In testimony today, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) was highly critical of FEMA's handling of the IPAWS (Integrated Public Alert & Warning System) program to date. Testifying before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, Mark Goldstein of the GAO said of the Emergency Alert System, "EAS is an important alert tool but it exhibits longstanding weaknesses that limit its effectiveness...EAS does not fulfill the need for a reliable, comprehensive alert system."
Specifically, the GAO criticized the program for:
-a lack of redundancy
-gaps in coverage
-a lack of testing and training
-limitations in how alerts are disseminated to the public
-little capability to alert specific geographic areas
-no movement in adoption of new technologies.
Further, FEMA's pilot programs provided little information of value for assessing outcomes and evaluating lessons learned. Transparency and accountability are lacking. And, despite the critical need for collaboration and input from private industry and practitioners, many stakeholders such as state EMAs and telecom vendors know little of the program based on interviews conducted by the GAO.
IMPLICATIONS
In viewing the House testimony today, there appeared to exist both deep frustration and sincere commitment to move the IPAWS program off the dime. Subcommittee Chairwoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) and ranking member Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who are sponsoring IPAWS-related HR 2591 pushed for answers on how and why the program is stalled.
On the hot seat was Damon Penn, FEMA's new Assistant Administrator for National Continuity Programs. Mr. Penn, a former Army colonel, recently accepted his new post, and will be responsible for driving the program forward. Mr. Penn appears to have a reputation for getting things done, so we anticipate movement.
Mr. Penn cited recent success in awarding a contract to establish a Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) test facility at Eastern Kentucky University. He also said he expected CAP protocols to be approved within the next two weeks. He said a statewide test is expected in January 2010 in Alaska, and hopes to have a new, fully operational EAS system by the end of FY 2012.
We believe this time frame is aggressive given the ground that needs to be covered, but we certainly applaud the renewed commitment to move on this important national initiative. Stay tuned for more on this one.
All the best,
-Lorin
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Where are the Notification Market Leaders?
We suspect that whenever the web gets active with buzz about the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), vendors with a solution to offer for the nation's notification challenges knock on the door of FEMA and DHS's Office of Science and Technology (DHS S&T). They likely are anxious to present their solution as the best way to solve the problem. What they may not understand is the fact that the federal government is not looking to buy a national notification solution.
What FEMA's IPAWS office and DHS S&T, along with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), are trying to do is create a framework so that, one day, there will be a truly integrated national alerting system - something much better than the current Emergency Alert System (EAS), restricted to television and radio broadcasts. Creating such a framework has become a long, drawn-out process...for both good and bad reasons.
Even though the feds aren't buying a solution, vendors can participate in development of the framework. Right now, the best way seems to be through an initiative by an organization called OASIS, Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards. Vendors can join OASIS and help create standards that will be established for the integrated federal alert system.
However, a list of committee members represents what we believe is little current market share in the US notification market. Where are the market leaders?
Denis Gusty represents the Department of Homeland Security Office of Science and Technology on the OASIS committee. (He's one of the ones on whose doors vendors often knock.) He told us that even though standards would perhaps limit market share leaders' ability to control the market, "...it's the only way". He said the problem is a simple mathematical one. After all, there's only one federal government and many, many other stakeholders. "The only thing we can do is develop standards that everyone can work from. It does take time, but in the long run, everyone gets what they need. It's a huge challenge, but one we have to accept", said Gusty.
Having spent a good bit of time with market leading vendors as a consultant and manager, I understand the reluctance to jump into the standards game. I've not wanted to go there myself. But, in this case, it makes sense. Although they may not be in the market for a national notification solution, FEMA and DHS can have a significant impact on the market for notification solutions...in part through the grant money they control. What if one day it takes adherence to new notification and alerting standards to obtain grant money for notification systems?
Hmm, I think I have just convinced myself to join OASIS. It would be nice to see more notification vendors, and emergency management professionals there.
All the best,
Rick
What FEMA's IPAWS office and DHS S&T, along with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), are trying to do is create a framework so that, one day, there will be a truly integrated national alerting system - something much better than the current Emergency Alert System (EAS), restricted to television and radio broadcasts. Creating such a framework has become a long, drawn-out process...for both good and bad reasons.
Even though the feds aren't buying a solution, vendors can participate in development of the framework. Right now, the best way seems to be through an initiative by an organization called OASIS, Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards. Vendors can join OASIS and help create standards that will be established for the integrated federal alert system.
However, a list of committee members represents what we believe is little current market share in the US notification market. Where are the market leaders?
Denis Gusty represents the Department of Homeland Security Office of Science and Technology on the OASIS committee. (He's one of the ones on whose doors vendors often knock.) He told us that even though standards would perhaps limit market share leaders' ability to control the market, "...it's the only way". He said the problem is a simple mathematical one. After all, there's only one federal government and many, many other stakeholders. "The only thing we can do is develop standards that everyone can work from. It does take time, but in the long run, everyone gets what they need. It's a huge challenge, but one we have to accept", said Gusty.
Having spent a good bit of time with market leading vendors as a consultant and manager, I understand the reluctance to jump into the standards game. I've not wanted to go there myself. But, in this case, it makes sense. Although they may not be in the market for a national notification solution, FEMA and DHS can have a significant impact on the market for notification solutions...in part through the grant money they control. What if one day it takes adherence to new notification and alerting standards to obtain grant money for notification systems?
Hmm, I think I have just convinced myself to join OASIS. It would be nice to see more notification vendors, and emergency management professionals there.
All the best,
Rick
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Congressman Optimistic about IPAWS Modernization Act
The Congressman who introduced legislation that would modernize the federal warning system tells us he is optimistic the law will pass this session of Congress. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Florida) says he has good support for the bill this year. A similar bill failed to pass last year.
The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Act of 2009 would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to require FEMA to make IPAWS, thus the Emergency Alert System (EAS), more reflective of today's environment. It would expand the federal alerting system so that a messages would be transmitted well-beyond the current EAS delivery mode of radio and television. It would give IPAWS more teeth.
Diaz-Balart told us, "The federal system is still in the fifties while the way people receive their information has changed. The Act would require the system to adapt to multiple technologies and future technologies."
Emergency management professionals and industry will be interested in the most significant difference between the current bill and the past one. It is intended to facilitate collaboration by requiring that an IPAWS Advisory Committee be established. Membership would come from federal, state, and local government including emergency management and emergency responders. The private sector and not-for-profit organizations would also be represented.
This is good. One of the short-comings of IPAWS has been a lack of aggressive collaboration with communities of interest. No real mechanism exists for supporting strong collaboration. The closest would be the OASIS (Organization for Advancement of Structured Information Standards) committee working on standards such as Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) and Emergency Digital Exchange Language (EDXL). (See earlier post.) Congressman Diaz-Balart said, "Clearly, there has not been enough collaboration."
Whether the law passes or not, Congress is taking a visible interest in IPAWS. A Congressional hearing will be held soon (September 30th) on the topic. The General Accounting Office (GAO), the Congressional auditors, have been investigating the IPAWS program. We suspect the report will not be complimentary.
The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Act of 2009 would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to require FEMA to make IPAWS, thus the Emergency Alert System (EAS), more reflective of today's environment. It would expand the federal alerting system so that a messages would be transmitted well-beyond the current EAS delivery mode of radio and television. It would give IPAWS more teeth.
Diaz-Balart told us, "The federal system is still in the fifties while the way people receive their information has changed. The Act would require the system to adapt to multiple technologies and future technologies."
Emergency management professionals and industry will be interested in the most significant difference between the current bill and the past one. It is intended to facilitate collaboration by requiring that an IPAWS Advisory Committee be established. Membership would come from federal, state, and local government including emergency management and emergency responders. The private sector and not-for-profit organizations would also be represented.
This is good. One of the short-comings of IPAWS has been a lack of aggressive collaboration with communities of interest. No real mechanism exists for supporting strong collaboration. The closest would be the OASIS (Organization for Advancement of Structured Information Standards) committee working on standards such as Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) and Emergency Digital Exchange Language (EDXL). (See earlier post.) Congressman Diaz-Balart said, "Clearly, there has not been enough collaboration."
Whether the law passes or not, Congress is taking a visible interest in IPAWS. A Congressional hearing will be held soon (September 30th) on the topic. The General Accounting Office (GAO), the Congressional auditors, have been investigating the IPAWS program. We suspect the report will not be complimentary.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Color-Coded Alert System Creator: "No Regrets"
Mike Byrne was with Fire Department of New York (FDNY) for twenty years, a Captain who held the influential positions of Chief Information Officer and Director of Strategic Planning. In 1999, he left FDNY to take a FEMA job as Division Director, Response and Recovery for the FEMA region that covers New York. Little did he know he would find himself managing federal recovery efforts for a terrorist attack that would take lives of so many of his FDNY comrades.
Mike was called into service by a White House scrambling to figure out how to deal with a terrorist assault on the U.S. The administration was likely attracted by his front line experience coupled with an understanding of technology. He was named senior director of infrastructure management at the new Office of Homeland Security (OHS).
In his new book, "The Test of Our Times", the former head of the former OHS, Tom Ridge, wrote it was Mike who came up with the idea for the color-coded alert system. (I've known Mike for several years and didn't know this until I read Ridge's book - recommended reading, by the way.)
Although the system has been the punchline for many a joke, Mike told us this week that he has "no regrets" about the recommendation. He said it was the right thing to do at the time. "It's hard to remember how the public safety community felt at the time. We genuinely felt we were at war and under attack at home", said Mike. He said a system was needed that would clearly communicate to both public safety professionals and the general public that a different level of diligence was needed at different times.
Mike admitted the system is not perfect, and needs modifications. In fact, he said it was never fully used the way it was conceived. "It was supposed to be sector specific with more geographic impact", he said.
The current administration is considering changing the system, now called The Homeland Security Advisory System. Among other things, the Homeland Security Advisory Council has recommended reducing the number of colors from five to three. Mike thinks reducing the number of levels is appropriate. He said, "One thing I hope they don't do is move away from something that makes it easy to understand which one is bad." He doesn't like the thought of going to a numbered system, too easy to forget which number is bad - 1 or 5, particularly with adrenalin pumping.
Now Senior Vice President of ICF Consulting, Mike is looking ahead at emergency communications. He's becoming quite the maven on use of social media for emergency communications, and looks for opportunities to engage the broad communities of interest in the discussion. (More on that later.)
Oh, by the way, we asked Mike about the controversy that developed over the chapter in Ridge's book we blogged about earlier where Ridge talked about being lobbied to raise the threat level on the eve of the 2004 Presidential election. Mike replied, "What!? Politics in Washington, of course not!" (We think he may have been putting us on.)
All the best,
Rick
Mike was called into service by a White House scrambling to figure out how to deal with a terrorist assault on the U.S. The administration was likely attracted by his front line experience coupled with an understanding of technology. He was named senior director of infrastructure management at the new Office of Homeland Security (OHS).
In his new book, "The Test of Our Times", the former head of the former OHS, Tom Ridge, wrote it was Mike who came up with the idea for the color-coded alert system. (I've known Mike for several years and didn't know this until I read Ridge's book - recommended reading, by the way.)
Although the system has been the punchline for many a joke, Mike told us this week that he has "no regrets" about the recommendation. He said it was the right thing to do at the time. "It's hard to remember how the public safety community felt at the time. We genuinely felt we were at war and under attack at home", said Mike. He said a system was needed that would clearly communicate to both public safety professionals and the general public that a different level of diligence was needed at different times.
Mike admitted the system is not perfect, and needs modifications. In fact, he said it was never fully used the way it was conceived. "It was supposed to be sector specific with more geographic impact", he said.
The current administration is considering changing the system, now called The Homeland Security Advisory System. Among other things, the Homeland Security Advisory Council has recommended reducing the number of colors from five to three. Mike thinks reducing the number of levels is appropriate. He said, "One thing I hope they don't do is move away from something that makes it easy to understand which one is bad." He doesn't like the thought of going to a numbered system, too easy to forget which number is bad - 1 or 5, particularly with adrenalin pumping.
Now Senior Vice President of ICF Consulting, Mike is looking ahead at emergency communications. He's becoming quite the maven on use of social media for emergency communications, and looks for opportunities to engage the broad communities of interest in the discussion. (More on that later.)
Oh, by the way, we asked Mike about the controversy that developed over the chapter in Ridge's book we blogged about earlier where Ridge talked about being lobbied to raise the threat level on the eve of the 2004 Presidential election. Mike replied, "What!? Politics in Washington, of course not!" (We think he may have been putting us on.)
All the best,
Rick
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Showcasing Alerting Standards
The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) has been percolating for several years. Its intent is to provide a standard for emergency notification, alert, and warning messages so that one message can serve all systems. CAP has been slow to catch on. Many notification systems in the field don't support it. Some key vendors don't use it, even though FEMA has endorsed it and a CAP requirement shows up from time-to-time in requests for proposals.
Some industry and government organizations with interests in notifications, alerts, and warnings get together soon to give CAP a nudge. At a summit in Baltimore next week, they'll talk about CAP - even demonstrate how it works. The summit is sponsored by OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards), the group with the lead creating the CAP standard. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Office of Interoperability and Compatability (DHS OIC) is supporting the event.
In addition to CAP, sessions will be held on what's called Emergency Digital Exchange Language (EDXL). EDXL is an "umbrella" standard, designed to facilitate emergency communications beyond notifications, alerts, and warnings.
We applaud the effort. Standards will support the move toward managed system-of-systems to ensure that multi-modal delivery works. Standards generally evolve slowly, and the path to adoption is often difficult. But, it sure seems that this is taking a particularly long time and we don't see CAP and EDXL being embraced aggressively by end-users and key vendors at this point. Perhaps the summit will help a bit, but more whollap is needed to really make the CAP dream a reality.
Some industry and government organizations with interests in notifications, alerts, and warnings get together soon to give CAP a nudge. At a summit in Baltimore next week, they'll talk about CAP - even demonstrate how it works. The summit is sponsored by OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards), the group with the lead creating the CAP standard. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Office of Interoperability and Compatability (DHS OIC) is supporting the event.
In addition to CAP, sessions will be held on what's called Emergency Digital Exchange Language (EDXL). EDXL is an "umbrella" standard, designed to facilitate emergency communications beyond notifications, alerts, and warnings.
We applaud the effort. Standards will support the move toward managed system-of-systems to ensure that multi-modal delivery works. Standards generally evolve slowly, and the path to adoption is often difficult. But, it sure seems that this is taking a particularly long time and we don't see CAP and EDXL being embraced aggressively by end-users and key vendors at this point. Perhaps the summit will help a bit, but more whollap is needed to really make the CAP dream a reality.
Twenty First Century Communications Responds to Techradium Patent Suit
Twenty First Century Communications has responded to an impending patent infringement lawsuit by Sugar Land, TX-based Techradium. Last week, Techradium said it filed patent suits against eleven mass notification companies, including Twenty First Century Communications.
In a press release on Friday, Jim Kennedy, CEO of TFCC stated, ""It appears that Techradium, a small participant in the crowded field of mass notifications, is trying to use litigation to leverage its competitors into licensing its narrow and limited patents...TFCC has serviced clients for more than a decade before that company existed."
Kennedy continued, "For some time, TechRadium has attempted to scare customers away from using the services of its competitors by claiming that their patents cover various mass notification systems...We are confident that TFCC does not infringe any of their patents..."
The press release states TFCC had not yet been served with the lawsuit, though Techradium had issued a press release announcing its intentions.
-Lorin
In a press release on Friday, Jim Kennedy, CEO of TFCC stated, ""It appears that Techradium, a small participant in the crowded field of mass notifications, is trying to use litigation to leverage its competitors into licensing its narrow and limited patents...TFCC has serviced clients for more than a decade before that company existed."
Kennedy continued, "For some time, TechRadium has attempted to scare customers away from using the services of its competitors by claiming that their patents cover various mass notification systems...We are confident that TFCC does not infringe any of their patents..."
The press release states TFCC had not yet been served with the lawsuit, though Techradium had issued a press release announcing its intentions.
-Lorin
Saturday, September 19, 2009
State Plans "Major Kick-Off" of Notification Program
Connecticut officials have realized something that others have overlooked, that it takes quite an effort to make a notification program successful. So, plans are in the works for what a state spokesman calls a "major kick-off". Lieutenant Paul Vance of Connecticut State Police says the state wants the notification program to reach "virtually every adult resident in the state".
Vance says press conferences, public service announcements, and "things of that nature" are being planned to convince the public to sign-up for notifications. He says the state "will use the governor, visuals, all of the agencies...every avenue we can so we can reach out to a broad spectrum." A central messaging theme is being developed, something along the lines of "If you don't sign up, we can't reach you."
About the sign-ups, Vance says, "This is huge." Plus, the state has purchased a telephone database to be used for notifications, regardless of whether a resident has registered. (Despite the theme that Vance says is in the works, some residents can be notified even if they don't sign up.)
Vance admits meeting the goal of reaching virtually every adult resident in the state will not occur quickly. He says, "It's not going to be a one-time project...it will be a continuous process".
Since the system will be available to local officials, standards and Memorandum of Understanding are being developed.
This is not Connecticut's first effort to make notification technology available on a statewide basis. A contract was awarded several years ago that allowed local communities to purchase a particular vendor's product using negotiated pricing. This, however, is the first time the state has purchased the technology and made it available to local communities at no charge.
Connecticut has taken on quite a tall order. Yet it seems to us that state officials are taking a realistic approach. They seem to realize they must roll out the program with a blast, not a whimper. They seem to understand that success will not occur overnight. And, they seem to realize they need help. Local communities and a number of state agencies are being engaged, and the contract with their vendor, Everbridge, includes funds for continuous support for roll-out efforts, beyond technical support.
There will likely be glitches here and there. Hopefully, the state will tweak where necessary and not quietly ease the initiative into the background...as happens often with visible programs of this type. Meantime, good luck Connecticut...and congratulations for your approach.
All the best,
Rick
Vance says press conferences, public service announcements, and "things of that nature" are being planned to convince the public to sign-up for notifications. He says the state "will use the governor, visuals, all of the agencies...every avenue we can so we can reach out to a broad spectrum." A central messaging theme is being developed, something along the lines of "If you don't sign up, we can't reach you."
About the sign-ups, Vance says, "This is huge." Plus, the state has purchased a telephone database to be used for notifications, regardless of whether a resident has registered. (Despite the theme that Vance says is in the works, some residents can be notified even if they don't sign up.)
Vance admits meeting the goal of reaching virtually every adult resident in the state will not occur quickly. He says, "It's not going to be a one-time project...it will be a continuous process".
Since the system will be available to local officials, standards and Memorandum of Understanding are being developed.
This is not Connecticut's first effort to make notification technology available on a statewide basis. A contract was awarded several years ago that allowed local communities to purchase a particular vendor's product using negotiated pricing. This, however, is the first time the state has purchased the technology and made it available to local communities at no charge.
Connecticut has taken on quite a tall order. Yet it seems to us that state officials are taking a realistic approach. They seem to realize they must roll out the program with a blast, not a whimper. They seem to understand that success will not occur overnight. And, they seem to realize they need help. Local communities and a number of state agencies are being engaged, and the contract with their vendor, Everbridge, includes funds for continuous support for roll-out efforts, beyond technical support.
There will likely be glitches here and there. Hopefully, the state will tweak where necessary and not quietly ease the initiative into the background...as happens often with visible programs of this type. Meantime, good luck Connecticut...and congratulations for your approach.
All the best,
Rick
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Notification Companies Sued
We doubt many emergency management professionals had previously heard of TechRadium, which markets a notification technology called IRIS(tm). They will now, not because of new product announcements, but because of new lawsuit announcements. TechRadium has released a press release saying they have sued eleven more companies over patent infringement.
Here's what the company's press release says: "TechRadium develops and sells mass notification systems that allow an originator to send a single message simultaneously and instantaneously to multiple subscribers. The subscriber receives the information through any combination of devices, including telephone, cell phone, fax, wireless systems, alerts and other methods, in multiple languages."
To many, that description of the patent will sound very similar to commonplace technology that has been used for years. TechRadium, however, claims they have a patent on the concept and are casting a wide net. They announced they had sued Twitter(tm) several weeks ago. Now, they've announced they've sued: AtHoc, Inc., BroadBlast, Inc., Edulink Systems, Inc., First Call Network, Inc., GroupCast, LLC, Parlant Technologies, Inc., Reliance Communications, Inc., Saf-T-Net, Inc., SWN Communications, Inc., SwiftReach Networks, Inc., and Twenty-First Century Communications, Inc. TechRadium recently issued another press release saying they had, "reached an agreement with Blackboard Inc. to cross-license several patents and patent applications, allowing each company to continue to provide mass notification technology and services to clients."
We know of some emergency management professionals who were up in arms when the Twitter(tm) lawsuit was filed, some saying they've been using this type of technology for years. We can imagine what will be said about this latest group of lawsuits.
Will there be more?
Here's what the company's press release says: "TechRadium develops and sells mass notification systems that allow an originator to send a single message simultaneously and instantaneously to multiple subscribers. The subscriber receives the information through any combination of devices, including telephone, cell phone, fax, wireless systems, alerts and other methods, in multiple languages."
To many, that description of the patent will sound very similar to commonplace technology that has been used for years. TechRadium, however, claims they have a patent on the concept and are casting a wide net. They announced they had sued Twitter(tm) several weeks ago. Now, they've announced they've sued: AtHoc, Inc., BroadBlast, Inc., Edulink Systems, Inc., First Call Network, Inc., GroupCast, LLC, Parlant Technologies, Inc., Reliance Communications, Inc., Saf-T-Net, Inc., SWN Communications, Inc., SwiftReach Networks, Inc., and Twenty-First Century Communications, Inc. TechRadium recently issued another press release saying they had, "reached an agreement with Blackboard Inc. to cross-license several patents and patent applications, allowing each company to continue to provide mass notification technology and services to clients."
We know of some emergency management professionals who were up in arms when the Twitter(tm) lawsuit was filed, some saying they've been using this type of technology for years. We can imagine what will be said about this latest group of lawsuits.
Will there be more?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Managed Multi-Modal Messaging
Multi-modal is a phrase we're regularly seeing when people write about notifications, alerts, and warnings. It's sinking in that using many types of devices is the best way to make sure more of the right people get a message at the right time, particularly in an emergency.
We're beginning to see another word show up. That's "managed". A managed system is one where bosses have realized that installing technology, conducting training, and maintaining a technical support contract is not enough to ensure success. There needs to be a funded program surrounding the technology, beyond technical support.
Case in point: Connecticut is implementing a statewide notification solution. In the contract with their vendor, they included funding for ongoing support for the vendor to help the state and its various agencies roll-out the program, generate buzz for it, and consistently advertise it, says state spokesman Paul Vance. He says the state is planning a "major roll-out" soon, but plan to manage the effort continuously over a wide span of time...with the vendor's help. (The vendor is Everbridge.)
Meantime, an article recently published by Occupational Safety and Health makes a similar point. As written by a co-founder of Rave Wireless, it includes specific guidance for implementing an effective notification system including:
We're beginning to see another word show up. That's "managed". A managed system is one where bosses have realized that installing technology, conducting training, and maintaining a technical support contract is not enough to ensure success. There needs to be a funded program surrounding the technology, beyond technical support.
Case in point: Connecticut is implementing a statewide notification solution. In the contract with their vendor, they included funding for ongoing support for the vendor to help the state and its various agencies roll-out the program, generate buzz for it, and consistently advertise it, says state spokesman Paul Vance. He says the state is planning a "major roll-out" soon, but plan to manage the effort continuously over a wide span of time...with the vendor's help. (The vendor is Everbridge.)
Meantime, an article recently published by Occupational Safety and Health makes a similar point. As written by a co-founder of Rave Wireless, it includes specific guidance for implementing an effective notification system including:
- define acceptable terms for emergency mass communications
- determine target audience specifics
- consider implementing an inbound notification infrastructure
- establish detailed approved processes
- establish policy for frequency and level of communication
- create message templates
- communicate your communications plans
Although written for private industry, the management suggestions are equally important for government. We could add more suggestions. (See Galain Solutions - Resources.)
Look for the word "managed" to be used more and more when notification programs are mentioned. And, this would probably be a good time to take a good look at your notification program to make sure you've got resources devoted to managing it over time.
All the best,
Rick
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Secrets for Keeping Cell Phones from Sabotaging Your ENS Program
An article on http://www.kesq.com/ last week out of Yucaipa, CA highlighted the ongoing challenge of registering cell phones for emergency notification purposes.
When fire crested a hill in the Yucaipa community, evacuation efforts were said to be "chaotic" due in large part to the significant number of residents using unregistered cell phones. Fire officials resorted to door-to-door methods with little time to spare. "We feel there is a significant number of the public who has not logged their cell phones to the Early Warning Notification System..." said CalFire Chief John Hawkins.
The reporter's interviews indicated two key problems: 1) most people were unaware of the system and the need to register cell phones, and 2) some were hesitant to register for fear of receiving unwanted contact (i.e. spam).
IMPLICATIONS
According to Mediamark Research, Inc. almost one-third of households in the 18 to 24 age range have only cell phones within the home (no land line), and just over 26% of households in the 26 to 34 age range fall into this category. As these statistics and the situation in Yucaipa points out, public safety agencies need to devote time and resources to developing effective public information campaigns surrounding the registration of cell phones.
While the typical PSA on a local radio station may help to some degree, it is likely more effort and greater creativity are required for success. What should you do? Here are just a few ideas for getting the word out:
Brand the Effort
A strong label tied to the cell phone registration campaign (and the ENS program for that matter) will help generate buzz and create a "hook" for consumers. Create a "brand name" for the initiative.
Use Multimedia
Nothing tells a story better than video, and developing a short visual highlight is easy to do with today's technology. Create a video telling your ENS story and providing a call to action. Then post it to your agency's website, or link to http://www.youtube.com/ (make sure you provide the website address in any PSAs or other advertisements).
Get Help from Other Public Agencies
Many public-facing agencies such as the DMV, libraries, and local tax offices provide excellent access points to citizens. Where feasible, solicit help from these organizations in the form of strategically-placed signs and information sheets (be sure and minimize any additional work required by these agencies' employees).
Get Help from Local Businesses
Signs and information sheets in banks and retail stores can be effective (consider targeting stores appealing to the 18-34 demographic). Definitely focus on shops and kiosks where cell phones are sold. A registration table set up in a local supermarket can provide both a place and an "event" for media interviews. You'll create community visibility, and the grocer will love the exposure (by the way, for catching people's attention, nothing beats a fire truck or police cruiser in the parking lot with its lights flashing).
Participate in Local Civic Organizations
Every town typically has a variety of civic organizations, clubs, or churches. Most would be happy to pass along public safety information in meetings, assemblies, or weekly bulletins/newsletters if asked (you might even recruit a member to show the video you created).
Be Clear on Privacy
For any method deployed, be sure your agency's privacy policy is clearly articulated. Reassuring citizens their personal information is confidential and safe will help ease fears about providing private data.
Methods for spreading the word regarding ENS programs and cell phone registrations are limited only by the imagination. While there is no "silver bullet" for getting the word out, a comprehensive public information campaign is critical for any community managing an alerts and warnings program.
Have any stellar ideas or success stories from your community? We'd love to hear from you.
Best,
-Lorin
When fire crested a hill in the Yucaipa community, evacuation efforts were said to be "chaotic" due in large part to the significant number of residents using unregistered cell phones. Fire officials resorted to door-to-door methods with little time to spare. "We feel there is a significant number of the public who has not logged their cell phones to the Early Warning Notification System..." said CalFire Chief John Hawkins.
The reporter's interviews indicated two key problems: 1) most people were unaware of the system and the need to register cell phones, and 2) some were hesitant to register for fear of receiving unwanted contact (i.e. spam).
IMPLICATIONS
According to Mediamark Research, Inc. almost one-third of households in the 18 to 24 age range have only cell phones within the home (no land line), and just over 26% of households in the 26 to 34 age range fall into this category. As these statistics and the situation in Yucaipa points out, public safety agencies need to devote time and resources to developing effective public information campaigns surrounding the registration of cell phones.
While the typical PSA on a local radio station may help to some degree, it is likely more effort and greater creativity are required for success. What should you do? Here are just a few ideas for getting the word out:
Brand the Effort
A strong label tied to the cell phone registration campaign (and the ENS program for that matter) will help generate buzz and create a "hook" for consumers. Create a "brand name" for the initiative.
Use Multimedia
Nothing tells a story better than video, and developing a short visual highlight is easy to do with today's technology. Create a video telling your ENS story and providing a call to action. Then post it to your agency's website, or link to http://www.youtube.com/ (make sure you provide the website address in any PSAs or other advertisements).
Get Help from Other Public Agencies
Many public-facing agencies such as the DMV, libraries, and local tax offices provide excellent access points to citizens. Where feasible, solicit help from these organizations in the form of strategically-placed signs and information sheets (be sure and minimize any additional work required by these agencies' employees).
Get Help from Local Businesses
Signs and information sheets in banks and retail stores can be effective (consider targeting stores appealing to the 18-34 demographic). Definitely focus on shops and kiosks where cell phones are sold. A registration table set up in a local supermarket can provide both a place and an "event" for media interviews. You'll create community visibility, and the grocer will love the exposure (by the way, for catching people's attention, nothing beats a fire truck or police cruiser in the parking lot with its lights flashing).
Participate in Local Civic Organizations
Every town typically has a variety of civic organizations, clubs, or churches. Most would be happy to pass along public safety information in meetings, assemblies, or weekly bulletins/newsletters if asked (you might even recruit a member to show the video you created).
Be Clear on Privacy
For any method deployed, be sure your agency's privacy policy is clearly articulated. Reassuring citizens their personal information is confidential and safe will help ease fears about providing private data.
Methods for spreading the word regarding ENS programs and cell phone registrations are limited only by the imagination. While there is no "silver bullet" for getting the word out, a comprehensive public information campaign is critical for any community managing an alerts and warnings program.
Have any stellar ideas or success stories from your community? We'd love to hear from you.
Best,
-Lorin
Friday, September 4, 2009
Mass Notification Redefined
Different thoughts come to mind when the term "mass notification systems" is used. Many in emergency management think of automated telephone dial-out systems, broadcast or sirens - systems to notify the public or first responders. To those in the building and fire industry, mass notification has a different meaning. To them, mass notification is a system used in a building to provide information and instructions like loudspeakers and flashing lights.
Changes are being made that could converge how emergency management and the National Fire Alarm Code define "mass notification".
For years, the official fire code established by Annex E of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72, National Fire Alarm Code has been defining Mass Notification Systems (MNS) as "system used to provide information and instructions to people in a building, area site or other space using intelligible voice communications, visible signals, text, graphics, tactile or other communications methods."
NFPA is re-writing this section of the fire code. What's now Mass Notification Systems will be called "Emergency Communications Systems (ECS)". The definition is being expanded to include "wide-area" and "distributed recipient notification" in addition to building notifications. Wide area would be the area surrounding a building (i.e. a college campus). Distributed recipient notification would be "expanded beyond the facility and the area, to be accomplished through means such as telephone calls, text messaging, and emails". Sound familiar?
The change has just been approved, so it may not mean much to emergency management at this time. However, it could easily have an impact as news of the change spreads. One possibility relates to industry. How aggressive will large fire alarm vendors be about offering "wide area" and "distributed recipient" notifications? The answer could be important, particularly considering the fact that the fire alarm business is much larger than the notification and alerting business. Will this make more options available to emergency management?
One thing for sure, the change indicates momentum for a different way of looking at notifications. It's more of a "system of systems" approach where different communication modes are working together as one to accomplish a number of things. And, don't under-estimate the power of the fire code to impact change. It's omnipresent and this change will get attention.
All the best,
Rick
Changes are being made that could converge how emergency management and the National Fire Alarm Code define "mass notification".
For years, the official fire code established by Annex E of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72, National Fire Alarm Code has been defining Mass Notification Systems (MNS) as "system used to provide information and instructions to people in a building, area site or other space using intelligible voice communications, visible signals, text, graphics, tactile or other communications methods."
NFPA is re-writing this section of the fire code. What's now Mass Notification Systems will be called "Emergency Communications Systems (ECS)". The definition is being expanded to include "wide-area" and "distributed recipient notification" in addition to building notifications. Wide area would be the area surrounding a building (i.e. a college campus). Distributed recipient notification would be "expanded beyond the facility and the area, to be accomplished through means such as telephone calls, text messaging, and emails". Sound familiar?
The change has just been approved, so it may not mean much to emergency management at this time. However, it could easily have an impact as news of the change spreads. One possibility relates to industry. How aggressive will large fire alarm vendors be about offering "wide area" and "distributed recipient" notifications? The answer could be important, particularly considering the fact that the fire alarm business is much larger than the notification and alerting business. Will this make more options available to emergency management?
One thing for sure, the change indicates momentum for a different way of looking at notifications. It's more of a "system of systems" approach where different communication modes are working together as one to accomplish a number of things. And, don't under-estimate the power of the fire code to impact change. It's omnipresent and this change will get attention.
All the best,
Rick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)