So, we have a new government in Haiti. One that was duly elected by the popular vote. Let's hope that Mssr. Martelly will step up the pace of recovery. I don't mean the grandiose areas of “recovery” – shopping malls, the Presidential Palace, business centers. I mean the most basic of things, like REAL shelter for the Haitian people, still living in tarp cities.
Just last week, coincidentally the first week of the Atlantic Hurricane Season, Haiti was drenched by a slow-moving system known as “94L” – the second “invest” of the first week of the season. In that event, 23 Haitians died. They died because their makeshift “homes” were washed away. The following was posted in a report from the International Association of Emergency managers (of which, I serve as Sergeant at Arms):
HAITI: At least 23 people have been killed in flooding in Haiti. Most of the deaths occurred in the capital Port-au-Prince after torrential rain swept away houses, and flooded roads. Two children were buried alive when their home collapsed; two other people died in a tent city erected after last year's devastating earthquake. Haitian officials fear other such camps could be swept away during the hurricane season. Days of heavy rain swelled rivers and flooded camps built to house thousands of evacuees after the 2010 earthquake. Thirteen people were killed when landslides swept through the upscale suburb of Petionville. The United States National Hurricane Center warned the rains could also cause flash floods and mudslides in the Dominican Republic and Cuba.
Bottom line? It’s been almost 18 months since the earthquake. THINGS NEED TO CHANGE in Haiti.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Saturday, June 4, 2011
ICS - an interesting dialogue between professionals
I had an interesting dialogue on Link In today - I thought it was good enough to share here:
The post began with a question about how ICS should be considered and used in business. A good question. Here's the "jist" of the ensuing dialogue:
Roger Huder • ICS is nothing more or less than management by objective. You are simply dividing up a very large problem into manageable parts. You do not have to use Incident Commander, Logistics, Operations etc nomenclature, you can name them anything you want, the objective is to have clear lines of authority to manage a problem. If you are going to interface with the public sector they will have to use to the same naming scheme so outsiders will know who is who during a response. But ICS is nothing more than organizing to meet a specific problem rapidly and efficiently. The difficult part for many in the private sector to understand is the re-organiztion of their normal lines of authority but it works and works well to manage major crisis in or out of government.
Edward Minyard, CRISC, CISM, CBCI, CCM, ITIL • Agreed, Roger - management is management. BUT, as you also point out, if you are a custodian of critical infrastructure, ICS should be MANDATORY as an operating model. As an individual who recently spent 6 months in Louisian, supporting the MC252 Oil Spill Response, I can attest to the confusion created when private and public sector organizations "integrate" (violently collide?) in the course of a disaster response. ICS, like every other "standard approach" (nice that we have so many to choose from!), has it's warts - but it's still what we have all agreed to use. (at least in the public sector).
Roger Huder • I think the collisions comes not from the ICS structure as much as it comes from the two cultures. Businesses are used to making decisions in a specific and careful way with lots of checking the numbers. You and I both know when you have a fast moving disaster that will not hold still long enough to get a complete grip on all the facts that type of decision making must change. It is much more like the emergency decision making in the public safety community or the military in combat. The clash of these two types of decision making can lead to huge misunderstanding and how should I say it politely a less than optimum response.
Edward Minyard, CRISC, CISM, CBCI, CCM, ITIL • You're right on, Roger. This challenge is no different than that of "buy in" to the concept of Business Continuity. Most plans are done as acts of compliance, because most people tend to believe "it won't happen to me." Therefore, training and exercises are not taken with the degree of seriousness that should be had. I've been deep into every major disaster since 9-11, working with both public and private sector clients. That initial "WTF just happened?" is there - every time. One of the reasons FEMA has instituted the IMAT concept is just that - when you're in the stuff, as a victim AND a manager - the decision making process is impacted by the fact that your ability to reason is reduced to that of a sixth grader.
All that said, there is an old adage in the world of warriors: "The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."
I try to encourage my private sector and public sector clients to be prepared. That means drilling the processes and concepts until you not just know them - you live them. You are so very right about the pace of things when in the midst of the fray. Laborious decision making processes are fuel to flames. Further, as you stated in your first post, "the objective is to have clear lines of authority to manage a problem. If you are going to interface with the public sector they will have to use to the same naming scheme so outsiders will know who is who during a response." ICS is well-defined in that regard. And, if you are a custodian of critical infrastructure (I use the word "custodian" because, if you operate a business that's critical to the wellfare of the nation or it's people, and you aren't doing the right things to operate in a disaster situation, you WILL be superceded by Uncle Sam (ask BP)), you MUST be able to work within the ICS structure. whew, that was a long winded tirade, no?
Roger Huder • No it was not too long, it could not have been said better. Our biggest hurdle is to get people to understand that "stuff"(put a less polite word in there) does happen. I've watched as people's thirty year careers go down the drain because they thought it would not happen on their watch. Just as you said the more you sweat before the event the better you will handle it. We need to put less emphasis on planning and more emphasis on training for response. I know some won't like that statement but the military has an old saying "no plan survives first contact with the enemy." I have found that to be true in emergency response and management. ICS is only the structure used to carry out decisions it will not make decisions for you. Bad decisions using ICS will only produce well executed bad decisions.
Edward Minyard, CRISC, CISM, CBCI, CCM, ITIL • Thanks, Roger. Your last sentence sums things up quite nicely. ICS is what it is. But, as long as we're quoting:
"He whose only tool is hammer, soon sees the world as a nail."
Nuff said, time for a beer.
*************************************************************
So, what do YOU think?
The post began with a question about how ICS should be considered and used in business. A good question. Here's the "jist" of the ensuing dialogue:
Roger Huder • ICS is nothing more or less than management by objective. You are simply dividing up a very large problem into manageable parts. You do not have to use Incident Commander, Logistics, Operations etc nomenclature, you can name them anything you want, the objective is to have clear lines of authority to manage a problem. If you are going to interface with the public sector they will have to use to the same naming scheme so outsiders will know who is who during a response. But ICS is nothing more than organizing to meet a specific problem rapidly and efficiently. The difficult part for many in the private sector to understand is the re-organiztion of their normal lines of authority but it works and works well to manage major crisis in or out of government.
Edward Minyard, CRISC, CISM, CBCI, CCM, ITIL • Agreed, Roger - management is management. BUT, as you also point out, if you are a custodian of critical infrastructure, ICS should be MANDATORY as an operating model. As an individual who recently spent 6 months in Louisian, supporting the MC252 Oil Spill Response, I can attest to the confusion created when private and public sector organizations "integrate" (violently collide?) in the course of a disaster response. ICS, like every other "standard approach" (nice that we have so many to choose from!), has it's warts - but it's still what we have all agreed to use. (at least in the public sector).
Roger Huder • I think the collisions comes not from the ICS structure as much as it comes from the two cultures. Businesses are used to making decisions in a specific and careful way with lots of checking the numbers. You and I both know when you have a fast moving disaster that will not hold still long enough to get a complete grip on all the facts that type of decision making must change. It is much more like the emergency decision making in the public safety community or the military in combat. The clash of these two types of decision making can lead to huge misunderstanding and how should I say it politely a less than optimum response.
Edward Minyard, CRISC, CISM, CBCI, CCM, ITIL • You're right on, Roger. This challenge is no different than that of "buy in" to the concept of Business Continuity. Most plans are done as acts of compliance, because most people tend to believe "it won't happen to me." Therefore, training and exercises are not taken with the degree of seriousness that should be had. I've been deep into every major disaster since 9-11, working with both public and private sector clients. That initial "WTF just happened?" is there - every time. One of the reasons FEMA has instituted the IMAT concept is just that - when you're in the stuff, as a victim AND a manager - the decision making process is impacted by the fact that your ability to reason is reduced to that of a sixth grader.
All that said, there is an old adage in the world of warriors: "The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."
I try to encourage my private sector and public sector clients to be prepared. That means drilling the processes and concepts until you not just know them - you live them. You are so very right about the pace of things when in the midst of the fray. Laborious decision making processes are fuel to flames. Further, as you stated in your first post, "the objective is to have clear lines of authority to manage a problem. If you are going to interface with the public sector they will have to use to the same naming scheme so outsiders will know who is who during a response." ICS is well-defined in that regard. And, if you are a custodian of critical infrastructure (I use the word "custodian" because, if you operate a business that's critical to the wellfare of the nation or it's people, and you aren't doing the right things to operate in a disaster situation, you WILL be superceded by Uncle Sam (ask BP)), you MUST be able to work within the ICS structure. whew, that was a long winded tirade, no?
Roger Huder • No it was not too long, it could not have been said better. Our biggest hurdle is to get people to understand that "stuff"(put a less polite word in there) does happen. I've watched as people's thirty year careers go down the drain because they thought it would not happen on their watch. Just as you said the more you sweat before the event the better you will handle it. We need to put less emphasis on planning and more emphasis on training for response. I know some won't like that statement but the military has an old saying "no plan survives first contact with the enemy." I have found that to be true in emergency response and management. ICS is only the structure used to carry out decisions it will not make decisions for you. Bad decisions using ICS will only produce well executed bad decisions.
Edward Minyard, CRISC, CISM, CBCI, CCM, ITIL • Thanks, Roger. Your last sentence sums things up quite nicely. ICS is what it is. But, as long as we're quoting:
"He whose only tool is hammer, soon sees the world as a nail."
Nuff said, time for a beer.
*************************************************************
So, what do YOU think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
