November 11, 2011
Many companies have been in this dilemma before, “if I update and publish this new policy our organization is immediately out of compliance, but no one will make any changes without the policy.” Pondering this, “Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. (p. 46, ch. 5)”
For those that suffer through this during your Policy Update sessions, there a few ways to break out of this cycle:
1. Establish a Grace Period when policies are updated. This is usually established within a policy about policies (feel like the definition of recursion?). Some organizations will issue policies with a Published Date and next to it an Effective Date. This reminds readers about the Grace Period while reinforcing the expectation that compliance is required in the near future.
a. Pros: Staff can work towards compliance by the established deadline without the label of ‘Non-Compliant.’ Project plans, budgets, and resources can be lined up to tackle the changes.
b. Cons: Effective dates may be too soon for some large changes, but having different effective dates for some projects but not everything leads to confusion. If the timeframes don’t run in parallel with budget cycles then there may not be enough available funds for changes that require fiscal resources. The other concern is that during the Grace Period, there may be the perception of having two active policies which may lead to some confusion.
2. Establish, or merge with an existing, Exception Process for non-compliant areas when the policies are published. If there are areas of non-compliance when the policies are updated then an exception must be immediately requested for a temporary acceptance. Part of this exception process will be to establish a plan of attack for reaching compliance.
a. Pros: The exceptions help to prioritize the identified non-compliant areas which may make it easier to see the total cost of compliance; this method is easier for organizations that have strong Project Management departments.
b. Cons: It may be overwhelming for the team reviewing all the exception requests. Especially for those that can’t assess all associative risks (such as business versus IT risks). There will also be overhead to track all the exceptions and the deadlines. Continual exception requests will have to be managed appropriately.
3. Establish a Hybrid Approach. This method takes a little from each above with tweaks to meet the needs of your organization. For example, establishing a short Grace Period for new / updated policies and anything that will need longer must be identified immediately and go through the Exception Process.
a. Pros: A sooner effective date will meet with regulatory requirements quicker. There may be a smaller Exception handling team yet the organization still receives the benefit of using Project Management to handle the outliers.
b. Cons: It is easy for this method to slide more into the Exception Process without the constant enforcement of the effective dates. A shorter Grace Period may result in an unexpected amount of Exception requests depending upon the policy.
Regardless of the method, the most successful implementations negate the Cons listed above with two major factors: (1) Management’s full support (which includes enforcement) and (2) communication. Lack of those two elements often will leave you with a feeling that the wheels are spinning, but you aren’t moving. Of course funding, or the lack thereof, is like a car with no gas – it’s only great if you want to go where you already are.
The corporate culture may also dictate which approach is more likely to succeed. Proactive organizations usually try for the Grace Period method while reactive organizations are better suited for the Exception Method. This isn’t a slight against one or another, but in those instances the culture has established tools and workflows designed for one or the other.
For example; reactive cultures are usually found in healthcare, especially hospitals, since that’s the name of the game: reacting to the events around them. Financial institutions tend to be more proactive due to many of the existing regulations (SOX, GLBA, etc.). It’s not to say that you won’t find Proactive healthcare institutions (which some are trying to be) or reactive financial organizations.
Hopefully adoption of one of the above methods helps during your next Policy Update cycle so you can make changes happen; as behaviors, controls, and other requirements usually won’t change just because they can.
“Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing.
 Heller, Joseph. Catch-22. Simon & Schuster, 1961.