Concepts on Models to Measure Organizational Readiness for Disaster


Published on

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • David M. SimpsonCenter for Hazards Research and Policy Development, University of Louisville,Louisville, Kentucky, USA
  • Concepts on Models to Measure Organizational Readiness for Disaster

    1. 1. David F. MerrickDeputy DirectorCenter for Disaster Risk Policyat Florida State University<br />Concepts in Models to measure organizational readiness for disaster<br />2d Annual International Conference on Emergency Management and Management SciencesBeijing, China<br />
    2. 2. The Center for Disaster Risk Policy at Florida State University<br />Applied research center with a focus on public policy, emergency management, and information systems.<br />Founded in 1997<br />Current Director is Dr. Audrey HeffronCasserleigh<br />Administers and directs the Emergency Management Academic Program in the Askew School of Public Administration.<br />
    3. 3. Training and Exercises<br />Bioshield<br />Influenza Control Exercise (ICE)<br />CyberSunset<br />Recovery Virtual Organizations<br />Disaster Contractors Network<br />Disaster Housing Network<br />Preparedness Projects<br />Special Populations Information Network (SPIN)<br />Organizational Readiness Research<br />
    4. 4. Objectives<br />Review why we need to measure readiness<br />Discuss existing and past efforts to measure organizational readiness<br />Explore the differences between single and multiple organization differences<br />Define the audience for measuring disaster readiness<br />Review the current CDRP readiness measurement model<br />
    5. 5. “That which is not measured cannot be improved.”<br />In order to improve readiness, we must be able to quantify the concept of readiness.<br />Organizations needs the ability to measure readiness longitudinally.<br />Government needs the ability to compare readiness across organizations.<br />
    6. 6. Defining “Readiness”<br />Different industries and contexts define ‘readiness’ differently.<br />Readiness resides mainly in Preparedness, but also in Mitigation. <br />
    7. 7. Readiness is….<br />Preparedness<br />Resiliency<br />Redundancy<br />
    8. 8. The Demand for Measuring Readiness<br />Public Sector<br />Increase readiness of communities<br />Determine funding priorities<br />Usage as performance measures<br />Determine training and exercise priorities<br />Set standards / certification levels<br />Ratings and comparisons of response agencies or government entities<br />Private Sector<br />Increase readiness of the organization<br />Determine funding priorities<br />Usage as performance measures<br />Determine training and exercise priorities<br />
    9. 9. Single Versus Multiple Organizations<br />Single Organization<br />Readiness model is isolated, can vary.<br />Usable to measure internal improvement only<br />Cannot compare readiness to other organizations using a different model<br />Not a standard of performance<br />Multiple Organizations<br />Readiness model must be the same.<br />Usable to measure internal improvement.<br />Compares readiness to other organizations using the same model<br />Can become a standard of performance<br />Requires consensus on model design and definitions.<br />
    10. 10. Standards and Accreditation<br />National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 1600<br />The current U.S. standard for emergency management and continuity of operations.<br />Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP)<br />Voluntary accreditation process that applies NFPA 1600 and requires periodic review, documentation, and assessment.<br />
    11. 11. Limitations of Standards<br />Standards are Boolean in nature<br />Limited indicators of the gap between ‘pass’ and ‘fail’<br />When applied to accreditation processes, standards are all or nothing. <br />Neither standards nor accreditation processes provide continual feedback and review.<br />
    12. 12. Excerpt of NFPA 1600<br />
    13. 13. Simpson Preparedness Study<br />Conducted in 2001, the study created a sample model to measure disaster preparedness measures of two U.S. cities.<br />Measured factors such as:<br />Fire protection funding, personnel, and vehicles<br />Planning and zoning<br />EOC planning and funding<br />Training and simulation plans<br />Existence of four specific hazards: Earthquake, rail facilities, chemical facilities, and nuclear power plant <br />
    14. 14.
    15. 15.
    16. 16. Simpson Study Outcomes<br />Model formula for Preparedness Measures (PM):<br />PM = 3(A + B + C) + 2(D) + 3(E) + 3(F) + G - H + 3(I) + J<br />Final ‘Preparedness Measures’ (PM)<br />Sikeston: 145.20<br />Carbondale: 216.99<br />Shortfalls<br />Limited to four hazards<br />Limited weighting of factors (none within categories)<br />Hazards are applied equally as a negative factor (H)<br />
    17. 17. A New CONCEPT IN Measuring Readiness<br />
    18. 18. Readiness Dimensions<br />Readiness Dimensions are the specific factors that impact readiness for an organization.<br />There is no set list at this time of Readiness Dimensions that fits every organization. <br />Each organization must define and weight their Readiness Dimensions.<br />For our purposes… Readiness Dimensions are specific and quantifiable.<br />
    19. 19. Tangible Readiness Dimensions<br />Supplies or inventory<br />Up to date plans and procedures<br />Accreditations<br />Equipment (Vehicles, etc.)<br />Critical repair parts for equipment<br />Food and water<br />Medicinal supplies<br />
    20. 20. Sample Readiness Dimensions<br />A power utility company may decide that they need 125 spare poles stockpiled to deal with an emergency. <br />This readiness dimension (stockpiled telephone poles) has a baseline value of 125.<br />The same company determines that each physical location requires 12 operational two-way radios to effectively communicate during an emergency.<br />This readiness dimension (functional two-way radios) has a baseline value of 12. <br />
    21. 21. Hazards Impact Readiness<br />Different threats require different preparedness and mitigation efforts.<br />Example: Hurricanes require storm shutters, but those shutters will be of limited use when preparing for a flood or pandemic.<br />Therefore, any measurement of Readiness is specific by hazard.<br />Value of stockpiled telephone poles in a pandemic?<br />
    22. 22. Location Impacts Readiness<br />Organizations spread over multiple locations may have different Readiness values for each location.<br />Some Readiness Dimensions are defined for the entire organization, but some are specific to a physical location.<br />Stockpiled telephone poles vs. two-way radios <br />
    23. 23. Organizational Units Impact Readiness<br />Different organizational units have different needs during a disaster, and these organizational units will have different readiness levels.<br />Ties in with business continuity concepts. Mission critical functions should reflect higher readiness.<br />
    24. 24. Probability Impacts Readiness<br />Hazards may have a high severity, but lower probability of occurrence. <br />This is often referred to as risk (severity + probability = risk)<br />Lower probability hazards may have a lower impact on overall readiness indicators for the organization.<br />
    25. 25. A sample Model<br />
    26. 26. Readiness Dimensions - Comms<br />Category Readiness Score (CR): 78.33<br />
    27. 27. Four sample categories of Readiness Dimensions<br /><ul><li>Communications
    28. 28. Pharmacy
    29. 29. Command
    30. 30. Training / Exercise</li></li></ul><li>Hazard Readiness (HR) is equal to the sum of category readiness score (CR) divided by the sum of the category weights (CW)<br />
    31. 31. Total Readiness (TR) is the weighted average of the Hazard Readiness (HR) scores, based on hazard probability<br />
    32. 32.
    33. 33. Readiness Models as Decision Support<br />Models allow disaster planners and managers to formulate ‘what if’ scenarios to determine acquisitions and spending priorities.<br />Models illustrate which hazards, locations, and organizational units needs priority.<br />
    34. 34.
    35. 35.
    36. 36. Future Actions and Research<br />CDRP is building a beta test model of this concept for Florida State University.<br />CDRP has executed a Center of Excellence agreement with Avineon, Inc. to develop process models for their Emergency Management Process Suite.<br />Seeking governmental research partners in Florida to test the concept at the county or city level.<br />
    37. 37. Thank you<br />