WEBINAR: Practical Tools for Better Decision Making

There are many different decision making tools available in the marketplace. These tools serve many purposes including information sharing, multi-criteria decision making and mapping.

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018, the National Information Sharing Consortium (NISC) is hosting a webinar that will provide an overview of several solutions G&H International (the company I work for) has developed to address specific client problems, which include:

• Managing large-scale events;
• Integrating data silos to enhance local decision-making; and
• Developing a virtual exercise facilitation capability.

Here is the official blurb:

"The G&H International Services webinar is the sixth webinar in the NISC's Mission-Focused Job Aids Webinar Series that reviews tools, techniques, and standard operating procedures that NISC partners in the homeland security, emergency management, public safety, first responder, and healthcare preparedness communities use to facilitate and manage information sharing. For more information about the webinar series and the NISC, visit the NISC website at www.nisconsortium.org. To become a member of the NISC, click here to join, membership is free for all users!"

Help Research and Support the Response to Hurricane Irma

We need your help! If you have a few minutes, please read below.  

As Hurricane Irma bears down on Florida, hundreds, maybe thousands of organizations are preparing to descend upon the state to support the survivors. It is an effort that takes many different types of people from many different organizations. But who are these groups?  How do they find each other?  

These questions are the impetus for the Response Roster Project, an effort I am supporting with G&H International Services, Inc. We want to understand response efforts from the perspective of both the official and unofficial response. Who are the unsung heroes and responders taking time to help in any way they can?

This project provides some critical understanding about how these various groups, projects and initiatives can be better supported and integrated in the future. It is impossible to support the survivors of disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey and Irma without the support of neighbors, non-profits (e.g., Humanity Road), and other groups that form as needs arise (e.g., Cajun Navy).

The Project

Today, we officially launch the Response Roster Project. It as an operational research tool designed to understand who is responding and how they are finding each other. This project is unique in that it has a real-time operational component that allows the public as well as responders to:

1. Submit any type of organization that is helping survivors of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma in any way; and
2. Search and find each other during response and recovery efforts.   

This catalogue will be actively curated throughout the response and recovery to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. When the dust settles, this information will be used to understand how self-organized groups can be better supported in future disasters.

How You Can Help

Helping will take just a few minutes of your time.  Specifically, we need help finding the various groups, projects and initiatives that are supporting response and recovery efforts. You can submit your findings using a simple form found at:

No time to submit? Please help spread the word! If you have any questions about the project, please contact us

• https://responseroster.com/about/
• https://twitter.com/ResponseRoster

EARLY BIRD SPECIAL: Emergency Management Virtual Summit - Sept 2017

Safe and Ready is putting on another fantastic virtual summit this coming September 12th to 14th. They have an early bird VIP registration (20% off) through close of business tomorrow.  For those short on time and travel funds, this is a great professional developmenet opportunity.  Safe and Ready is also working toward trying to issue CEU's this year; but even if it doesn't work out, there are some great speakers being lined up.  

The 20% coupon will be automatically applied when you click this link. 

National experts will teach you how you can prepare your organization or community for the most devastating disasters, including:

• Cyber Attacks
• Active Shooter/Active Threat
• Violent Extremism
• Complex Coordinated Attacks
• Natural Disasters and more...

For a better idea of what to expect, view recordings from the 2016 Virtual Summit.

Upcoming Emergency Preparedness Webinars

Webinars are a great way to learn about a new topic. The Safe+Ready Institute is sponsoring a series of great and free webinars over the next few months. I hope you can join!

Business Continuity Planning and IT Recovery with Donald Schmidt

March 30, 2017 @ 1 pm ET

You will learn how to:

1. Identify potential hazards that could disrupt your business or ruin your organization. This includes identifying those with highest probability of occurring with the greatest impact.
2. Implement a comprehensive program to address risk mitigation and hazard response and recovery. This includes the key elements detailed in NFPA 1600. 
3. Understand the key components of a comprehensive emergency management/business continuity program. This includes program management, planning, implementation, training and education, tests and exercises, and improvement planning.
4. Use various resources to support all tasks associated with business continuity and emergency management. Below is an example of an essential resource.

Zombie Incident Preparedness Training with Susan Sanderson

April 25, 2017 @ 1 pm ET

• Stay Informed
• Create an emergency plan
• Communicate during emergencies
• Get supplies and create a kit
• Help others
• Practice your response
• Provide basic medical care
• Prepare your kids, pets and elders

Active Shooter Consequence Management with Chris Floyd

May 18, 2017 @ 1 pm ET

• Details TBD

The Role of Competing Objectives in Exercise Design and Evaluation

As an exercise practitioner with experience in different types and levels of exercises, I question the efficacy of our existing exercise evaluation paradigms (e.g., HSEEP, REPP, CSEPP, etc.). In my experience, they are messy and misaligned with the overarching objectives we are trying to achieve. 

The Problem with Exercise Objectives

This messiness is partly due to the fact that we create dueling objectives such as training and evaluation. For example, if you slow down or modify an exercise to ensure responders understand and can perform their duties (training objective), can you objectively state the system capability they performed was successfully tested (performance objective)? I have a hard time saying this unless the capability's performance is duplicated in more challenging and realistic environments. 

Additionally, the limitations of time and budget influence the desire to maximize the value of each exercise conducted. Running an exercise, especially a large-scale/multi-organizational exercise that is more realistic of a full-blown response, is not an easy task. It requires many personnel from different organizations and disciplines to agree on the objectives of the exercise. Reconciling these objectives into a refined set of clear objectives is a tough task by itself.

The resulting objectives, though, must also be considered collectively to understand if and how they may compete with each other. For example, the most valuable learning and evaluation for system performance comes from understanding and examining the relationships between different plans and activities, not the plans and activities themselves. As a result, additional objectives surrounding plan testing should be carefully considered in order to ensure a coherent exercise design that will produce the desired behavior so it can be effectively evaluated.

The Four Types of Objectives

There are four types of objectives to understand in order to ensure the exercise design is aligned with your evaluation framework:  

1. Training Objectives seek to improve the knowledge, skills and abilities of single person or group. The objective type is often encountered in tabletop exercises and drills where the goals are to familiarize people with plans, procedures, and equipment. 
2. Task/Activity Objectives seek to demonstrate and verify the knowledge, skills, and abilities of a single person or group. The task or activity being performed can be the execution of a plan; however, the objective is for a person or group to demonstrate competence in that plan, not validate the plan itself.  
3. Plan/Procedure Objectives seek to validate a plan and its assumptions. These objectives focus on learning about the plan itself. The successful execution of the plan, though, does not automatically indicate the plan will actually make the organization better prepared. That objective is better assessed in system performance objectives. 
4. System Performance Objectives seek to determine if the response system met the needs of the constituents it serves. These objectives reflect the interaction effects between different plans, processes, actions, tasks, etc. that supported the response. These objectives can include both internal (e.g., EOC fulfilling fire department resource needs) and external (e.g., setting up two field hospitals) constituents.

All objectives are needed and no objective is more noble than the other. As a systems engineer, though, system performance is the most intriguing objective type that has the greatest potential to help understand what it means to be prepared. There is much more work to be done in this area. For now, a good exercise is one that enables the performance of the behavior under observation AND the evaluation of established objectives.

Exercise Design and Evaluation

Exercise design and evaluation can be significantly improved with an understanding of how objectives are different and potentially in competition with each other. For example, you may design the exercise and your evaluation materials to evaluate workforce competence rather than capability performance if you want to validate training success. If you want to validate a plan, then your evaluation will reflect the nuances of that plan and it's assumptions.     

While the post-exercise evaluation process with root cause analysis and other techniques can help identify and deconflict important issues on the back-end, this should not be relied upon. What happens if you find one prevailing incident that affects your assessment of other objectives you are trying to evaluate? Sure you may pull out some marginal benefit (e.g., small lessons learned and areas for improvement), but are you able to better understand and significantly improve your overall operations with such limited data? In my experience, no.

Parting Thoughts...

Exercises with their complexity and high costs need to do more than provide marginal benefits. This starts with ensuring exercise objectives are well-aligned and do not conflict with each other.

Additionally, existing exercise design and evaluation frameworks need to acknowledge that competing objectives occur and incorporate a deconfliction process to ensure the value of the exercise is maximized before the exercise is designed and conducted. The supporting exercise evaluation material then need to reflect the objectives being sought. Evaluation material should not simply be based on high level core capabilities and may require multiple "types" of evaluation material that address the different types of objectives.

Have you experienced competing exercise objectives?  What happened and what did you do? 

Looking for My Virtual EM Conference Presentation?

A couple weeks ago I informed you that I was participating in my first virtual conference. I am happy to report the conference was a resounding success and I had many people attend my session on data, technology and social media for disaster management.  

Unfortunately, I know many of you could not make it. Don't fret!  Check out the recorded video below.  

If you are still interested in accessing all videos from the conference, you can purchase the VIP All Access Pass until October 10 via this link. Be sure to use the code DISASTERNET10 for 10% off!

Information Requirements for Crisis Response – A Radio Perspective

I take the position that differing and contradictory viewpoints or perspectives help shed light on the many gaps and issues the industry faces. As such, I invited Terry Canning to provide a guest post in response to my recent post on redefining information requirements for disaster response. The views expressed are his own. We welcome your thoughts in the comments below!

A couple of weeks ago Brandon wrote a thoughtful and thought-provoking blog describing how the information requirements for successful crisis response is being redefined.  He opened with “Developing information requirements for crisis response is a tedious and flawed process filled with many uncertainties…”  In a reply, I agreed with his postulation that it can be a tedious process (although I proposed fastidious rather than tedious) but disagreed that it is flawed.  Brandon then challenged me to write a response to fully explain my position on this issue – and I have accepted.

To put my comments in perspective I have been a volunteer fire fighter for over 35 years and a chief officer for 15 of those years, having retired in December of 2013.  For the past 16 years I have been engaged as a radio communications consultant with the Province of Nova Scotia, Canada, where I was responsible for coordinating emergency communications.  My role also included ensuring radio interoperability for twelve provincial government departments, two regional municipalities, four federal government departments, several NGO’s with public safety roles, the provincial police service (RCMP) and 285 volunteer fire departments. The volunteer fire service encompasses over 9000 volunteer fire fighters.  All of these users share a common, single 700 MHz, province-wide trunked radio system, operating at 86 sites.  My focus on the radio ‘tool’ is intentional, as that is my background and strength; there are certainly other tools that contribute to success. 

In order to achieve full situational awareness (the ultimate objective of gathering, storing and sharing information) for crisis response, all engaged response parties must be able to communicate directly with all others in real time, as required, and as authorized.  This is the foundation of the successes realized by the many agencies and orders of government utilizing the second generation trunked mobile radio system in Nova Scotia.  Rather than competing for limited precious radio spectrum and even more elusive capital funding, an attitude of cooperation and system resource sharing has created a model for information sharing and universal situational awareness.

This may seem to be only moderately related to the topic of redefining information requirements for crisis response, however my point is that with real time interagency communications using the one-to-many capability of two-way radio, there is much less need to gather and store information.  Instead my suggestion is that the parties with the information essential for an effective crisis response be brought directly into the picture utilizing the radio system – thus every stakeholder is aware of all pieces of the puzzle.

The Nova Scotia approach has resulted in much less time defining requirements and dramatically more accurate and timely information during a response. There are basically three components employed in the Nova Scotia model:

1) A process of post incident analysis

Engage all incident stakeholders to perform a thorough, frank and inclusive debriefing after every significant multi-agency incident, and, ensure the learnings from these analyses are incorporated into go-forward response plans.  Of course each of the typical incident response agencies maintains their own standard procedures and protocols, but they are developed and refined in light of the information gathered from the analysis and debriefing process. 

2) A stakeholder interoperability lessons learned forum

To emphasize the positive learnings, the province hosts an annual Interoperability Forum, attended by key agency representatives, where incidents of the previous year are reviewed and discussed from a communications perspective and the attendees are invited to interact and learn with and from their counterparts. 

3) A formal interoperability advisory group

The Radio Interoperability Nova Scotia Advisory Council (RINSAC) is made up of designated municipal, provincial and federal agency representatives to consider, vet and advise on government initiatives to optimize the provincial radio system.  RINSAC members may also present proposals from constituent users to the provincial radio authority for consideration.  Through these three channels, a suite of best practices and most effective information sharing approaches are developed.

I fully endorse Brandon’s categorization of the three types of information surrounding crisis response and his assertion that they are types, not levels of information.  It is impossible to accurately predict which party will require what piece(s) of information at any particular point in time during a response. Thus, a fully interoperable radio communications system encompassing all stakeholders, is key to ensuring those who hold required information can promptly and accurately communicate it to those who need it during a crisis response. As a result, the requirements for pre-incident information collection and storage is reduced, eliminating noncurrent information and minimizing inaccurate information. 

A Radio Case Study

From my perspective, the responses to significant crises situations involving multiple agencies almost always have ineffective, underutilized, or non-existent interoperable voice communications paths or protocols amongst responders, resulting in much less efficacy in the crisis response. The penultimate objective of information management must be to overcome the information vacuum (or at least the gaps) that accompanies many crises situations. The advent of the Nova Scotia shared Trunked Mobile Radio system has resulted in less post-incident debriefings that that point to ‘communications’ as being the biggest failure in the response – a huge achievement.

Obviously there are other approaches to glean and share crisis response information, but I would argue that there are probably no better or more effective, or more timely methods, than the use of system wide, shared talkgroups.  Every one of the almost 10,000 radios on the Nova Scotia provincial system is required to have the standard suite of interoperability talkgroups: eight provincial ‘mutual aid’ talkgroups and two interprovincial ‘mutual aid’ talkgroups shared with users in the neighbouring provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.   

The other key ingredient to effectively sharing timely and accurate information during a crisis response is regular and repeated user training.  Radio user training in Nova Scotia is provided by a dedicated provincial trainer who provides training directly to the users, or disseminates knowledge through a ’Train the Trainer’ approach.  All too frequently when shared radio systems are implemented, user training is provided to familiarize the users with their new ‘tools’ and technology, but post implementation, training programs are eliminated or dramatically down-sized.  Experience would suggest that with the rate of turn-over of emergency response personnel (particularly in the volunteer sector) an ongoing training and refresher program, including table-top exercises, is of critical importance. 

A very valuable educational ‘tool’ has been the development of a communications module attached to the ICS 200 program.  This module takes about 25-30 minutes to deliver and helps the command level responder to focus on aspects of communications that is – or should be - of most concern to her/him.  It emphasizes the shared nature of the trunking system, the range of agencies that use it, and the established methods of ensuring all potentially involved users are aware of the shared talkgroup assignment and its purpose.

To quote Brandon again, “We are doing ourselves a disservice if we focus on predictable information needs in an environment where the most valuable information is unpredictable!”  I fully agree with this premise, and suggest that rather than struggling to gather, store, then quickly share information in response to the unknown, unexpected or unprecedented crisis, we do ourselves a much greater service by making the effort to develop cooperative, collaborative, shared radio communications systems and policies that enable real-time sharing of any information relevant to any response party engaged in the crisis.  

Evaluating Preparedness at Different Levels of Analysis

I recently conducted an academic/practice-based research project that provided a better understanding of preparedness evaluation. One interesting thing to come out of this research was a capabilities-based exercise framework for a Federal regulatory agency that links capabilities to design concepts to evaluation criteria. I will post an overview of this research once it is officially published. 

Another interesting aspect of the research confirmed how preparedness evaluation is still a complicated and difficult process that doesn't always yield the best results. We still have many more questions than answers when trying to link evaluation to our learning and preparedness objectives. For example, how do you understand how much "more" prepared you are between exercises and disasters? Current assessment processes tends to be ad hoc and very subjective.

HSEEP, noble in intent and still a benefit, lays the ground work for evaluating preparedness. However, it stops short of a well-aligned and pragmatic process that helps us learn from each exercise or disaster response while also tracking cumulative learning over time. Many of the issues and gaps mentioned above are still experienced in the after action and corrective action processes following exercises and disasters.

It is often mystifying how we develop and track our findings. For example, are these findings really the most important? Are they the right set of findings? How do we capture andarticulate very real complexity issues such as network or interaction effects? Are we investing in certain performance capabilities when we should be rethinking how the system is designed in the first place?  

There are no simple answers to these questions, but below are a few different dimensions of capabilities to think about when evaluating your exercises or disaster responses. These dimensions can also be considered "levels of analysis" in research parlance. However, don't be confused by "levels"; there is no hierarchical relationship between them. 

Individual

Individual ability is the backbone of a good disaster response. While I share that people should not be singled out for poor performance, understanding responders' overall knowledge, skills and abilities is an important level of analysis that needs to be captured. You should be asking: In order to have performed better during the exercise or response, what knowledge, skills or abilities should the responders had prior to the event? You may also separate individuals into different groups by role level such as senior leadership, management/coordination, tactical; or by function such as medical, fire, mass care, etc. The goal in this level of analysis is to improve individual abilities. 

Team/Organizational

To put it bluntly, well-organized groupings of people make things happen. They are organized by specialty or by organization and bring resources and capabilities that are much needed in a response. Understanding team or organizational capabilities helps to identify critical response gaps that are needed in future disasters. You should be asking: What were the organizational or team capabilities that contributed to the success or failure of the exercise or disaster response? Why/How? Were there any that weren't used?  Redundant? Ill-planned or -defined? This level of analysis is important for ensuring your "group" is ready to respond with the capabilities needed in the future. However, you must also think critically about other capabilities that may also be needed in the future and for which there is no precedent. 

System

The system is the least understood, but in my opinion, most important level of analysis. The difference between this and the team/organizational level of analysis is best captured in the following statement: Just because you got the job done doesn't mean getting to that point was easy, efficient or effective. This level of analysis addresses the complexity of a multi-agency response and requires a different set of questions to investigate.

For example, when you look back at all the different entities that supported the response, how did it go?  Where did breakdowns occur? How was the coordination and information sharing across people and organizations? If you are tackling these questions, you are on the right track. I would add that you should also think about the impact of information asymmetry, how the network as a whole performed and the cascading effects of different decisions or actions. Understanding this level helps you question the efficacy of your response system so that you may improve preparedness at a more fundamental/global level.     

I anticipate many of you will intuitively understand the levels of analysis that I just articulated. You may have even experienced these issues first hand as I have over my many years developing and evaluating exercises. This post is meant to help frame your thinking, but unfortunately it won't provide a definitive answer on anything.

However, I look forward to your thoughts and opinions on this!  What have been your experiences with preparedness evaluation?  What do you find most problematic? Have you identified any best practices?

A New Type of Emergency Management Conference this September 21st and 22nd

I have always marveled at the production and expense of in-person conferences. They take a lot of resources to put together and the cost-benefit for attendance is sometimes hard to justify. However, virtual conferences are a great blend of individual webinars and in-person conferences where the focus is on maximizing learning and education for as many people as possible. 

That is why I am intrigued by my first invitation to speak at the 2-day Safety and Emergency Readiness Virtual Leadership Summit along with fifteen other safety and emergency preparedness pros this September 21st and 22nd. I will be speaking on Disaster Tech, Crisis Data, and Social Media in Emergency Management.

I hope you can join the conference live. If not, I hope you find benefit from the VIP All Access Pass where you can visit or re-visit all the presentations at any time. (See details below on how to register and get a special discount) Below is a 30-second video that explains more about the summit. It features a great line-up of presenters covering a wide range of topics. Hope to see you there…

In addition to speaking about Disaster Tech, Crisis Data, and Social Media in Emergency Management, there will be many others great speakers discussing key topics such as:

• School Crisis Management
• Economic Resilience
• Faith-based & Community Partnerships
• Ambassadors for Preparedness
• Virtual Exercises
• Business Preparedness
• Public Health
• Cyber security
• Critical Infrastructure

The conference is 100% free! However, I recommend the VIP All Access Pass because it includes lifetime access to replays of the presentations, giveaways, and other helpful resources for only $125. Use my discount code of DISASTERNET10 for 10% off! Click the buttons to below to register.

Redefining Information Requirements for Crisis Response

Developing information requirements for crisis response is a tedious and flawed process filled with many uncertainties about the situation and the response. While we can take an honest stab at knowing what different responders need, when, and how, our unilateral focus on needed information stymies the best of intentions: historical learning is only as good as a similar future, which is rarely the case; and visioning workshops are only as good as the ability to identify the uncertainties that lie ahead, a very difficult task with severe consequences if something is missed. 

While decisions can be made without needed information based on expertise and experience, this is far from ideal in a complex adaptive system such as crisis response (another important topic, but no room in this post!). Every move one makes (small or large) can have significant positive and/or negative impacts on system performance, not to mention possible interaction effects of different decisions and actions. Information is therefore a lifeline for decision makers when evaluating the consequences of different decisions and actions. Information provides important cues that help decision makers develop accurate representations of the system and the situation in order to better leverage their expertise and experience.

In more certain work environments with repeatable tasks, decisions, and problems (e.g., manufacturing), information requirements can be refined through thorough investigation and iterative development. But crisis response is far more uncertain about the tasks, decisions, and problems that will be encountered. Planning activities can help, but they will never be 100% ready. Unanticipated situations will always be encountered for which one must react in the moment. Additionally, information are often not created and available until a crisis occurs, so it is hard to plan for its use.  

We need a dedicated strategy and approach to information management (collection, processing, and sharing of data/information) that balances flexibility with standardization and that extends beyond technical interoperability (similar to our response management paradigms). People, policies, programs, processes, and products all need to align to inform and improve the handling of the known-knowns (e.g., will set up a point of distribution), the known-unknowns (e.g., how public will react), and the unknown-unknowns (e.g. unforeseen circumstances) encountered during a crisis response. 

This is not an easy endeavor and requires radically different thinking that embraces the uncertainty associated with crisis response. We are doing ourselves a disservice if we focus on predictable information needs in an environment where the most valuable information is unpredictable! 

Tackling this issue will likely take the better part of my career, but it is important to start somewhere. As you consider your information requirements, I suggest you consider the following information requirement types:

Type A - Clearly Needed Information

First, it is important to outline the information that is clearly known to be needed. Bite off the top layer of information needed by each role. These are the absolutes that you know the role(s) need to have. Be judicious, though, as your information management plan will most definitely provide you with ALL this information and you don't want to overload responders. 

Type B - Likely Helpful Information

Second, consider what information should not be delivered, but rather immediately available to responders if they decide they need it. This is information one could presume might be needed, but is hard to define when, where and how it will be useful. This information should be made available and easily accessible to responders without distracting or overloading them.

Type C - Supporting Information Sources

Lastly, because it is unlikely that you will have envisioned all possible information needs, consider how your responders can access different sources of information that will allow them to find the information they need on the spot. This is hard as you need to build relationships and technical integrations ahead of time to execute well.  

There are two things to notice about my suggested information requirement types. First, I call them types rather than levels. This is because the relationship between them is dimensional, not linear or hierarchical. Type C information can be just as important as Type A information. Second, they assume a "role-based" perspective on information requirements gathering. Collecting information requirements at an organizational level obfuscates the information needs of individual responders who are the true consumers of information. Plus, if you know the role-based information needs of individual responders, you can more easily discern the organization's overall information needs through aggregation and comparison of all the information required in each role. This then sets you up to develop an information system that meets organizational needs through knowledge of individual responders' information needs.   

I hope this helps you expand your understanding of requirements gathering and rethink what is "needed" in light of the many uncertainties that crises bring. The goal here is to intentionally and strategically approach information management such that you are giving your responders the best possible chance of obtaining available information they need, when and how they need it. I don't address the timing aspects and delivery methods of information needs here, but they are indeed also very important (perhaps another blog post!). 

I look forward to your comments!

New Job, Same Passion for Disaster Information and Technology

A few months ago I wrote a post on building better disaster resilience with information and technology. The post turned in to a philosophy of sorts that guided me in my pursuit of a new job.

I am happy to report that last Monday I reported to work at Obsidian, A Cadmus Company. Obsidian is a fast growing emergency management and homeland security consulting firm based in Washington, DC, but working nationally. 

The company prides itself on solving hard problems and the employees reflect it. Since Monday I have met very smart, intelligent, focused and driven individuals who are interested in more than a paycheck. They are interested in making a difference. This is why I happily accepted Obsidian's offer. I believe that to succeed in this industry and make a difference, you need a passion for the subject as well as for change. And, of course, it helps when you are surrounded by like-minded people!

While I will be working on a multitude of projects, I will not be abandoning my interests and passion for rethinking how we approach disaster information and technology. In fact, Obsidian has a growing focus on the intelligent and strategic uses of information and technology and I plan to support them in this pursuit. I will also continue my weekly email newsletter and continue blogging as much as I can amidst finishing my PhD nights and weekends. 

If you need anything or want to learn more about Obsidian, please don't hesitate to reach out! I am here for the long haul.  

--Brandon

[APPLY NOW] Coaching for Tech-Enabled Disaster Management Projects

Last year, I wrote about a similar coaching opportunity with The Governance Lab at NYU. The lab has since moved to the Tandon School of Engineering from the Wagner School of Public Service (my master's alma matter), however, that does not mean they are any less focused on doing good.  

This year's coaching program focuses on tech-enabled disaster management. This program is ideal for you if you have specific project in mind or are actively working on a project. You will have access to great mentors and support. While the focus of the program is on developing a solution, you do not have to be technically oriented. In fact, this program works for anyone motivated to solve a real problem in the disaster or humanitarian space.  Also, they have instituted a $250 fee, but I think this is more than worth it.

You can apply by clicking the button below. The application deadline is May 27th if you want to be considered for the summer session (June to August).

Here at the details:

Innovations in Disaster Management is a ten week online coaching program designed to convene government, social and civic entrepreneurs (both individuals and teams) who are developing projects that have the potential to tackle the pressing needs of people in disaster-affected communities. Whether your project is nonprofit or for-profit and whether you are focusing on disaster preparedness, disaster management or disaster relief, this program aims, through peer-to-peer support and expert coaching and mentoring, to help humanitarian innovators implement, scale, and assess effective projects.

Ideal participants are those who have already identified a project and/or have a project underway and have clear insight into the problem they are trying to ameliorate. Projects might aim to tackle diverse issues from the protection of vulnerable populations, to strengthening health initiatives, to providing shelter, education, and livelihood opportunities. They will have in common the application of open, data-driven, bottom-up and collaborative approaches. A public interest and public engagement focus should ultimately be the driving force behind the projects.

The GovLab Academy coaching programs have helped 450 government, social and civic entrepreneurs take 250 projects from idea to implementation. We aim to help you “cross the chasm” from idea to implementation and help you scale.

Drone Feeds in Your Incident Management System?

Drones are increasingly utilized for disaster response to support situational awareness. While they are a great tool, you must also properly integrate them into your operations, including your common operating picture or situational awareness/intelligence platform(s). Integrating drone feeds can present both operational and technical challenges. 

To address this, a NJ-based startup, Currant Inc., has developed a module that makes this integration easy with existing platforms. As an advisor to Currant, I am impressed by what they have accomplished. This is just the beginning of what I see possible with drones and the information they produce.  

Here are the details from Currant's blog post:

Currant Inc. has announced the launch of CurrantDRONE, a feature of their online incident management system that will incorporate live data feeds from drones directly into CurrantGRID, a web-based platform used by emergency managers and first responders.

“We are so excited about this launch of our drone feed integration and its potential to change how quickly we can respond to disasters,” says Denise Spell, CEO of Currant.  “Drones can safely go where humans can’t, and our live video feed can help first responders know exactly what they’re up against,” Ms. Spell said from the OEM Conference on Drones being held in Cape May, NJ.  “OEM coordinators can achieve real-time situational awareness, determine  if there are people needing rescue, if power lines are down, or if hazardous materials are present, without traveling into harm’s way.”

Data from CurrantDRONE can feed directly into CurrantGRID, where it can be reviewed and workflowed from the safety of a mobile command center.  OEM coodinators can use this real-time data to efficiently evaluate a situation and determine a specific response.  Teams of responders can then be organized, prioritized, and assigned with the click of a mouse.  Drones can also be used to drop supplies, medicine, and information to those awaiting rescue.

UPCOMING: National Information Sharing Exercise

Information sharing exercises are rare and hard to put on, but are important to learning about how to improve information sharing in disasters. 

I am passing on this information about an upcoming information sharing exercise. Participation is open to many different organizations in the EM community and I encourage your to sign up and participate as soon as possible. The exercise will take place on May 11, 2016.  

Below are the details that were provided to me:

"In May 2016, the National Information Sharing Consortium (NISC) will conduct CHECKPOINT 16, a virtual tabletop exercise that will allow participants to test, evaluate, and download for daily use various model web applications, tools, and data models for situational awareness and decision support.   Dozens of organizations have signed up to participate in CHECKPOINT 16, with participants coming from state, local, and Federal government, non-profits, private sector companies, and academia.  Participants can choose their level of participation, from being an observer, participating in a limited way using NISC-provided tools, to being a full-play participant integrating CHECKPOINT 16 tools into their own native operating environment throughout the exercise. 

The exercise will take place from 11 am to 4 pm ET on May 11, 2016.  For information on the exercise and to register, you can visit www.checkpoint16.org.  So far the NISC has conducted two training events for the exercise, and these trainings can be viewed on the checkpoint 16 webpage; the next event will take place on April 21." 

Building Better Disaster Response and Resilience with Information and Technology

For nearly five years I have been in higher education exploring how information and technology can improve disaster response and resilience. I have explored complex issues in great detail and I have learned a lot about the challenges and opportunities being faced by communities, organizations and people trying to leverage information and technology to better respond to disasters and build resilience.

But as I begin my transition back to the working world in the near future, I am forced to reflect on how I can apply this new knowledge to help address current problems while also preparing for an innovative future beyond what we can imagine today. I find myself writing about my philosophy on leveraging information and technology to improve disaster response and resilience. This philosophy will guide me in my career and allow me to apply and transform my knowledge into pragmatic and sustainable change that pushes disaster response and resilience to achieve better outcomes with information and technology.

My Philosophy

I subscribe to the notion that a specific approach helps focus change and improvement. The approach of having good people, processes and products is essential to guide small businesses through significant growth and change toward profitability. For disaster response and resilience, focusing on the following five initiatives will help communities, organizations and people achieve better outcomes with information and technology: 

1. Understanding the value that information and technology provides to different people in different situations.
2. Improving policies that better enable data and information sharing while preserving privacy and security.
3. Developing better programs that incentivize sustainable disaster information and technology innovation, research and education.
4. Designing scalable and consistent ways to process (e.g., collect, manage, analyze and share) data and information across a variety of information and technology systems.
5. Creating new products (technical and non-technical) that deliver significant value to communities, organizations and people responding to and affected by disasters

Beginning to address these complex initiatives starts with a paradigm shift in thinking that focuses on the value of information and how information systems, separate from technology systems, can improve disaster response and resilience. In addition, it requires concurrently aligning policies, programs, processes and products to overcome the unique nuances and complexities of disaster response and resilience.

Origins of My Philosophy

My philosophy on improving disaster response and resilience with information and technology is based on five years of intense study and reflection that culminate in new paradigms and theories. It represents my foundational beliefs that are influenced by two primary issues:

1) Information systems are different from technology systems

An information system is a conceptual understanding of who needs what information and when, and how it needs to be delivered to them. It helps describe the larger organizational systems that are being supported and understand the unique nuances and complexities of disaster response and resilience. An information system is also technology agnostic as it is about understanding why, how, when and for whom information is needed. Unfortunately, disaster information systems have received little attention over the years in both research and practice.

A technology system is a specific tool that helps manage information as it moves from its raw form (or original location) to its relevant and actionable form for the consumer. The value of technology systems is that they primarily help with time and effort intensive processes such as collecting, managing, analyzing, and sharing data and information as well as perform functions that humans can’t do (e.g., analyze big data).

However, if an information system is not well defined or understood, the supporting technology systems will only provide marginal benefits. This is, in part, why we have seen limited adoption and diffusion of new and innovative technologies despite there being a plethora of ideas and innovations. New and innovative technology systems need to reflect the real-world complexities of disaster response and resilience information systems; otherwise their adoption and diffusion will be slow with marginal benefits. Someone needs to be looking out for how technology systems integrate with information systems.  

2) Disaster information and technology policies, programs, and processes are misaligned

Disaster response and resilience is a complex industry and profession that has not done a thorough job looking strategically and comprehensively at the impediments to effective information and technology systems. This has resulted in misaligned policies, programs, processes and products that stall innovation and hamper sector-wide progress and achievement. For example, attempts to develop and track meaningful response and resilience metrics are hampered by the inability to get reliable data and information about those metrics quickly and easily. The impediments though, are not due to a failure of ideas or technology. Rather the impediments are due to a complex working environment/profession that:

1. Lacks understanding about the discrete value of information for different situations as well as different communities, organizations, and people.
2. Has policies that primarily focus on how to protect and secure rather than share data and information.
3. Lacks grants and programs that specifically and adequately focus on information system projects, research, and curricula.
4. Develops custom and ad hoc processes to collect, manage, analyze and share data and information that result in missed opportunities for leveraging economies of scale and in high sunk costs that disincentive change.
5. Seeks out technological solutions that conform more to existing policies, programs, processes and products rather than fundamental need.

The Importance of Sharing My Philosophy

It is important to share my philosophy because it helps inform employers, clients, partners, readers, etc. of my approach to leveraging information and technology. This approach, combined with my expertise and strengths, is why I am attracted to positions that help challenge the status quo and lead to innovation and systemic change. These include disaster information and technology positions related to:

• Strategy and policy
• Program/project management
• Public-private partnerships
• Product management
• Education and training
• Applied research and evaluation