All Hazard Warning – Reply Comment
Docket No. 000609173-0173-01
This paper is a reply to comments made by Patrick McFadden of the York County Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency and to comments made by members of the July 17th All Hazard Warnings Roundtable. Our response is a composite of information derived from recent work with Emergency Operations Centers in the Southeast, from discussions with Dr. Walter G. Green at the University of Richmond and from our past experience in the areas of Public Health and Information Technology applied in health informatics.
Introduction: Policy and Principles
The problems associated with delivery of hazard warnings are like the hazards themselves, large, complex and potentially far-reaching in effect. Government must play a significant role in developing a comprehensive, national warning delivery system because: only government has sufficient breadth to reach the entire nation; governmental agencies such as NOAA are among the primary providers of the information needed to both detect and respond to natural and human-generated disasters/hazards; and only government can supply the non-profit, non-commercial organizational infrastructure needed to support a coordinated system involving the necessary multi-organizational effort. At the same time, however, hazards have an effect at the local level, and there must be public-private partnerships in place there to make warning systems practical and workable.
As economic principles are driving
Information Technology (IT) industry behavior, so they should drive design of a
hazard warning system that after all is basically information transfer. For efficiency and cost controls, the more
coordinated the efforts of partners in development, the better the outcome. This means sharing information and solutions
rather than allowing separate groups to struggle independently on working out
an answer to the same problem. The
result of such cooperation is less time and money wasted and a better solution
achieved for all. It also means using
resources already available, rather than inventing or re-inventing them all
over again. The use of commercial
off-the-shelf- (COTS) technology to build on and extend solutions is part of IT
industry current wisdom. This same principle
is behind the “dual use” concept for Department of Defense (DOD) technology,
i.e., how to use DOD-derived technology in the private sector and how to
update/enhance/reengineer DOD technology with COTS. Finally, in keeping with efficiencies and cost control, it makes
good sense to use the same platform or infrastructure to carry alerts for all
hazards rather than create multiple, independent pathways. A common pathway, relying on a single broad
infrastructure, can carry alerts for all hazards with final dissemination of
the information through multi-media distribution channels. In other words, a general broadcast alert
can go out on a central system and can be amplified and multiplied through
re-broadcast on communication devices of multiple types such as telephones,
pagers, computers, TV and radio.
Comments
Noted:
In his informative comments on an All Hazards Warning System, Patrick McFadden noted the following problems: a lack of coordination in interagency communications and processes; reliance on “a home rule approach to emergency management” which precludes developing a consensus on technology and standards for disseminating emergency information; and limitations on time, budgets and technologies available to local emergency management officials. Speakers at the July 17th Roundtable event echoed these and related themes, in particular the lack of coordination of activity at the federal, state and local levels; financial concerns respecting money available through agency channels without coordination of ways to distribute it and control costs; and technology issues of two types, identifying and integrating what is available and dealing with the educational gap among users.
The problem of lack of coordination of
activities is not new and it applies at both the federal, state and local
levels. Offices and agencies within the
federal government often work in parallel on the same problems or issues, but
do not share information or coordinate their activities. The situation at the local level mirrors
that at the federal. Local police,
fire, medical and EMS/EOC (Emergency Operations Center) offices do not
routinely plan coordinated responses to emergencies. There are no routine meetings among these groups and no standard
channels through which to communicate regularly.
The issue of providing funding for hazard
alerts and for controlling costs is also problematic. As alluded to above, different agencies have budgets for
different aspects of the hazard warning/response system. The result is a patchwork of complexity that
ultimately results in less overall use of the funds and less effective use of
what is disbursed.
The McFadden comments and the Roundtable
discussion on technology highlight the wide array of devices and delivery
systems available today for disseminating hazard warnings. The problem concerns integration of these
devices and delivery systems and standardization of the hazard message formats. Two complementary problems are the
sub-optimal infrastructures of many Emergency Operations Centers and the lack
of awareness and/or technical education of emergency management personnel. Some emergency management professionals are
unaware of the existence of helpful technologies while others may be
technologically unsophisticated and require training in the application and use
of new technologies. Limitations such
as these contribute to slow dissemination and adoption of helpful technological
solutions.
Cross-Cutting
Solution: Web-based Collaboration
The problems outlined above can be organized into three categories: coordination of activities at the federal and state agency level and at the local agency and organization level; funding policy and distribution; and technology issues including availability, integration and user education.
Internet technology now offers a cross-cutting solution to impact all three categories. Using web-based collaboration technology, participants at all levels of federal, state and local government, agencies and organizations can meet “virtually,” i.e., on-line to work, discuss, plan and coordinate activities and policies. On-line meetings can be held more conveniently, more frequently and at small cost increasing work output, efficiency and coordination. Technology can be assessed and demonstrated in an on-line environment, and through distance learning, potential users can be educated on procedures and new technologies via both real-time or continuously running presentations. The result is more information dispersed to more groups faster, more conveniently and more effectively.
Recommendations:
A “Virtual EOC”: In a manner similar to that attempted by Dr. Green and colleagues at the University of Richmond, local EOCs could be rendered virtual by creating a presence for them on-line supported through web-based collaboration. For those facilities lacking current adequate telecommunications infrastructure, Internet Service Providers could be encouraged to donate Internet connectivity. The wiring of such local organizations could result in a nationwide network of local EOCs sharing information, training, experiences and new uses of technology.
Pilot Program: Any large complex program that not only
involves the nation but has such broad reaching potential for impact must be
managed in a systematic manner. Within
the Federal Government are agencies designed to do just that, “successfully
manage highly complex programs”. In all cases the program plan would include a
technology review and proof of principle exercise, commonly referred to as a
Pilot Program. InfoWorx would like to
urge the committee to pursue the course of sound program management and systems
engineering by establishing an AHWN Pilot Program.
To facilitate the All Hazard Warning Network Pilot Program, infoWorx suggests a federally sponsored and nationally focused effort designed to aid in the resolution of 5 key issues: 1) education; 2) technology; 3) standards, 4) policy and 5) validation. We believe that a Pilot Program focused on these 5 issues and housed at the NIST Facility in Gaithersburg would provide significant near term benefit in the AHWN effort. Such a program would offer consolidation of costs and funding, integration across multiple agencies’ interests, leveraging of federal lab resources, a technical view of Standards development and validation, leveraging of existing resources in technical skill, advanced technology projects and a channel for funding various pilot effort with field testing.
The communication requirement of this type of program would be massive. Meetings of personnel from agencies, public sector and regional offices including the national labs would take place daily. The only way to achieve the required efficiency and effectiveness is with some form of remote collaboration. It is our view that a web-based collaboration toolset would benefit the committee immediately and all the participants for the life of the program.
In addition to collaboration for the current committee members, a set of advisors and review board members must be selected. Representation must include multi-agency, cross boundaries and functional teams at dispersed locations. The focus should cover the following critical aspects: policy, technology, standards and timing. All interests must be represented including: public and private interests, commercial, academic, regulatory and standards membership
By providing a centralized agency for technology focus, such as the National Bureau of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, technologists and facilities are readily available for all interested parties to channel their inputs, results and technologies for test, validation and documentation. Sample hazardous situations should be modeled, and all the technologies validated in simulated warning scenarios. Both effectiveness and performance results should guide recommendations and future direction. NIST also has an Advanced Technology Program office that could provide a mechanism to fund pilots and solicit technology solutions in the drive for open standards and public-private partnerships.
infoWorx also suggests a set of field tests for validation of pilot solutions. Small and large simulated events will help to provide valuable outcomes data to offer feedback for further development needs, message confirmation, technology reliability and acceptance. Combination events can be designed similar to DOD war games that will aid in evaluation and deployment of solid solutions to the all hazard warning network. As clearly defined “best of breed” technology solutions are found, a standards validation and regulatory group should be created, a set of labs linked together with AHWN must be integrated logically and a set of pilot test communities must be selected and trained. Pilot systems must be built and tested. Technology review must be set up permanently and funding for these efforts must be provided as a consolidated effort with shared responsibility. Lastly, the fees collected for standards validation and regulatory management could be used to defray the cost of such a critical service to America.
As an interested private partner, infoWorx would like to volunteer its participation in any planning and assessment activities to formalize these suggestions.