This sense of urgency was not lost on the PCMA Industry Issues Committee, which created a sub-committee to focus exclusively on crisis management in the meetings industry. Chaired by Alex Shelton, national convention sales manager, Reno-Sparks CVA, and Laura Weaver, CMP, manager meetings & conventions for the Society of American Florists, the committee determined the first step was to ascertain the industry's level of crisis preparedness. Through a grant provided by the PCMA Education Foundation, Sheryl Kline, Ph.D., Purdue University, was commissioned to develop a questionnaire for planners on crisis plans and present a report on the findings. More than 400 meeting planners responded to the survey conducted this past July. Here are the study's preliminary key findings.

All Set or Woefully Unprepared?
Just how well prepared do planners feel they are for dealing with a crisis, should one occur at a meeting they have planned? The respondents were split: 39.3 percent felt prepared; 37.8 percent said they were not very prepared. While having a crisis plan is believed to be very or extremely important by 65.6 percent of the planners, less than half (41.5 percent) actually have one in place. Nearly half of the respondents (49.3 percent) reported their organization does not have a crisis management team - considered a vital aspect of a strategically developed crisis plan. This is the team that would assist with scenario planning, test to identify gaps in the plan, and better prepare meeting planners.

Of the more than 40 percent of meeting planners who have some sort of crisis plan, nearly 41 percent feel that their current plans are written with extensive policies and procedures to effectively assist them in a crisis. The plans are also updated once per year (47.7 percent). This finding is important because updating crisis plans is essential to ensure a successful response. Key responders will leave organizations and contact information must be updated. New tools and technologies are always becoming available and should be incorporated as well.

Insurance is another important component of a strategically designed crisis plan. Forty-one percent of the meeting planner respondents have a comprehensive insurance policy to assist with recovery actions, but 29.2 percent reported being neutral on the issue. The majority (87 percent) of those with the insurance plan reported having a business interruption clause in place.

Gathering information from a facility concerning its crisis plan is believed to be very or extremely important by 69 percent of the meeting planners. A facility's level of crisis preparedness during the site selection process is important to 33.2 percent of the respondents and not very important to more than a quarter of the respondents. Only 18 percent of meeting planners always meet with the respective facility regarding its plans. The highest percentage (27.8 percent) of the meeting planners only meet sometimes with the facility. This dissonance identifies a lack of action on behalf of the meetings planners even though they realize the importance of collaboration with the facility. No crisis can be successfully prevented or managed alone.

More than half (63.4 percent) reported they had never experienced a crisis at one of their meetings. Of the 36.6 percent that had experienced a crisis, a natural disaster was the most common situation (43.8 percent), followed by accidents/fatalities (34.7 percent), and protests (26.4 percent). When asked if they ever had to implement their crisis plan in a specific situation, more than half (60.2 percent) had not. This lack of implementation tends to leave meeting planners complacent about the serious need to update and test their crisis plans. Of the 33.6 percent that did implement their plan, most commonly it was for a natural disaster situation, followed by an even split between accidents/fatalities and bomb threats.

The group identified the following as having the greatest potential (in descending order) for on-site crises: fire, structural damage, bomb threat, accidents/fatalities, employee strike, terrorist attack, biological hazard, shooting, workplace violence, natural disaster, protests, and lockdown.

Regardless of whether the meeting planners had a plan or not, training - a crucial aspect of responding to a crisis situation - seems to be sorely lacking. Many said they had never received training for a number of disasters, including biological hazards, terrorism, shooting, protests, bomb threats, and natural disasters. Almost 40 percent never received training in medical assistance; more than a quarter never had training in the event of a fire evacuation.

Communicating the Plan
During the process of developing crisis plans, few planners actually coordinated and communicated with external partners. The number is very small when considering that only 41.5 percent of all planners had plans in place and therefore only two-thirds of them worked with external partners. These planners primarily met with the meeting facilities (convention centers, hotels). Surprisingly, 32.7 percent of the meeting planners included no external partners to assist with their plan development. The top partners listed were the security company, fire department, and insurance company.

Do meeting planners communicate and coordinate their crisis plans with the meeting facility staff, taking into consideration the facility's own crisis plans? Almost 35 percent said always; 27.1 percent said often; and 22.6 percent said sometimes. Most planners agreed it's important to review emergency procedures during a preconvention meeting. Meeting planners weighed in on how important it is to have a written communication plan for four main stakeholders in the event of a crisis. Meeting planners reported that it is extremely important to include employees (35.4 percent) and the facility (34.6 percent) in the communication plan; and important to include clients/attendees (38.2 percent) and local officials (40.4 percent). Less than half (40.1 percent) of meeting planners reported always having a designated media spokesperson in the event of a crisis and 25.8 percent never have one specified.

Scenario Planning and Testing of Plans
Experts identify scenario planning and testing crisis plans as essential action steps in measuring the effectiveness of crisis plans. Both of these steps help to recognize gaps in the plan that must be corrected to ensure a strategic and successful response to a crisis situation. Unfortunately, scenario planning is minimally engaged by meeting planning organizations in order to recognize potential threats: 40.6 percent never employ scenario planning; 26.5 percent, rarely; 22.7 percent, sometimes; 6.4 percent, often; and 3.7 percent, always. This highlights a major weakness in the level of planners' preparedness.

A small minority of planners (11 percent) actually conduct exercises to test the crisis plan after its development. Of the 41.5 percent of meeting planners who have a crisis plan in place, 89 percent of them do not conduct exercises to test the plan. The slim margin of those conducting exercises do so, on average, once a year (64.7 percent); the remaining 35.3 percent do so two to three times per year. The methods of testing the plans include: mock drills (76.5 percent); tabletop exercises (e.g., discussions, 58.8 percent); computer simulations (5.9 percent); and role playing (5.9 percent).

Unfortunately, the industry gets only fair to poor grades for its crisis preparedness. While meeting planners say they recognize the importance of having solid crisis plans in place, less than half actually actively develop, test, and communicate these plans. To paraphrase well-known risk communication consultant Peter Sandman, it's not necessarily the crisis situation itself that causes loss of life, it's the lack of information people have on how to respond to that emergency.

This report points to the need for planners to find the necessary resources to create crisis plans for their meetings. As one respondent commented, "I need to get started, and this survey has inspired me."

° Summary of Final Report by Michelle Russell, Editor, Convene

° Report prepared by Sheryl Kline, Ph.D., director, Center for the Study of Lodging Operations, Department of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Purdue University, and Stacey Smith, M.S., doctoral student, Department of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Purdue University.

Respondent Demographics
Respondents: 64.6 percent are association meeting planners
Associations represented: 1,000-4,999 members (21.1 percent); 10,000-24,999 members (21.1 percent); more than 50,000 members (19.7 percent)
Experience: Nearly half are seasoned professionals: 6-10 years (24.5 percent); 20-plus years (24.5 percent)
Industry memberships: PCMA (98.5 percent); American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) (27.3 percent); Meeting Professionals International (MPI) (25.8 percent)

Planner Comment
"I think many plans are in place, but not enough people (myself included) do drills with staff or review the plan to ensure people will really understand what to do. Since few crisis plans are put to the test, there are probably extensive holes in many of them, and will not serve us well if we have to actually use them. This survey pointed out a few holes in my own plan!"