often they failed to respond during the disasters and unplanned business events. On the other hands contingency plan sometimes referred as the ultimate options for the organization and keep it as plan B. In such cases, end users show less interest to the business call and that effects directly to the end objective of the business. End users show less organizational responsibility in the contingency plan for maintaining the complete program. Security and other control may not be adequate and faces issues to safeguard the networks of the business during the unplanned business events.
Fallara, P. Disaster Recovery Planning. IEEE Potentials (Volume: 23, Issue: 5, Dec. 2003-Jan. 2004). DOI: 10.1109/MP.2004. 1301248.
Meshal, A. (2016). Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering research, Volume 7, Issue 3, March 2016.
Philips, B. (2005). Disaster as a Discipline: The Status of Emergency Management Education in the US. International Journal of Mass-Emergencies and Disaster, 111-140.
Organizational readiness for change is a multi-level construct. Readiness can be more or less present at the individual, group, unit, department, or organizational level. Readiness can be theorized, assessed, and studied at any of these levels of analysis. However, organizational readiness for change is not a homologous multi-level construct. That is, the construct’s meaning, measurement, and relationships with other variables differ across levels of analysis. Below, I focus on organizational readiness for change as a supra-individual state of affairs and theorize about its organizational determinants and organizational outcomes.
Organizational readiness for change is not only a multi-level construct, but a multi-faceted one. Specifically, organizational readiness refers to organizational members’ change commitment and change efficacy to implement organizational change. This definition followed the ordinary language use of the term ‘readiness,’ which connotes a state of being both psychologically and behaviorally prepared to take action (i.e., willing and able). Similar to Bandura’s notion of goal commitment, change commitment to change refers to organizational members’ shared resolve to pursue the courses of action involved in change implementation. I emphasize shared resolve because implementing complex organizational changes involves collective action by many people, each of whom contributes something to the implementation effort. Because implementation is often a ‘team sport,’ problems arise when some feel committed to implementation but others do not. Herscovitch and Meyer observe that organizational members can commit to implementing an organizational change because they want to (they value the change), because they have to (they have little choice), or because they ought to (they feel obliged). Commitment based on ‘want to’ motives reflects the highest level of commitment to implement organizational change.