Post-Crisis Evaluation: A Summary of What You Should be Doing.

Every one of us has experienced some sort of disaster and from that disaster we may or may not have learned a thing or two. This follows you throughout every facet of life. If you have ever went ‘Wow, I posted that?!’ after Facebook shows you what you had posted four years ago, you are engaging in a sort of self-evaluation. Organizations are no different, they even monitor social media to engage in sense-making. Earlier in our blog we made mention of the evaluative portion of crisis management. When a crisis comes to an end, for better or for worse, the work is still not over. After a crisis, the CMT (Crisis Management Team) is tasked with evaluation and monitoring. The evaluative portion is a crucial part of the structure as it allows the CMP, and subsequently the organization, to evaluate their endeavors for the sake of improvement. In addition to the evaluative stage, according to Timothy Coombs (2015) monitoring involves cooperating with continuing investigations or supplying necessary updated information to the stakeholders (p.162).

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION          

A crisis evaluation has two segments – performance evaluation and impact evaluation – each of which has various components that make up the sum of the whole. A performance evaluation is meant to examine how the organization dealt with the crisis and the efficacy of the CMP. The impact evaluation measures the quantitative and qualitative damage that the crisis had created.

·         The first step in any evaluative performance begins with the collection of data. “Evaluation data comes from crisis records, stakeholder feedback, organizational performance measures, internet comments and media coverage” (Coombs, 2015, p. 163). Internet comments and social media monitoring have become crucial to evaluations as they are what carry communications and opinions quickest.

·         Once all of that data is collected it must be organized and analyzed. Just as the CMP is divided and organized into phases and sub-phases for effectiveness, dividing the crisis evaluation data by crisis phases and sub-phases can help identify the strong or weak points in the CMP.

A post-crisis evaluation is a review of the organization’s CMP and the CMT who implemented it.  Basically it evaluates the data provided to answer questions regarding the CMP/CMT such as what went well and what went poorly? or what changes do we need to make in our CMP, CMT, and organization – what should stay the same?. In short, the evaluation is meant to determine how well the organization performed as a learning or reinforcing experience.

IMPACT EVALUATION

Ideally, the crisis management plan and the crisis management team should have helped protect the organization from damage. Damage is not limited to physical structural harm, but can also include organizational reputation, finances, and other assets (Coombs, 2015, p. 166). It also tacks on how well the stakeholders, the public and media, believed the organization handled the crisis. This is the aftermath. “Organizational related objectives include reputation, financial performance, and word-of-mouth” (Coombs, 2015, p. 166).

·         The best way to analyze before and after organizational reputation begins long before a crisis. An organization should regularly monitor and evaluate stakeholder opinions about the organization. After a crisis, the CMT continues this evaluation and compares the before and after opinions.

·         The CMT should collect general data post-crisis that could provide some indicator of success or failure.

·         Assess psychological well-being of stakeholders and the public.

·         Monitor media coverage during and after the crisis. According to Coombs (2015) stakeholders experience the organization through the media during a crisis. This portrayal shapes the perceptions of all of those who were impacted by the crisis. In order to measure qualitative data, the organization should encourage those impacted to participate in surveys and questionnaires.

·         In addition to questionnaires and surveys, the CMT should analyze the data pulled from social media sites, blog posts, and online messages to get a general idea of where their reputation stands.

·         Post-crisis evaluation forms can beutilized to target, determine, and analyze internal and external perceptions.

          All of the aforementioned data should be compiled into one master report. According to Coombs (2015) once completed, the evaluation will indicate:

·         Whether the CMP proved useful in anticipating and resolving situations

·         What had or hadn’t hindered the crisis management effort

·         Whether or not the CMT had acted effectively

·         The overall damage of the crisis – including reputational harm, financial performances, and various perceptions.