November 2008 Archives

Granted, this should have gone out last week but this message wont go stale.

Always the third Wednesday in November.  This year it was November 19.  What!?  Haven't heard of it?  Well, let me tell you...  better yet, let them say it:

"GIS Day provides an international forum for users of geographic information systems (GIS) technology to demonstrate real-world applications that are making a difference in our society. More than 80 countries will participate in holding local events such as corporate open houses, hands-on workshops, community expos, school assemblies, and more."

This quote comes from the GIS Day website.  It says so much, but also so little therefore let me elaborate.

I'm lucky.  My city is lucky.  We have a very robust GIS capability, staffed with personnel who are actively engaged in many, if not most, divisions and departments across the city.  I'm lucky because they think emergency management is interesting and something worth dedicating dear resources to.

To me, GIS is invaluable for plume and spill modelling, flood prediction, evacuation planning and infrastructure mapping (among many applications).  It is my dream to have all elements of society, industry, resources, infrastructure, weather, etc. within our GIS datasets for developing response parameters and, more importantly, developing better response plans, highlighting vulnerabilities and analyzing interdependencies.

Our GIS staff is one of the first operational functions to be called out during an EOC activation and one of the first tools I think of when developing planning projects.  They will become more invaluable as infrastructure issues gain more of the spotlight.

Here are some examples of GIS at work in response and protection:

On Emergency Management: www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/emermgmt.pdf

On Critical Infrastructure Protection: www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/ncrst/research/cip/CIPAgenda.pdf

On Building Municipal Resilience: www.usehazus.com/vahug/docs/hampton_roads_va.pdf

And these, from one of Hamilton's GIS experts (found on Geoplace.com):

• Checklist 911: A Critical GIS Checklist Readies Public-Safety Officials
• Deployable GIS: At the Ready for First Responders

So thank your local GIS staffers (or go and introduce yourself) and have a Happy GIS Day!

I would like to draw your attention to a study recently released, hot on the heels of the U.S. election. The report itself not new, but is labelled an "Assessment Study" and is really a message to the government in waiting.

The "Critical Infrastructure Partnership Strategic Assessment Study" is a state-of-the-union type report by the National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) on where the Public / Private partnership on critical infrastructure protection is and what the priorities are for the incoming administration.

First and foremost though, is a description of the partnership itself.  The NIAC membership reads like a who's who of the executive level of the biggest business and industry.  The Advisory Council helps to overlook the working groups (more councils) belonging to the 16 (national) critical infrastructure sectors.  This all comes as a result of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) which creates the "the unifying structure for the integration of critical infrastructure and key resources (CI/KR) protection into a single national program. The NIPP provides an overall framework for programs and activities that are currently underway in the various sectors, as well as new and developing CI/KR protection efforts.

This collaborative effort... "will result in the prioritization of protection initiatives and investments across sectors. It also will ensure that resources are applied where they offer the most benefit for mitigating risk by lowering vulnerabilities, deterring threats, and minimizing the consequences of terrorist attacks and other incidents".  This is really good stuff, but this short description does not do justice to the magnitude of the project.  I should note that this is a U.S. federal program and similar programs have been, or are being, developed across the globe, including Canada and the Province of Ontario (that I have written about previously).

Although I would like to talk to all of the 24 page PowerPoint summary, that may get a bit tedious.  You can download it yourself here. Instead, I will pull out a few gems for discussion.

"Regulation cannot achieve the same level of infrastructure protection success as the partnership". Emergency Management Ontario has recently launched the Supply Chain Alliance program, where the private sector was invited to create an emergency supply chain system for the province during a provincial emergency.  As an invitation, not legislated requirement, the program showed unprecedented private sector participation, cooperation and speed of implementation.

"A strong value proposition must be articulated and reaffirmed to sustain private sector participation in the partnership".  This is certainly a sentiment that needs re-iteration: private sector businesses are NOT altruistic entities, they must profit to survive.  Though profit can be derived from many sources: advertising / marketing, good "PR", exclusivity, etc.  To the public sector preferring 'value' can be a creative (and rewarding) process.

"There continues to be an imbalance between the resources available to support the current requirements of the sector partnership model and the demands placed on it."  Let's face it, we have many complex systems most work well, but not flawlessly.  In order to even approach a high degree of resilience will take a long time and much resources.  What is the alternative?  That the sum of the parts (costs, fees, breakdowns, higher prices, shifting responsibilities, etc.) will indeed be greater than the whole.

The study illuminates us on what we have always suspected about government bodies: "Productive partnership efforts can get bogged down by inefficient government processes and cumbersome requirements", "Better coordination among government entities will strengthen the partnership", "A lack of partnership experience and skills hinders collaboration."  Need I say more?  But before you government sector folks get offended, remember I'm one too.

Lastly, this quote on recommendations for the new administration, is one I like best, to "reaffirm the importance of critical  infrastructure protection and resilience as a fundamental mission of government and a responsibility of business".  Note that  these are parallel, but not the same.  A "mission" of government, but a "responsibility" of business.  This theme is endorsed by business through the Council.  Two different agendas, one common outcome: resilience.

I wrote recently on 'educating the decision makers' -- essentially on the need to have the elected officials and executive administration properly educated on issues of wide ranging impacts and consequences in order that truly informed decisions can be made. I can now add a further dimension to this subject.

Yesterday I, along with a colleague, presented at a seminar on the need for field level adaptation programs to lessen the impacts of climate change.  The organizers were the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.  The audience consisted of both administrators and elected officials.

From the feedback I received (granted it was a small sample size), I realized that there is a distinct lack of awareness of the obstacles, challenges and blockages of information running up to the decision makers.  Simply put, the elected officials I spoke with were surprised that I (or my colleagues) could not walk into their offices and speak to issues.  And while they mentioned various mechanisms for educating their bodies, were not aware of the pathways and challenges of stickhandling such a proposal through to them.

In fact, although it made sense to these officials, they did not realize that in many instances, the attempt to get information directly to them, contentious or cooperative, sensitive or secure, exciting or banal, may be a "Career Limiting Move," or even grounds for dismissal.

So how does one get information to those that need to decide, undiluted and in a timely fashion, without breaking chain of command?

The only answer I have is that the search for information and the satisfaction (or not) of the reply has to come from the highest levels.  There should be an assumption that not all information is bubbling up, that not all issues are laid on the table and that expediency is maintained in flowing through what is currently in the pipeline.

I realize that not all organizations have the same challenges and some excel better than others at information flow. But I would wager that everyone can admit the possibility of some facets of the above challenges in their organization.

In short, I believe that many senior officials need to have a greater finger on the pulse of the organization (without micro managing), or as the responders put it, a greater situational awareness to determine information gaps and needs and thus make more informed decisions.