[CM] [JHA] [E2] [C8] Implementing Program Management Phase as part of the Crisis Management Planning Methodology for Jamiyah Home for the Aged

A crisis management capability is not finished when the plan is issued, tested and signed off. People change roles, systems are replaced, rules move and memories fade. The CM Program Management (PgM) phase is the final phase of the Crisis Management Planning Methodology, and its task is to keep the capability current and credible. This chapter describes the steps for carrying out the phase at Jamiyah Home for the Aged (JHA) and gives an example of each.

Introduction

Implementing Crisis Management for Jamiyah Home for the Aged, in the series Crisis Management in Action: A Practical Implementation Guide for Jamiyah Home for the Aged. The work aligns with ISO 22361, which describes crisis management as a capability to be planned, established, maintained, reviewed, and continually improved. The last three of those verbs describe this phase.

The phase differs from the six before it in one respect: it has no end date. Each earlier phase produces something, such as a charter, a ranking, an analysis, a strategy, a plan or an exercise report. The PgM phase keeps all of those alive. A BCM Institute blog on crisis management programme management describes the aim as a crisis management system with integrity and currency, one that supports strategic response and recovery and that people can trust. Integrity means that the plan does what it claims. Currency means that it reflects the organisation as it is today.

Without this phase, the first year of work is likely to be the high point. The plan is issued, the training is fresh, and the exercises are recent. Two years later, the contact list is wrong, the deputy has left, a new programme has begun, and a system has changed. When a real crisis arrives, the plan describes an organisation that no longer exists. The PgM phase is the discipline that prevents that drift.

What the PgM phase involves

The BCM Institute source page for this phase describes three components: plan maintenance and updates; training and awareness programmes; and after-action reviews. The page and the related blog also point to ideas that shape the phase. One is a five-level model of crisis preparedness, adapted by the page from earlier academic work, which rates an organisation as prone to crisis, susceptible, adjusted, braced or prepared. Another is an integrated view that looks at four variables, which the page names as types, phases, systems and stakeholders, and at how they overlap. A third is using formal review sessions to learn from past mistakes and formalising crisis management efforts, such as a standing team, so prevention and detection receive as much attention as containment and recovery.

Steps for implementing the phase

Step 1: Plan maintenance and updates

The first component keeps the plan accurate. The source page names four activities: scheduling reviews at a recurring interval, such as yearly or every two years; monitoring the threat landscape for new risks, new technologies and changes in regulation; feeding lessons from real incidents and internal drills back into the plan; and revising the plan when the organisation restructures, creates departments or changes staff.

Example for JHA: The programme owner, for example the Superintendent, might run a review calendar. A full review of the plan might take place each year, with the scenario ranking from Chapter 3 and the BIA findings from Chapter 4 refreshed in the same cycle. Contact lists might be checked each quarter. Triggers for an unscheduled review might include any activation at Level 2 or 3, a change in a lead role or deputy, the introduction of a new programme or building system, and any change in the requirements that apply to the home. To monitor the threat landscape, the home might assign someone to follow notices from MSF and the managing agent, and to note any changes to the Code of Practice that apply to the home. MSF states that its Code of Practice 2026, which includes an incident management domain, was issued under the Social Residential Homes Act, and later editions or amendments are possible [verify]. Each review should end with a version number, a change log, and a list of those who received the update.

Step 2: Training and awareness programmes

The second component keeps people ready. The source page names four elements: building training for each target audience so people know their role in a crisis; covering response procedures, communication methods, and how resources are assigned; running sessions regularly and making materials easy to access; and running ongoing awareness campaigns that keep readiness visible.

Example for JHA: Chapter 6 sets out an illustrative training plan by audience. The PgM phase keeps it running. A training calendar might show each session, who must attend and who has attended. New joiners might receive an introduction to the plan within their first weeks, and no one might work a shift as the person in charge without having completed the action card training. Awareness might be kept alive through short reminders at shift handovers, a one-page summary on staff noticeboards, a reminder of how to raise an alarm and a short quiz at annual refresher sessions. For residents, awareness takes a different form: familiar routines for fire and evacuation practice, led by staff residents know and delivered calmly. For volunteers and school groups, the briefing before each activity can include a short reminder of what to do if an alarm sounds. The aim is for crisis readiness to become part of how the home works, not an annual event.

Step 3: After-action reviews

The third component captures learning. The source page names three activities: gathering feedback from everyone involved after any real event or exercise; identifying strengths and weaknesses, meaning what the plan handled well and what fell short; and turning the findings into specific changes to the plan and response methods.

Example for JHA: After any activation at Level 2 or 3, and after each exercise in the programme in Chapter 7, the home might hold an after-action review within a set number of working days. The administrator who kept the log would bring it. The people involved, including shift staff who were not on the crisis team, would be asked what happened, what they expected and what would have helped. The review would record strengths first, then gaps. Each gap would produce an action with an owner and a due date, entered in a register that the programme owner reviews at each meeting until all items are closed. After a real event involving a resident, the review would be conducted carefully, with attention to the wellbeing of the staff involved, and a counsellor might attend. Where the review points to a weakness in the plan, the plan is changed. Where it points to a weakness in training, the training is changed. Where it points to a gap in resources, the matter goes to the managing agent for a decision.

Assessing maturity

The five-level preparedness model gives the home a way to describe where it stands and where it wants to be. The levels, in the order the blog presents them, run from prone to crisis, through susceptible, adjusted and braced, to prepared. An organisation at the first level has no real arrangements and is exposed to whatever occurs. An organisation at the last has a capability that is planned, tested, maintained and learned. The levels are not a score to be chased for their own sake. They prompt honest discussion about the gap between what the home believes it can do and what the evidence shows.

Example for JHA: The programme owner might lead a short self-assessment each year with the project team, using the four variables as a checklist. On types, does the plan cover the scenarios the home now faces? On phases, does it address prevention and detection as well as response and recovery? On systems, does it reflect the records, premises, rosters and communications as they are today? On stakeholders, does it cover residents, families, staff, volunteers, the managing agent and MSF? The team would then agree where the home sits on the model and set a target for the next year. A target might be to move from adjusted to braced by completing the first six exercises and closing all the actions that arise. The assessment is illustrative, and the home's own judgement, supported by exercise evidence, should set the level.

Measuring the programme

A small set of measures keeps the programme honest. They should be few, simple and linked to evidence. The table gives an illustrative set.

The figures are for the home to set. The point is that each measure can be answered with a fact, which the programme owner can report to the managing agent and, if asked, to MSF.

Governance and reporting

The programme needs a home in the organisation's governance. The programme owner should report at least once a year, and more often in the first cycle, to the managing agent. The report would cover the review status, training and exercise completion, open actions, the maturity self-assessment and any changes in risk. Reporting in this way turns crisis management from a project into a standing responsibility, which is the point of the phase. It also helps the home demonstrate to MSF, should it be asked, that it maintains its arrangements. The pages read for this eBook do not say what MSF expects to see in this regard [verify].

A calendar helps to hold the pieces together. The table shows an illustrative annual cycle.

Common causes of decay

Four patterns account for most of the decline in crisis management programmes, and each has a simple counter. The first is the loss of the champion: the person who drove the project moves on, and nobody takes the work forward. The counter is a named programme owner and a named deputy, with the role written into their job descriptions. The second is competing priorities: crisis management work is postponed because inspections, funding cycles or staffing problems seem more urgent. The counter is to add the review calendar to the home's management calendar, alongside other fixed obligations, and report its status to the managing agent. The third is complacency after a quiet period. If no crisis occurs for a year or two, the plan can come to seem unnecessary. The counter is the exercise programme, which keeps the plan in use, and the maturity self-assessment, which keeps the question of readiness open. The fourth is documentation without practice: the plan is reviewed on paper but never tried. The counter is to treat each review as incomplete until at least one exercise or drill has used the changes.

Staff turnover deserves its own mention in a residential home. When people leave, their knowledge of the plan goes with them, and new joiners arrive without it. A short induction checklist covering the executive summary, the person's action card, how to raise an alarm, and where the printed plan is kept closes much of that gap at little cost.

Outputs of the phase

• A review calendar with an owner, triggers for unscheduled reviews and a version log.
• A training and awareness calendar with attendance records.
• An after-action review procedure and an action register.
• An annual maturity self-assessment against the five-level model.
• A small set of programme measures.
• An annual report to the managing agent.

Conclusion

The PgM phase makes the difference between a plan and a capability. For JHA, the illustrative result is a review cycle that keeps the plan and contact lists accurate, a training and awareness programme that reaches staff, volunteers and residents, an after-action process that turns every event and exercise into change, and a yearly assessment that tells the managing agent where the home stands. With this phase, the seven-phase methodology comes full circle: the findings from the Program Management phase feed back into the scenarios, the analysis, the strategy and the plan. Chapter 9 draws the whole eBook together in a summary.

Sources

• BCM Institute, CM Phase 7: Program Management
• BCM Institute, Crisis Management Program Management
• MSF, Regulatory Requirements Under SRHA
• ISO 22361:2022 listing, AFNOR

Continue reading: Chapter 9, Summary for Implementing Crisis Management for Jamiyah Home for the Aged, summarises the seven phases and what the home now has in place.