Lorin and I recently spent several days at the conference of the Urban Area Securities Initiative (UASI), the consortiums of public safety officials in large metropolitan areas. We had a chance to talk to quite a few emergency managers about quite a few things. Invariably, the conversations would turn to notifications, alerts, and warnings. Here's a bit of what we were hearing:
- The challenge of getting telephone numbers for residents continues to hamper phone alerting efforts. News about the upcoming Commercial Mobile Alert System (C-MAS) was welcomed (particularly when they heard the price). (See our post on CMAS here.)
- Text messages sent in volume don't seem to be getting to their intended recipients fast enough. The emergency managers who mentioned this topic seemed to welcome knowing of the distinction between most text delivery messages systems and ones that have special relationships with carriers for priority messaging.
- Digitization of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) seemed welcomed, but many weren't aware of the timetable for implementation. Per our post here, the clock starts ticking soon for broadcasters to upgrade their EAS equipment.
- Consolidation of data was mentioned often, as it related to alerts and notifications and otherwise. Over the years, UASIs and their members have purchased a lot of systems, including notification systems. The systems don't always work together, and the UASIs are looking for solutions. (We heard this a lot, a good thing since we were there on behalf of a systems integrator client.)
- Most we spoke with were generally aware of the federal Integrated Public Alert Warning System (IPAWS). (At least they knew what it was when reminded what the IPAWS initials stand for.) However, most we spoke with on this topic didn't have a good handle on what it means to them.
Of course, these comments came in random conversations…not a real study.
The UASI conference was a particularly strong one, not only for UASI conferences, but compared to the many other conferences we've attended. Program content was excellent. Logistics and accommodations worked well. It was good to be back in New Orleans. The food was superb. So were the people.
We had a chance to visit with our fellow Emergency Management magazine blogger Eric Holdeman, who I noticed scooped us on the UASI report. If you don't follow Eric's blog, Disaster Zone, you should. He posts often, and always has good content. A nice visit, too, with Marty Pastula, the vice president over Emergency Management magazine. He and his crew continue to do an excellent job, recognized by, not only people in the emergency management field, but his publishing peers. Marty is a true pro, and a wonderful person. We're proud to be associated with him.
All the best,
Rick
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Shoulds Alerts and Warnings Vendors be Threatened by IPAWS
With FEMA under Presidential Executive Order to develop an "effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people", private companies active in the space must be asking, "Hey, will that put me out of business?" Others are asking, "Hmm, I wonder if I can sell FEMA something?" These are a pretty good questions considering the Executive Order takes FEMA beyond its historical responsibility of Presidential alerting only.
Well, the answer to both questions is probably "No".
Although FEMA intends to help stand up a modernized, comprehensive national alerting system through their IPAWS (Integrated Public Alert and Warning System) program, they're really planning to build a framework for others to hook in to...which can include private companies. The head of FEMA's National Continuity Programs Directorate, Damon Penn, likens IPAWS to the iPhone. Vendors will be able to build IPAWS apps, just like vendors build iPhone apps.
Of course, there will be rules to follow, just as there are rules for developing iPhone apps. In the IPAWS case, many of those rules have yet to be developed. The most mature rules are the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) and technical specifications for the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS). The latest version of CAP is expected to be approved by FEMA in the coming months. Once that happens, participants in the Emergency Alert System (EAS), mostly broadcasters, will need to update their equipment so it will work through IPAWS. Meantime, cable carriers are using the approved technical specifications to equip mobile devices to handle cell broadcast alerts through IPAWS.
Vendors who supply other types of alerts and warnings (land line telephone, sirens, texting, email, radio, network, etc) can follow the same path. Same is true of vendors involved with emerging means of alerting and warning (i.e. social media). They can also "build apps" for hooking into IPAWS.
So, no, IPAWS shouldn't put alert and warning vendors out of business. In fact, IPAWS could represent a market opportunity for vendors to shine and deliver value to customers. They'll need to pay attention, get engaged in the process, and follow the rules.
All the best,
Rick
Well, the answer to both questions is probably "No".
Although FEMA intends to help stand up a modernized, comprehensive national alerting system through their IPAWS (Integrated Public Alert and Warning System) program, they're really planning to build a framework for others to hook in to...which can include private companies. The head of FEMA's National Continuity Programs Directorate, Damon Penn, likens IPAWS to the iPhone. Vendors will be able to build IPAWS apps, just like vendors build iPhone apps.
Of course, there will be rules to follow, just as there are rules for developing iPhone apps. In the IPAWS case, many of those rules have yet to be developed. The most mature rules are the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) and technical specifications for the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS). The latest version of CAP is expected to be approved by FEMA in the coming months. Once that happens, participants in the Emergency Alert System (EAS), mostly broadcasters, will need to update their equipment so it will work through IPAWS. Meantime, cable carriers are using the approved technical specifications to equip mobile devices to handle cell broadcast alerts through IPAWS.
Vendors who supply other types of alerts and warnings (land line telephone, sirens, texting, email, radio, network, etc) can follow the same path. Same is true of vendors involved with emerging means of alerting and warning (i.e. social media). They can also "build apps" for hooking into IPAWS.
So, no, IPAWS shouldn't put alert and warning vendors out of business. In fact, IPAWS could represent a market opportunity for vendors to shine and deliver value to customers. They'll need to pay attention, get engaged in the process, and follow the rules.
All the best,
Rick
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Way to go Comcast!
No, we're not being facetious. Hats off to Comcast for comments about an alert recently made in Utah. Witnesses reported they saw two men pick up an eight-year-old girl in West Valley City near Salt Lake City. Others corrobulated the reports. An Amber Alert was issued.
As it turns out, it was a false alarm. So, some residents were aggitated, particularly those who were watching the NBA Finals on Comcast. The game broadcast had been interupted several times, including during the crucial final minutes.
About the complaints Comcast said, in effect, "tough!" (my word, not theirs). KSL-TV quoted Comcast spokesman Ray Child as saying, "[We] completely understand that it's an inconvenience to our customers. A child's safety is potentially at risk; it's worth the inconvenience". Way to go, Ray!
Of course, local police were criticized, too. But, they said they followed procedure for authorizing an Amber Alert - one of the criteria being reports that a child had been abducted.
There are always people who're going to complain about alert interruptions (although surely they're in the minority). Good for Comcast and local police for publically sticking up for something that could have been important to an eight-year-old's safety.
All the best,
Rick
As it turns out, it was a false alarm. So, some residents were aggitated, particularly those who were watching the NBA Finals on Comcast. The game broadcast had been interupted several times, including during the crucial final minutes.
About the complaints Comcast said, in effect, "tough!" (my word, not theirs). KSL-TV quoted Comcast spokesman Ray Child as saying, "[We] completely understand that it's an inconvenience to our customers. A child's safety is potentially at risk; it's worth the inconvenience". Way to go, Ray!
Of course, local police were criticized, too. But, they said they followed procedure for authorizing an Amber Alert - one of the criteria being reports that a child had been abducted.
There are always people who're going to complain about alert interruptions (although surely they're in the minority). Good for Comcast and local police for publically sticking up for something that could have been important to an eight-year-old's safety.
All the best,
Rick
Monday, June 21, 2010
Emergency Alerting Problem in Bay Area
A plume of smoke released by a refinery near San Francisco caused a bit of stir recently, not because of danger, but because it pointed out a failing of the local emergency notification system.
According to the Mercury News, the plume release was intentional and not dangerous. Not aware, the local fire chief activated local emergency alerting procedures. The mis-alert was caught within an hour, and an all-clear was issued. Not a big deal, you may think.
Here's the problem: one of the key components of the alerting system in Benicia, CA didn't work. The local public information radio station should have broadcast the alert, but it didn't. The Mercury News said that confused local residents. They heard sirens, but didn't know what they were about. When they tuned to 1610AM, as they normally would, they got no infomation.
Since there was really no threat, this represents a good opportunity for the community to take a look at their alerting programs, which we're sure they're doing. While they're figuring out what to do locally, we can take a few lessons:
- Residents will want to confirm why they're hearing sirens blaring.
- No single means of communications covers all.
- Test, test, test.
- When something goes wrong, it very likely will be in the news.
All the best, and good luck Benicia.
Rick
According to the Mercury News, the plume release was intentional and not dangerous. Not aware, the local fire chief activated local emergency alerting procedures. The mis-alert was caught within an hour, and an all-clear was issued. Not a big deal, you may think.
Here's the problem: one of the key components of the alerting system in Benicia, CA didn't work. The local public information radio station should have broadcast the alert, but it didn't. The Mercury News said that confused local residents. They heard sirens, but didn't know what they were about. When they tuned to 1610AM, as they normally would, they got no infomation.
Since there was really no threat, this represents a good opportunity for the community to take a look at their alerting programs, which we're sure they're doing. While they're figuring out what to do locally, we can take a few lessons:
- Residents will want to confirm why they're hearing sirens blaring.
- No single means of communications covers all.
- Test, test, test.
- When something goes wrong, it very likely will be in the news.
All the best, and good luck Benicia.
Rick
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Sirens Win Weather Channel Poll
OK, it's not scientific and the sampling size is small, but it's interesting that sirens won the vote when the Weather Channel's question of the day recently asked, "If there was a tornado warning in your area, would you rather have a siren or telephone call alert you of the danger?" 22 respondents voted for sirens and six voted for telephone calls.
What's perhaps even more interesting is the "write-in" vote. Although the Weather Channel didn't make this a vote option, 17 people sounded off that they wanted both a siren and telephone call to alert them. You can find a link to the Weather Channel poll conducted through Facebook here.
One of the interesting things about the poll was the passion with which opinions were expressed. One respondent would adamantly state telephone call, and the next would state siren...both with good reason.
The bottom line is nothing new, different people prefer different alert methods. If you're going to alert people in a critical event, you must use multiple modes. If you don't believe it, just ask Weather Channel viewers.
All the best,
Rick
What's perhaps even more interesting is the "write-in" vote. Although the Weather Channel didn't make this a vote option, 17 people sounded off that they wanted both a siren and telephone call to alert them. You can find a link to the Weather Channel poll conducted through Facebook here.
One of the interesting things about the poll was the passion with which opinions were expressed. One respondent would adamantly state telephone call, and the next would state siren...both with good reason.
The bottom line is nothing new, different people prefer different alert methods. If you're going to alert people in a critical event, you must use multiple modes. If you don't believe it, just ask Weather Channel viewers.
All the best,
Rick
Emergency Alert System Checkpoint
There's a good bit swirling around these days on the Emergency Alert System (EAS). A recent workshop provided a nice forum for airing some of the issues and concerns.
Some of the most vocal concerns came from broadcasters attending the FEMA-FCC EAS workshop recently. The broadcasters generally accept the fact they need to replace their EAS equipment with digital equipment that facilitates the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), the single language for transmitting messages. However, they don't like the time pressure. When the latest version of CAP is approved and authorized in the next couple of months or so, they'll have 180-days to replace their equipment.
Kelly Williams of the National Association of Broadcasters told workshop participants that 180 days is not enough time for 30,000 EAS participants to get equipment in place, particularly when there are only eight manufacturers. And, these manufacturers can't start selling until they are certified for CAP compliance by a FEMA laboratory. The laboratory says it's ready to start certifying, just waiting for the green light. Broadcasters say, still, not enough time.
A couple of people at the workshop also said the short window is going to make it tough to train people, both broadcasters and message originators, on how to use the new technology.
Good questions came from Henry Black of the Maryland Emergency Management Agency. He was most concerned about the practical and operational aspects, like training, messaging, and the ever-important question about authority to activate. Who's going to have it? This will be even more important when the IPAWS program launches add-ons to EAS such a cellular broadcast alerting. (Yes, it's coming.)
Meantime, work is underway for a national exercise of the EAS system, something that's never been done before. FEMA and the FCC are shooting for some time in the first half of 2011 for the test. Antwane Johnson, Director of the IPAWS (Integrated Public Alert and Warning System) program for FEMA, told the workshop that outreach will be a big part of the test effort. Not only will operators need to know what to do, the public will need to know what not to do. Imagine the panic that could develop when an EAS message, much stronger than the monthly tests people are accustomed to (and probably immune to), is issued across the country. Local public safety officials will need to pitch in to make sure their communities know about the test.
Look for a good bit of dialogue in the coming months on Henry's questions and the nationwide EAS exercise. IPAWS can be an important element of public safety, and if you get a chance, make your opinions known about how it should work.
All the best,
Rick
Some of the most vocal concerns came from broadcasters attending the FEMA-FCC EAS workshop recently. The broadcasters generally accept the fact they need to replace their EAS equipment with digital equipment that facilitates the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), the single language for transmitting messages. However, they don't like the time pressure. When the latest version of CAP is approved and authorized in the next couple of months or so, they'll have 180-days to replace their equipment.
Kelly Williams of the National Association of Broadcasters told workshop participants that 180 days is not enough time for 30,000 EAS participants to get equipment in place, particularly when there are only eight manufacturers. And, these manufacturers can't start selling until they are certified for CAP compliance by a FEMA laboratory. The laboratory says it's ready to start certifying, just waiting for the green light. Broadcasters say, still, not enough time.
A couple of people at the workshop also said the short window is going to make it tough to train people, both broadcasters and message originators, on how to use the new technology.
Good questions came from Henry Black of the Maryland Emergency Management Agency. He was most concerned about the practical and operational aspects, like training, messaging, and the ever-important question about authority to activate. Who's going to have it? This will be even more important when the IPAWS program launches add-ons to EAS such a cellular broadcast alerting. (Yes, it's coming.)
Meantime, work is underway for a national exercise of the EAS system, something that's never been done before. FEMA and the FCC are shooting for some time in the first half of 2011 for the test. Antwane Johnson, Director of the IPAWS (Integrated Public Alert and Warning System) program for FEMA, told the workshop that outreach will be a big part of the test effort. Not only will operators need to know what to do, the public will need to know what not to do. Imagine the panic that could develop when an EAS message, much stronger than the monthly tests people are accustomed to (and probably immune to), is issued across the country. Local public safety officials will need to pitch in to make sure their communities know about the test.
Look for a good bit of dialogue in the coming months on Henry's questions and the nationwide EAS exercise. IPAWS can be an important element of public safety, and if you get a chance, make your opinions known about how it should work.
All the best,
Rick
Monday, June 14, 2010
Should ENS be Used Only in Emergencies?
Should "emergency" notification systems be used only in actual emergencies?
It appears there are differing opinions on this issue among ENS managers across the country. In a recent nationwide study we conducted of more than 400 notification system decision-makers, 58% said they use their systems for "emergency situations only" while 42% said they use it for "emergency, urgent, and non-emergency situations equally." Clearly, two camps exist with regards to appropriate ENS usage.
For those in the "emergency only" camp, there is often a fear by managers that frequent use will desensitize citizens to alerts. If the public receives regular, routine messages through the notification system, according to the theory, people may ignore alerts when a real crisis exists. Also, the E911 data used to populate these systems may not legally be applicable for non-emergency situations--another possible factor.
For those in the "emergency and non-emergency" camp, there is a belief that more liberal use provides citizens with greater familiarity and deeper comfort in interacting with the system. It also serves as a highly visible connection point between citizens and first responder agencies, creating a sense of community involvement and trust.
I suppose we lean toward the latter camp. In all our years of involvement in ENS, the most memorable and innovative notification programs tended toward a greater frequency of use. In these agencies, systems and procedures are exercised regularly and users are often better trained. This leads to greater confidence and fewer mistakes. Further, citizens appreciate the system, feeling local public safety agencies are proactive and "on the ball."
There is one caveat here, however. As a citizen, I don't mind receiving frequent communications as long as the information is highly relevant to me. Flooding me with frivolous or poorly targeted information will annoy and frustrate me (I don't really want to hear about the citizen watch meeting being held in a community on the other side of the county). So, even though we support using ENS for non-emergency purposes, we recommend these alerts be well targeted and highly relevant.
What do you think? We'd love to hear from you on this topic no matter your philosophical leanings.
All the best,
Lorin
For a copy of a white paper highlighting results from this study funded by Blackboard Connect, click here.
It appears there are differing opinions on this issue among ENS managers across the country. In a recent nationwide study we conducted of more than 400 notification system decision-makers, 58% said they use their systems for "emergency situations only" while 42% said they use it for "emergency, urgent, and non-emergency situations equally." Clearly, two camps exist with regards to appropriate ENS usage.
For those in the "emergency only" camp, there is often a fear by managers that frequent use will desensitize citizens to alerts. If the public receives regular, routine messages through the notification system, according to the theory, people may ignore alerts when a real crisis exists. Also, the E911 data used to populate these systems may not legally be applicable for non-emergency situations--another possible factor.
For those in the "emergency and non-emergency" camp, there is a belief that more liberal use provides citizens with greater familiarity and deeper comfort in interacting with the system. It also serves as a highly visible connection point between citizens and first responder agencies, creating a sense of community involvement and trust.
I suppose we lean toward the latter camp. In all our years of involvement in ENS, the most memorable and innovative notification programs tended toward a greater frequency of use. In these agencies, systems and procedures are exercised regularly and users are often better trained. This leads to greater confidence and fewer mistakes. Further, citizens appreciate the system, feeling local public safety agencies are proactive and "on the ball."
There is one caveat here, however. As a citizen, I don't mind receiving frequent communications as long as the information is highly relevant to me. Flooding me with frivolous or poorly targeted information will annoy and frustrate me (I don't really want to hear about the citizen watch meeting being held in a community on the other side of the county). So, even though we support using ENS for non-emergency purposes, we recommend these alerts be well targeted and highly relevant.
What do you think? We'd love to hear from you on this topic no matter your philosophical leanings.
All the best,
Lorin
For a copy of a white paper highlighting results from this study funded by Blackboard Connect, click here.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Out of the Box Emergency Notification
With expectations rising over how alerting and warning systems perform, need also rises to think "out of the box". Consider "the box" a notification product, a solution that performs alerts, warnings, and notifications through one or more communications modes - say telephones, texting, sirens, broadcast, social media, internal networks, digital signage, or whatever. These products normally do a fine job of their intended purpose. However, that's often not enough these days to make sure the right people get the right information at the right time.
What if you think out of the box and link these systems to other systems? No genius required to figure out how these products would work better if they are connected to other products, say, an incident management tool. If you've operated an alerting product, particularly while a critical event was unfolding, you've likely thought, "Wouldn't it be nice if...?" While it's pretty easy to see how these links would make a big difference, there are challenges to making the connections really happen.
Enter the systems integrator. This is a company that knows how to take disparate systems and make them work together. There are special skills involved, and particular processes to follow. The process begins by developing a real understanding of the problems to be solved. Then, technical expertise comes into play for design. Design includes a number of elements including architecture, functionality, speed, usability, data management, and evolving technology. Then, the systems integrator starts building the box outside the box.
Beyond the technical challenge, there's the ever-present cost challenge. The cost of systems integration can range from being ridiculously inexpensive for value returned to being ridiculously expensive. Among contributing factors is whether the product ("the box") was built to accommodate links. Before buying, it's a good idea to ask a vendor if their product has an API. That's an "application program interface", a fancy name for saying the vendor has made the keys available to gettting data into and out of their product. A good systems integrator can work around a product that has no API, but having one helps.
The key is to think out of the box. Don't think it can't be done because it hasn't been done...even if the vendor who sold it to you doesn't know how to do it. Making and selling products is one discipline. Integrating products is another. We've not seen a lot of examples of companies doing both well.
So, don't complain about the limitations and think, "Wouldn't it be nice...?". Get someone who can help you. Find out what the real cost and return will be. Qualified systems integrators are out there, and if you can't find them, we know some good ones.
You may be surprised at how easy it is to make a strong business case and receive funding for a systems integration project.
All the best,
Rick
(You can request a copy of our guidance for writing good business cases at info@galainsolutions.com.)
What if you think out of the box and link these systems to other systems? No genius required to figure out how these products would work better if they are connected to other products, say, an incident management tool. If you've operated an alerting product, particularly while a critical event was unfolding, you've likely thought, "Wouldn't it be nice if...?" While it's pretty easy to see how these links would make a big difference, there are challenges to making the connections really happen.
Enter the systems integrator. This is a company that knows how to take disparate systems and make them work together. There are special skills involved, and particular processes to follow. The process begins by developing a real understanding of the problems to be solved. Then, technical expertise comes into play for design. Design includes a number of elements including architecture, functionality, speed, usability, data management, and evolving technology. Then, the systems integrator starts building the box outside the box.
Beyond the technical challenge, there's the ever-present cost challenge. The cost of systems integration can range from being ridiculously inexpensive for value returned to being ridiculously expensive. Among contributing factors is whether the product ("the box") was built to accommodate links. Before buying, it's a good idea to ask a vendor if their product has an API. That's an "application program interface", a fancy name for saying the vendor has made the keys available to gettting data into and out of their product. A good systems integrator can work around a product that has no API, but having one helps.
The key is to think out of the box. Don't think it can't be done because it hasn't been done...even if the vendor who sold it to you doesn't know how to do it. Making and selling products is one discipline. Integrating products is another. We've not seen a lot of examples of companies doing both well.
So, don't complain about the limitations and think, "Wouldn't it be nice...?". Get someone who can help you. Find out what the real cost and return will be. Qualified systems integrators are out there, and if you can't find them, we know some good ones.
You may be surprised at how easy it is to make a strong business case and receive funding for a systems integration project.
All the best,
Rick
(You can request a copy of our guidance for writing good business cases at info@galainsolutions.com.)
Monday, June 7, 2010
Deadline for Signing up for Federal Alerting Workshop
Tomorrow (Tuesday, June 8th) is the deadline for signing up for a FEMA/FCC-sponsored workshop on the myriad of things working toward a more modern national alerting system. They'll talk about the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), the coming national cell alerting program, a new digitized Emergency Alert System (EAS), and of course, the ever-popular Common Alerting Protocol (CAP).
Emergency managers and other public safety officials should be interested. The workshop will be held in DC Thursday, June 10th. (You can register at here.) If you can't be there, you can listen in by going to another FCC web site. (No registration necessary for just listening.) Or, you can learn more about the workshop, and the initiative as a whole, through a blog post by Lisa Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the FCC.
A couple of panel sessions will be held:
- The Path to Next Generation Alerting
- Leveraging Broadband to Truly Effect Public Alerting and Warning
Both, rather interesting topics.
There's a lot going on in the arena of notifications and alerts, perhaps more than many people realize. This would be a good way to help get up to speed.
All the best,
Rick
Emergency managers and other public safety officials should be interested. The workshop will be held in DC Thursday, June 10th. (You can register at here.) If you can't be there, you can listen in by going to another FCC web site. (No registration necessary for just listening.) Or, you can learn more about the workshop, and the initiative as a whole, through a blog post by Lisa Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the FCC.
A couple of panel sessions will be held:
- The Path to Next Generation Alerting
- Leveraging Broadband to Truly Effect Public Alerting and Warning
Both, rather interesting topics.
There's a lot going on in the arena of notifications and alerts, perhaps more than many people realize. This would be a good way to help get up to speed.
All the best,
Rick
Saturday, June 5, 2010
A Check Point for Our 2010 Top 10 Predictions
We continue to be amazed (and pleased) with the response to our first-of-the-year post where we made 10 predictions for alerts and notifications for 2010. The post continues to be viewed often. So, as we approach the mid-year point, we thought we ought to check ourselves to see how we're doing. So far, pretty good...although we probably need to keep our day jobs and not become fortune tellers (or stock traders). Here's our report card:
1. "Move from proprietary, stand-alone systems to highly-integrated systems." The concept is catching on. More people embrace it. A good example is the City of Philadelphia recently winning an award for their integrated notification solution. The award was The Emergency Management Digital Distinction Award given by Center for Digital Government and Emergency Management magazine.
2. "Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) will continue to take hold." We wouldn't say CAP has taken hold yet, but certainly awareness is growing. Anticipated approval soon by FEMA of CAP version 1.2 will help, as well as first of tests conducted by the new laboratory stood up to test vendor products for compliance. (See our post, "Common Alerting Protocol Seal of Approval".)
3. "IPAWS will become more visible." If emergency management and public safety officials don't know about FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, it's not because IPAWS isn't trying. IPAWS representatives are showing up regularly at trade shows and other events to explain their vision and plans for an enhanced national alerting system.
4. "New industry leaders will begin to emerge." No real evidence to support this prediction. However, while helping a state agency build a short list of potential notification vendors, we were impressed with some of the demos we saw - including from a couple of companies we didn't know before. We'd still, however, like to see more impressive new concepts announced by industry.
5. "A highly-visible failure will occur." We're glad we haven't been right about this one...so far. Unfortunately, we're confident this prediction will come true...sooner or later.
6. "Growth in the use of social media for alerts and warnings." Since the first of the year, we've seen a number of communities announce plans to start posting emergency information on social media.
7. "Further commoditization of notifications including 'free services'". At least we figured out what makes one of the more visible of the "free services" tick. Well, perhaps we didn't figure it out. They told us. See our post, "Solving the Mystery of Nixle".
8. "More procurements for independent help." We've seen a few. For example, one capital city county we're aware of has notified a consulting company that they've been awarded a contract to analyze the county's mix of notification systems and make recommendations. (Full disclosure: our company, Galain, is a sub-contractor on the project.) Others are brewing.
9. "More patent lawsuits." We may have been wrong on this one. As far as we know, none has been filed beyond ones we reported on last year.
10. "Other large-scale systems announced." With funds so tight, few new initiatives have been announced. But, we know first-hand of several initiatives developing in large cities and states.
So, we'll give ourselves a B, maybe B-, for our mid-year report card. If we've been too kind in our self-evaluation, let us know.
By the way, this represents our 100th post for Emergency Management magazine. We're most appreciative of this opportunity. We're also pleased that this forum has helped our understanding of what's going on. In addition to making us stop and think for a few minutes here and there, we're given good feedback from the people who follow the blog. We thank you!
All the best,
Rick
1. "Move from proprietary, stand-alone systems to highly-integrated systems." The concept is catching on. More people embrace it. A good example is the City of Philadelphia recently winning an award for their integrated notification solution. The award was The Emergency Management Digital Distinction Award given by Center for Digital Government and Emergency Management magazine.
2. "Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) will continue to take hold." We wouldn't say CAP has taken hold yet, but certainly awareness is growing. Anticipated approval soon by FEMA of CAP version 1.2 will help, as well as first of tests conducted by the new laboratory stood up to test vendor products for compliance. (See our post, "Common Alerting Protocol Seal of Approval".)
3. "IPAWS will become more visible." If emergency management and public safety officials don't know about FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, it's not because IPAWS isn't trying. IPAWS representatives are showing up regularly at trade shows and other events to explain their vision and plans for an enhanced national alerting system.
4. "New industry leaders will begin to emerge." No real evidence to support this prediction. However, while helping a state agency build a short list of potential notification vendors, we were impressed with some of the demos we saw - including from a couple of companies we didn't know before. We'd still, however, like to see more impressive new concepts announced by industry.
5. "A highly-visible failure will occur." We're glad we haven't been right about this one...so far. Unfortunately, we're confident this prediction will come true...sooner or later.
6. "Growth in the use of social media for alerts and warnings." Since the first of the year, we've seen a number of communities announce plans to start posting emergency information on social media.
7. "Further commoditization of notifications including 'free services'". At least we figured out what makes one of the more visible of the "free services" tick. Well, perhaps we didn't figure it out. They told us. See our post, "Solving the Mystery of Nixle".
8. "More procurements for independent help." We've seen a few. For example, one capital city county we're aware of has notified a consulting company that they've been awarded a contract to analyze the county's mix of notification systems and make recommendations. (Full disclosure: our company, Galain, is a sub-contractor on the project.) Others are brewing.
9. "More patent lawsuits." We may have been wrong on this one. As far as we know, none has been filed beyond ones we reported on last year.
10. "Other large-scale systems announced." With funds so tight, few new initiatives have been announced. But, we know first-hand of several initiatives developing in large cities and states.
So, we'll give ourselves a B, maybe B-, for our mid-year report card. If we've been too kind in our self-evaluation, let us know.
By the way, this represents our 100th post for Emergency Management magazine. We're most appreciative of this opportunity. We're also pleased that this forum has helped our understanding of what's going on. In addition to making us stop and think for a few minutes here and there, we're given good feedback from the people who follow the blog. We thank you!
All the best,
Rick
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Accurate GIS Data for Emergency Notifications
In the next few years, it's highly likely that local emergency managers and other public safety officials will be able to activate a cell broadcast that will deliver emergency notifications to many cell phones in the area. The new capability will come through the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) being developed by FEMA, the FCC, and cell carriers. (See our recent posts here and here.) Projected launch: 2012.
Meantime, successful telephone alerts and notifications are reliant upon collecting good telephone data...emphasis on the "good". There's a wide range of collection efforts beginning with simply buying a "phone book" database to a "managed" approach. The best managed approaches we've seen involve "9-1-1" data supplemented by phone book data supplemented by citizen registrations supplemented by a process that regularly updates data from multiple sources.
A new white paper from InfoCode shows a significant disparity between the phone book data and, well, reality...not only through missing numbers, but in accuracy of info used to associate numbers with proper points on a map. The company conducted a sampling of several areas, and found phone book numbers were plotted 3, even 5, miles from their real location. (Not good in an emergency.) This occurred in 10% of their samples. Then, of course, there's a significant number of numbers that don't show up in the phone books...even before you take into consideration cell numbers that don't show up anywhere. The InfoCode white paper can be found here. (In the interest of full disclosure, we advised InfoCode on the paper.)
There are many telephone notification systems across the country that use phone book data only, and no doubt, this is better than nothing. But, as the public expects more information faster, phone book data alone just won't cut it anymore. There are certainly steps that can be taken to get much better notification data. Most importantly, it takes an organization willing to make the investment of resources to do it right.
It's kind of like Lorin's recent post on public outreach (Doing it Right: Engaging Citizens in a Notification Program), and our repeated posts on a systems-of-systems approach. This is not simple stuff. Being prepared to notify and alert the public is no small undertaking, and getting more complex every day. Let's understand the complexities, educate the people with the purse-strings, and address the complexities head on.
All the best,
Rick
Meantime, successful telephone alerts and notifications are reliant upon collecting good telephone data...emphasis on the "good". There's a wide range of collection efforts beginning with simply buying a "phone book" database to a "managed" approach. The best managed approaches we've seen involve "9-1-1" data supplemented by phone book data supplemented by citizen registrations supplemented by a process that regularly updates data from multiple sources.
A new white paper from InfoCode shows a significant disparity between the phone book data and, well, reality...not only through missing numbers, but in accuracy of info used to associate numbers with proper points on a map. The company conducted a sampling of several areas, and found phone book numbers were plotted 3, even 5, miles from their real location. (Not good in an emergency.) This occurred in 10% of their samples. Then, of course, there's a significant number of numbers that don't show up in the phone books...even before you take into consideration cell numbers that don't show up anywhere. The InfoCode white paper can be found here. (In the interest of full disclosure, we advised InfoCode on the paper.)
There are many telephone notification systems across the country that use phone book data only, and no doubt, this is better than nothing. But, as the public expects more information faster, phone book data alone just won't cut it anymore. There are certainly steps that can be taken to get much better notification data. Most importantly, it takes an organization willing to make the investment of resources to do it right.
It's kind of like Lorin's recent post on public outreach (Doing it Right: Engaging Citizens in a Notification Program), and our repeated posts on a systems-of-systems approach. This is not simple stuff. Being prepared to notify and alert the public is no small undertaking, and getting more complex every day. Let's understand the complexities, educate the people with the purse-strings, and address the complexities head on.
All the best,
Rick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)