Guidelines Handouts

From DARWIN
Jump to: navigation, search


2.1 Common Ground (V4).png
2.1. Promoting common ground


In order to collaborate effectively at the time of a crisis, the people jointly involved in crisis management from different organizations need to have sufficient understanding of their mutual goals, expectations, capabilities, and operational procedures. This common ground can be achieved by promoting periodic information sharing activities or exercises involving the staff of different first responder organizations.

Actors targeted by the concept card

  • The card implementing user include relevant back-end roles that are able to implement the actions mandated by the card. Arguably, these will be middle managers and/or relevant experts that maintain close ties with other organizations;
  • Actors: different teams of front-end crisis response operators.

Introduction

What is needed to promote common ground
To promote common ground and improved cooperation among the front-end staff of different first responders' organisations involved in crisis management, the managers of these organisations need to organise shared activities that allow the respective personnel to know each other.

Differently from what advised by the CC 2.3 Understanding roles and responsibilities, in this case, such activities should necessarily involve front-end staff and should not be limited to the managerial levels, nor to people simply delegated by them. In fact, the common ground implies a deeper understanding of working practices, motives and values that cannot be limited to the explicit knowledge encompassed by formal procedures and policies, but should also consider the way knowledge is concretely put into practice. A prerequisite for the application of the actions described in the card is the existence of a network of organisations already collaborating in crisis management activities. If each organisation is mostly operating in isolation and no mutual relationships have been established beyond those mandated by the law, it is advised to first apply the principle of the CC 2.2 Establishing networks. Depending on the specific phase (Before, During or After a crisis), the activities can be instantiated differently, as explained in the following sections.

Before a crisis

Promoting common ground among different organisation before any type of recent crisis or accident has occurred is in principle the most favourable situation. The managers of the different organisations are not biased by the interpretation of the events occurred during a previous crisis and less concerned by the sharing of information that might be used to assign responsibilities regarding past events. On the other hand, the managers may face the problem of justifying their investments on common ground activities, in the absence of any recent event causing concerns in the organisation (owners or shareholders) or in the public opinion (taxpayers or other users of the service). The managers should first identify potential gaps in the mutual understanding between their own organisation and the other organisation with whom there is a collaboration in place, and then they should be promoters of one or more of the following actions:

  • Organise information sharing workshops. The main goal of these workshops is that of allowing the staff of your organisation to gain useful insights into the mission, culture and operating methods of other organisations involved in crisis management. Such workshops can be organised by inviting relevant staff members of other organisations: (a) to attend presentations about own organisational mission, resources, dependencies and expectations (from other organisations), working methods and practices; (b) to provide their presentations about their own organisational mission, resources, dependencies and expectations (from other organisations), working methods and practices. The workshops may also foster cross-fertilization of practices among different organisations.
  • Organise periodic visits of own staff to facilities of other organisations, so as to provide an opportunity to own staff to learn about the resources and procedures of other relevant organisations. Host similar visits by other organisations.
  • Organise joint crisis preparation exercises in order to address potential sources of joint activity breakdowns. These include, for instance, the use of inconsistent maps by different actors to refer to the same crisis area; the use of specialist terminologies that may be unclear or ambiguous to the teams of other organisations; conflicts in resource usage.

These conditions may slow down understanding between team members of different organisations, thus slowing down the crisis response process. Thus crisis preparation exercises—such as drills, review of emergency plans, review of past disasters—should be conducted jointly, i.e., at least one operational expert from each relevant organisation need to be involved in order to achieve an adequate representation of the organisation that may have to cooperate at the time of the crisis. Besides the identification of breakdowns, these exercises can be helpful for the identification of potential synergies in (for instance, the knowing about useful resources available by another partner may be helpful in case own resources are insufficient).

Triggering questions

Identification of gaps in mutual understanding

  • What is our understanding of the mission, culture and operating methods of other organizations with whom we need to collaborate in crisis management?
  • What is the level of understanding of our mission, culture and operating methods by other organizations with whom we need to collaborate in crisis management?

Information-sharing workshops

  • Are there opportunities for organizing workshops with one or more of the organizations collaborating with us in crisis management and for sharing presentations about our respective mission, culture and operating methods?
  • If such workshops were already organized in the past, is there a need to repeat such experiences to take into account relevant changes in each organization and the turnover of our respective staff members?

Visit to other organizations

  • Are there opportunities for organizing visits of our staff members to the facilities of other organizations collaborating with us in crisis management and vice-versa?
  • If such visits were already organized in the past, is there a need to repeat such experiences to take into account relevant changes in each organization and the turnover of our respective staff members?

Joint drills and crisis preparation exercises

  • Are there opportunities for organizing joint drills and crisis preparation exercises with other organizations collaborating with us in crisis management?
  • Do we use specialist terminologies that may be unclear or ambiguous to the teams of other organisations and should be addressed in joint crisis preparation exercises?
  • Can we think of possible sources of joint activity breakdowns that should be addressed in crisis preparation exercises?
  • Can we envision the presence of conflicts in resource usage that should be addressed in joint crisis preparation exercises?
  • Can we think of potential synergies between our organization and other organizations that should be addressed in joint crisis preparation exercises?

During a crisis

During the development of crisis requiring the collaboration among different organisations, the conditions to promote common ground can be very different, depending on the type of crisis. When the crisis takes the form of an emergency where time is a critical factor, the organisation may only count on the common ground that was established before the crisis itself. On the other side, if the crisis has a longer timeframe (e.g. at least two days, up to several months), the promotion of common ground actions could be beneficial, provided that they do not interfere with the activities of the crisis units, operation centres or task forces already established to manage the crisis. Among those described for the Before Crisis phase, the following should be considered:

  • Identify potential gaps in the mutual understanding
  • Organise information sharing workshops.
  • Organise visits of own staff to facilities of other organisations

For very long crises (e.g. those lasting more than a month), it may be beneficial to also organise joint crisis management exercises to simulate and test specific parts of the interventions required to solve the crisis. Examples of situations in which these exercises are useful are those in which the crisis is very complex and requires coordinated interventions in areas that may be unfamiliar to the front-end staff and in which the personnel might be exposed to risks in case of misunderstandings among the different actors. In order to guide the process, a self-assessment based on answering the same triggering questions proposed for the Before Crisis phase is advised, in association with the respective thematic areas.

After a crisis

The managers of organisations cooperating in crisis management activities will probably find easier to justify the investments on common ground actions, if at least part of these organisations have already experienced a real crisis. On the other hand, depending on the development of the crisis itself, the relationships among the organisations might be more or less difficult, especially if there is no shared view of the responsibilities for what happened and if on-going investigations make the sharing of information among the organisations more delicate than in no crisis periods.

Generally speaking, the same actions identified for the Before Crisis phase will also apply to this phase, except for the fact that the lessons learnt from the crisis will be very useful to guide both the identification of gaps in mutual understanding', as well as the good coordination practices emerged during the management of the crisis. However, the organisers of the common ground actions should pay particular attention to the risk of being excessively biased by the specific events occurred during the crisis which was just experiences.

Therefore the Information sharing workshops, the Visits of own staff to the facilities of other organisations, the Joint drills and crisis preparation exercises will have to consider both the specificities of that crisis and other alternative scenarios that may lead to different types of crisis.

In order to guide the process, a self-assessment based on answering the same triggering questions proposed for the Before Crisis phase is advised, in association with the respective thematic areas.


Last edited on 13 September 2018 09:45:03. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Establishing_common_ground
Establishing network.jpg
2.2. Establishing Networks


Establishing pre-crisis relationships between the organizations that may be jointly involved in managing a crisis, paves the way for more effective collaboration and communication; building trust and create professional relationship across organisations during and post crisis responses.

Actors targeted by the concept card

The card is directed to top management roles involved in strategic decision making (e.g., executive management, policy makers), and indirectly this will affect operational levels.

Introduction

Identifying relevant stakeholder organizations prior to a crisis and cultivating positive relationships with these is extremely important for successful crisis response. Effective crisis response and management require coordinated actions among multiple organizations across many jurisdictions under conditions of urgent stress, heavy demand and tight time constraints. During crises, numerous interdependent organisations are part a common network, as they have to work together towards a common goal.

If inter-organisational relations in the network are too weak, organisations may provide insufficient support, may withdraw it during a crisis or may even intensify the threat. Thus, organisations should allocate effort to establishing adequate communication channels and alliances with other organisations during the pre-crises phase.

Once it is established, a collaboration network will create opportunities for both promoting a common ground among different organizations ( Promoting Common Ground ) and defining agreements for a periodic coordination and continuous crosschecking of the respective roles and responsibilities in the management of a crisis (Roles and Responsibilities ).

Before a crisis

Before any crisis has occurred, a five-step protocol is recommended to establish effective inter-organizational collaboration across the relevant organizations that may have to work together in the management of a crisis or emergency. The protocol is presented from the point of view of each individual organization. Depending on its size and relevance in a specific crisis management domain, the managerial levels of an organization should consider whether they prefer to play an active role in the establishment of the network or to respond to the initiatives of other organizations.

  1. Identify the organizations to include in the network. Based on analyses of crisis/emergency scenarios resulting from internal risk assessment activities, identify the relevant organisations with whom collaboration may be necessary at the time of a crisis response. These may be located at International, National, Regional, and local level(s). Looking at the different types of crises that the organization might experience one day, priority should be given to links with the organizations expected to be involved in the largest number of types. However, also the organizations potentially involved only in very specific types of crisis scenarios, who are considered very unlikely to occur, should be taken into consideration, having in mind that the strength of the links to be established can be variable.
  2. Specify the rationale for collaborating with an organization. For each organization identified for a potential involvement in your network, specify the rationale for collaborating with it, depending on different types of crisis scenarios. As part of the exercise, clarify as a minimum what are the expectations with respect to the type of cooperation needed with the partner organization and the communication means to be used for establishing and/or maintaining the cooperation.
  3. Approach the organization to include in the network. Approach the relevant organisations in order to establish a communication exchange and organize at least a meeting with representatives of the other organizations. Depending on the opportunities and status of relationships the meetings might be either bilateral or multilateral, i.e. involving more than one partner organization at the same time.
  4. Establish collaboration terms of reference. Establish Terms of Reference of the collaboration to provide the basis for joint shared actions. Two possible options are envisaged:
    4a. Define a Memorandum of Understanding. Formalise a declaration of intent that clarifies the current rationale (why do we need to collaborate?), objectives (what do we want to achieve?) and mechanisms (how shall we collaborate?) for inter-organisational collaboration. The same declaration should also clarify the potential for future developments (how the scope of the present collaboration may increase in the future?).
    4b. Define a stable framework for collaboration. The framework defines the actual collaboration measures that have to be implemented, including details of resources to be committed, roles involved, type and frequency of meetings, either bilateral or multilateral involving also other organisations. The framework should consider at least one of the mechanisms proposed in the parent CCs 2.1: Promoting common ground and 2.3 Roles and Responsibilities. The first mechanism is particularly recommended if the collaboration has just started and the representatives of the organizations need to better know each other. While the second mechanism should be preferred when there is already a long lasting collaboration and it was possible to design some kind of shared procedure regulating how the organization should operate jointly in different types of crises/emergencies.
  5. Maintain a record of the status of inter-organizational relationships. Create and periodically update a record about the status of the relationship with the other organizations.

Triggering questions

Identifying the organizations to include in the network

  • When thinking of a specific type of crisis, are there organizations that may be involved together with us in the management of it. Among these organizations, are there any with whom we do not have any collaboration yet in place?
  • If there is no collaboration yet in place, would it be worth establishing it?
  • When thinking of new possible collaborations, are we considering all relevant levels, including the local, regional, national and international level?


Specifying the rationale for collaborating with an organization

  • What type of collaboration do we expect to have with an organization we have decided to include in our network?
  • What do we expect to achieve from the collaboration?
  • Which communication modalities do we want to adopt in order to interact with such organizations?


Approaching the organizations to include in the network

  • Do we know with which person/s should we get in touch in order to activate the collaboration?
  • Do we know if there are interpesonal relationship already established in previous activities that may be exploited to facilitate this process?

Establish Memorandum of Understanding

  • Have we clearly defined why we need to collaborate?
  • Have we clarified what we expect to achieve from the collaboration?
  • Have we defined the specific way we intend to collaborate?
  • Have we discussed and agreed with the other organization about possible extensions of the scope of our collaboration in future?

Establish a Framework for Collaboration

  • Have we defined how often we should get in touch with the other organization to review reciprocal roles and responsibilities in the management of crises?
  • Have we defined shared activities to improve the common ground among us and the other organization in the management of crises (e.g. common training sessions)?
  • Have we developed inside our organizations a documentation to record the status of our collaboration with the other organization?

During a crisis

During the development of crisis requiring the collaboration among different organizations, the conditions to establish a new network of organizations or to reinforce an existing one can be very different, depending on the type of crisis. When the crisis takes the form of an emergency where time is a critical factor, the organization will mostly count on the collaboration network that was established before the crisis itself. On the other side, if the crisis has a longer timeframe (e.g. at least two days, up to several months), it may be necessary to either create an ad-hoc network of collaborations or to extend the existing one to accommodate for specific needs emerged during the development of the crisis. Therefore, limited to the crises with a longer timeframe, the first 4 steps of the protocol designed for the Before Crisis case could be considered:

  1. Identify the organizations to include in the network. Based on analyses of the ongoing crisis/emergency scenarios, identify the relevant organizations with whom collaboration is necessary to make the crisis response more effective. These may be located at International, National, Regional, and local level(s).
  2. Specify the rationale for collaborating with an organization. For each organization identified for a potential involvement in the network, specify the rationale for collaborating with it, depending on different types of crisis scenarios. As part of the exercise, clarify what are the expectations with respect to the type of cooperation needed with the partner organization and the communication means to be used for establishing and/or maintaining the cooperation.
  3. Approach the organization to include in the network. Approach the relevant organizations in order to establish a communication exchange and organize at least a meeting with representatives of the other organizations. Depending on the opportunities and status of relationships the meetings might be either bilateral or multilateral, i.e. involving more than one partner organization at the same time.
  4. Establish collaboration terms of reference. Establish Terms of Reference of the collaboration to facilitate joint shared actions. In the During Crisis phase this can be limited to a short Memorandum of Understanding clarifying the current rationale (why do we need to collaborate?), objectives (what do we want to achieve?) and mechanisms (how shall we collaborate?) for inter-organizational collaboration. Once the crisis is terminated the managers of organizations which were engaged in a collaboration should consider whether to upgrade the memorandum of understanding to a stable framework for collaboration.

Triggering questions

Identifying the organizations to include in the network

  • When considering the ongoing crisis, are there organizations that may be involved together with us in the management of it. Among these organizations, are there any with whom we do not have any collaboration yet in place?
  • If there is no collaboration yet in place, would it be worth establishing it?
  • When thinking of new possible collaborations, are we considering all relevant levels, including the local, regional, national and international level?


Specifying the rationale for collaborating with an organization

  • What type of collaboration do we expect to have with an organization we have decided to include in our network?
  • What do we expect to achieve from the collaboration?
  • Which communication modalities do we want to adopt in order to interact with such organizations?


Approaching the organizations to include in the network

  • Do we know with which person/s should we get in touch in order to activate the collaboration?
  • Do we know if there are interpesonal relationship established in previous activities that may be exploited to facilitate this process?

Establish Memorandum of Understanding

  • Have we clearly defined why we need to collaborate?
  • Have we clarified what we expect to achieve from the collaboration?
  • Have we defined the specific way we intend to collaborate?
  • Have we discussed and agreed with the other organization about possible extensions of the scope of our collaboration in future?

After a crisis

After a crisis has occurred, the managers of organizations that were collaborating in the response to it may consider whether there is a need to establish a stable framework of collaboration for future needs or to extend the network to new organizations. The following 5 stage process is proposed in order to extend the network of collaboration. The organizations which were already collaborating among them previously to the crisis may consider reinforcing their framework of collaboration by applying only the steps 4b and 5 and reflect on lesson learned about the process of establishing a new network.

  1. Identify new organizations to include in the network. Based on analyses of the recently occurred crisis, identify the relevant organizations with whom collaboration is necessary to make the crisis response more effective in future occasions. These may be located at International, National, Regional, and local level(s).
  2. Specify the rationale for collaborating with an organization. For each new organization identified for a potential involvement in the network, specify the rationale for collaborating. As part of the exercise, clarify a what are the expectations with respect to the type of cooperation need with the partner organization and the communication means to be used for establishing and/or maintaining the cooperation.
  3. Approach the new organization to include in the network. Approach the relevant organizations in order to establish a communication exchange and organize at least a meeting with representatives of the other organizations. Depending on the opportunities and status of relationships the meetings might be either bilateral or multilateral, i.e. involving more than one partner organization at the same time.
  4. Establish collaboration terms of reference. Establish Terms of Reference of the collaboration to facilitate joint shared actions in future occasions. Two possible options are envisaged:
    4a. Define a Memorandum of Understanding. Formalize a declaration of intent that clarifies the current rationale (why do we need to collaborate?), objectives (what do we want to achieve?) and mechanisms (how shall we collaborate?) for inter-organisational collaboration. The same declaration should also clarify the potential for future developments (how the scope of the present collaboration may increase in the future?);
    4b. Define a stable framework for collaboration. The framework defines the actual collaboration measures that have to be implemented, including details of resources to be committed, roles involved, type and frequency of meetings, either bilateral or multilateral involving also other organizations. The framework should consider at least one of the two mechanisms proposed in the parent CCs 2.1 Promoting common ground and 2.3 Roles and Responsibilities. The first mechanism is particularly recommended if the collaboration has just started and the representatives of the organizations need to better know each other. While the second mechanism should be preferred when there is already a long lasting collaboration and it was possible to design some kind of shared procedure regulating how the organization should operate jointly in different types of crises/emergencies.
  5. Maintain a record of the status of inter-organizational relationships. Create and/or periodically update a record about the status of the relationship with the other organizations.

Triggering questions

Identifying the organizations to include in the network

  • When thinking of a recently occurred crisis, are there organizations that may be involved together with us in the management of it. Among these organizations, are there any with whom we do not have any collaboration yet in place?
  • If there is no collaboration yet in place, would it be worth establishing it?
  • When thinking of new possible collaborations, are we considering all relevant levels, including the local, regional, national and international level?


Specifying the rationale for collaborating with an organization

  • What type of collaboration do we expect to have with a new organization we have decided to include in our network?
  • What do we expect to achieve from the collaboration?
  • Which communication modalities do we want to adopt in order to interact with such organizations?


Approaching the organizations to include in the network

  • Do we know with which person/s should we get in touch in order to activate the collaboration?
  • Do we know if there are interpesonal relationship established after the crisis that may be exploited to facilitate this process?

Establish Memorandum of Understanding

  • Have we clearly defined why we need to collaborate?
  • Have we clarified what we expect to achieve from the collaboration?
  • Have we defined the specific way we intend to collaborate?
  • Have we discussed and agreed with the other organization about possible extensions of the scope of our collaboration in future?

Establish a Framework for Collaboration

  • Have we defined how often we should get in touch with the other organization to review reciprocal roles and responsibilities in the management of crises?
  • Have we defined shared activities to improve the common ground among us and the other organization in the management of crises (e.g. common training sessions)?
  • Have we developed inside our organizations a documentation to record the status of our collaboration with the other organization?


Last edited on 24 September 2018 14:29:32. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Establishing_networks
Roles and responsibilities.png
2.3. Understanding roles and responsibilities


Stakeholders involved in resilience management need to have clear idea of roles and responsibilities who may be involved in the management of a potential crisis. Each organization should have an adequate knowledge not only of its own roles and responsibilities, but also of those of other organizations they may be required to collaborate with during a crisis. This is vital in order to identify gaps and cooperate before, during and after a crisis.

Actors targeted by the concept card

Policy, decision makers, resource managers, front-line operators in organizations, which have agreed to coordinate, exchange information and establish common procedures (even at a high level) with other organizations for the management of specific types of crisis.

Introduction

If an organization needs to collaborate with other organizations, it is essential that the latter are sufficiently informed on the following aspects:

  1. Who needs to be contacted during a crisis
  2. Which are the relevant roles for the management of both generic and specific types of crises
  3. Which are the high level responsibilities of these roles, so to have a correct expectation of how one should interact with them.

A prerequisite for the application of the actions described in this card is the existence of a network of organizations already collaborating among them. In addition, the actions are expected to be more effective if the organizations are already sharing some form of written policy or procedure, clarifying the way the organizations should collaborate. If the network is still under development or the organizations are only cooperating based on verbal agreements, it may be more productive to apply first other CCs related to the coordination and synchronization of distributed operations.

Before a crisis

If a shared procedure among the different organizations already exists, the procedure should specify which are the involved organizations and which is the one expected to take initiative when a coordination with the other organizations is required. If a shared procedure does not exist yet, one or more organizations should take initiative to coordinate and decide together the group of relevant organizations to involve. For guidance on how to establish from scratch a new network of organizations, see the CC Establishing networks. Actions needed before a crisis:

  • Identify organizations with shared responsibilities in the management of a crisis.
  • Organize periodic coordination meetings among the organisations. The frequency of meetings may vary, depending on needs, time and budget constraints (e.g. from twice a year, until once every two years). The meetings should address the following questions:
  1. Which roles can be contacted within each organization to coordinate the management of both generic and specific types of crises
  2. Which are the high level responsibilities of these roles
  3. How these roles can be contacted
  4. What type of communication means should be preferred to coordinate with them (e.g. point-to-point communication tools, one-to-many communication tools, alarming systems, etc.).
  5. Which is the most updated terminology to indicate the roles and to describe their high level responsibilities
  • Ensure that at least one representative per organization participate to the coordination meetings and that each organization designates a point of contact (PoC) to take care of such coordination.
  • Make sure that the designated PoCs will arrange updating activities internally to their own organization, following each coordination meeting (the internal updating activities can range from simple notifications to the interested personnel, to real training activities designed on purpose).
  • Make sure that major changes affecting emergency procedures in each organizations are assessed for their potential impact on the interaction with other organizations and communicated to them.
  • If possible, inside each organization, design and develop a ‘quick reference guide’ format of the procedure, simplified and adapted to the specific needs of the concerned organization. The quick reference format should help the first responders to easily identify the roles they have to interact with during a crisis, as opposed to the full list of roles discussed during the coordination meetings that may not be relevant for all the organizations. To note that the effort to design a quick reference guide may be worth only in more structured domains, in which roles and responsibilities tend to remain more stable over time, as opposed to less structured domains where there is a risk for the guide to quickly become outdated

Triggering questions

Involvement of organizations

  • Does a shared procedure exist among different organizations required to manage jointly a specific type of crisis?
  • Is there a need to involve new organizations in the coordination activities about shared roles and responsibilities for the management of a crisis?
  • Is there a need to create a new network of organizations for the management of a specific type of crisis? (see CC Establishing networks)

Coordination mechanism

  • When a shared procedure among different organization exists, is there one organization clearly appointed to activate and arrange periodic coordination activities with other organizations?
  • Within our organization, is a calendar of periodic coordination activities already established, to check roles and responsibilities with other organizations?

Impact on other organizations

  • Did we recently experience within our organization changes of roles and responsibilities that could affect emergency procedures shared with other organizations?
  • Are these changes sufficiently significant to require a communications to other involved organizations?

Internal dissemination of changes

  • Are we providing adequate information and training on relevant changes of roles and responsibilities in other organizations to the personnel potentially involved in the management of crisis?
  • Can we develop a ‘quick reference guide’ to help the personnel of our organization to promptly identify shared roles and responsibilities with other organizations during a crisis?
  • If we already have a ‘quick reference guide’, do we need to update it to include recent changes of the procedure shared with other organizations?

During a crisis

If the actions put in place before the crisis have been successful, during a crisis the personnel of each organization should be ready to react in an efficient and effective manner, reducing misunderstandings and misinterpretations about roles and responsibilities of other involved organizations.

Actions needed during a crisis:

  • Operate taking into consideration the information and/or the training received during internal updating activities concerning roles and responsibilities of other organizations involved in the management of the crisis.
  • If available, use the quick reference guide version of the procedure shared with other organizations to easily identify the relevant roles and responsibilities.

After a crisis

The outcome of a crisis is obviously an opportunity to revise any kind of procedure shared among different organizations that were jointly involved in its management. Such review include the high-level definition of roles and responsibilities inside each organization. Actions needed after a crisis:

  • Organize extraordinary coordination activities (beyond the one normally planned) to revise the common procedure and update the high-level definition of roles and responsibilities in each organization, as needed.
  • Consider whether new organizations should be included in the shared procedure and periodic coordination mechanism (or if other organizations should be excluded from that, having lost their relevance in the shared procedure).

Triggering questions

Organizations involved

  • Did the shared procedure and coordination mechanism involved all the organizations relevant for the management of the crisis?
  • Considering what happened during the crisis: should new organizations be included in the shared procedure and coordination mechanism?

Coordination mechanism

  • Was the experienced crisis severe enough to justify extraordinary coordination activities (beyond the one normally planned) to revise the common procedure and the definition of high-level roles and responsibilities in each organization?
  • Is the frequency of periodic coordination activities sufficient at the light of the occurred crisis?

Impact on other organizations

  • Does our organization have ill-defined roles and responsibilities in the shared procedure, which negatively affected the response to a crisis managed in cooperation with other organizations?

Internal dissemination of changes

  • Did the information and training provided previously to the crisis result to be effective for what concern relevant changes of roles and responsibilities in other organizations?
  • If available, did the quick reference guide supported the identification of roles and responsibilities during the crisis?


Last edited on 26 September 2018 09:52:47. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Understanding_roles_and_responsibilities


Adaptation relative to events.png
3.1. Adapting to expected and unexpected events


Emergency situations occur suddenly and without warning. Therefore, organizations must be prepared and adapt their functions to respond to emergency events as quickly as possible. Among those situations, some of the events are expected while others, could be unexpected with different nature. Roles, training, strategies, and procedures must be in place to provide such capacity, using an all-hazards approach which considers the common denominator of emergency situations in different areas, building a generic response plans that can be adapted to a specific event.

Actors targeted by the concept card

Actors directly concerned by this concept card are decision and policy makers, and crisis managers. The guideline is relevant at all administrative and management levels, since adaptive capability also concerns front line operators, and roles who (re-)design response plans.

Introduction

In order to enhance organizations' capacity to adapt to all events (both expected and unexpected), it is recommended that response plans have two main features – that they are based on everyday operations, and designed using the all-hazards approach.

  • Everyday operations

While crisis situations differ from routine operational challenges and disruptions, the capacity to adapt in crisis stems from the same general capacity used in everyday operations. In addition, familiarity of personnel with known procedures and guidelines makes it easier to implement them and operate during emergencies.

  • All-hazard Approach

It is important that organizations map and understand potential emergencies, recognizing mutual components of different threats. Thus, they can build a generic response plan for many types of unexpected events, while each threat has a specific extension to its relevant needs.

The next stage is to build a mechanism (strategies, procedures, and tools) that identify roles and responsibilities, missions and goals. Personnel must be trained to work within this mechanism, and its effectiveness assessed. For further information regarding understanding roles and responsibility, please read the CC of Understanding roles and Responsibilities.

Such mechanisms need to be rehearsed, with the understanding that actual events will likely be different from anticipated situations. Assessment means learning from both failure and success, and regularly reviewing and revising. A mechanisms that supports adaptation, means having invested resources in capturing/clarifying strategies, resources and constrains. Please see more information relating to noticing brittleness and identifying sources of resilience. The implementation of this CC requires a shift in the organization's perception of emergency management. Sometime, organizations may seek assistance from resilience management experts in applying these approaches.

Before a crisis

Before crises occur, preparedness activities are critical for creating the conditions for maintaining contingency and adaptation in a crisis. During non-emergency periods, organizations should first map their potential emergency situations based on experts' experience and knowledge and relevant professional literature. Following the mapping, they must identify mutual components of preparedness, including personnel behavior and checklists for action. Checklists must include required activities, and names with contact information of internal and external actors that have to be involved during those situations. The organization must analyze carefully each scenario (based on potential emergencies) in order to understand the uniqueness of each situation and to add adjusted components beyond the initial response plan. After classifying the structure of response plans (initial and adjusted components), we recommend building the plans around daily activities and operations. In this way, the organization uses known resources, and increases the familiarity of personnel with guidelines. This approach affects also on management and monitoring different type of buffers. After mapping the emergency scenarios, it is important to have appropriate equipment that in a time of a crisis will assist to create time or room for maneuvering. For more information about managing and monitor buffers, we recommend to read the CC of managing available resources. It is important that it is clear whose role it is to in charge of crisis management. This role should be nominated during the pre-crisis period. His/her tasks include being able to monitor and assess the complete picture, and together with the organization’s managers define the roles and responsibilities of involved actors. For a deeper understanding of the subject, please read the CC Understanding roles and Responsibilities. Managers should be trained in assessing the situation against prepared-for specific situations and recognize when coordination with relevant partners outside of established channels is necessary to coordinate response. For this important issue, please read the CC of Promoting Common Ground.

Triggering questions

Classify and analyze potential emergencies

  • What variables/data are monitored to assess whether there is a crisis? What is the underlying rationale for the monitoring efforts and what limitations does this approach have? What crisis information is difficult to capture in variables/data?
  • Could we classify emergencies according to their nature?
  • Do we identify mutual component of different types of emergencies?

Build a mechanism for response plans

  • Do we have an actor who will be in charge of, coordinate or synchronize crisis management planning and response?
  • Do we design the response plans based on everyday manner? Do we use known resource to handle unexpected situations?
  • Do we have appropriate equipment to the first stage of the emergency?
  • How are such managers trained to recognize when unexpected events occur that challenge the current organisational structure and processes?
  • How do we define potential relevant partners to coordinate with in case of expected and unexpected situations?
  • Are lists of “good-to-have” contacts available in case unexpected situations occur that may require contacting actors outside of established communication channels?
  • Do we (re-)develop response plans based on new experiences?
  • Do we have response plans as well as training such as exercise and drills?
  • Do we model protocols to promote a common approach?
  • How do we create communication channels and networks between partners so that they can adaptively coordinate and cooperate when unexpected situations occur?
  • Can the adaptive re-allocation and deployment of resources within and between organisations be supported by building in slack in appropriate places in the network to meet unexpected demands?

During a crisis

During an emergency, organizations are called upon to handle challenging situations, balancing between needs and limited resources in an unknown atmosphere. Basing activities on known manners allows actors to function in familiar way, increasing their capacity and confidence. There is a need to scarify non-essential functions. During the first stage of the crisis, while the organization acts according to the basic response plans, it must also diagnose the specific emergency, and adjust organizational plans to relevant situation and needs. It must remember to balance between various needs in accordance with different organizational levels. Contact and work in coordination with external actors who may assist and deploy extra resources.

Triggering questions

Identifying the specific nature of the emergency situation

  • Are plans available and applicable?
  • How can or should elements of plans be combined to meet situational demands?
  • How can missing or inappropriate plan elements be added or compensated for (through improvisation)?
  • Are organisational plans applicable in this situation or do other mandates?
  • What uncertainties are there in the situation?
  • For which aspects of the situation are we less than well-prepared?
  • Are facts, domain knowledge, and experiential knowledge that we need to assess and/or act on the situation available to us?


Contact and work in collaboration with relevant actors

  • Do we need to contact with relevant actors?
  • How can we communicate with other/new actors in order to understand the complete picture of the event?
  • Are the actors familiar with the actions they should take?

After a crisis

In the aftermath of critical events, there is a need to implement review processes, and revise plans and procedures according to assessment results. From the perspective of the all-hazard approach, it is important to evaluate the structure of response plans, identifying common components for various emergencies and the uniqueness of each threat. From the perspective of links between everyday operations and actions during a crisis, the lesson learning may affect both daily activities as well as further emergencies.

Triggering questions

All-hazard approach aspects

  • How did they solve unexpected or not-planned-for situations?
  • Does the planning process generate relevant, applicable and useful plans?
  • Could the structure of response plans be improved based on core elements and specific components ?

Everyday operation and regular activities

  • Which aspects of the situation were the actors involved in the response familiar with?
  • Which were new to them?
  • Could the organization advance everyday operations according to the evaluation of activities during the emergency?

General

  • Did the organisation as a whole recognize these unexpected situations when they occurred?
  • How can organisational processes be improved to recognize and act upon the unexpected in a better way?
  • Was there a proactive action to recognize unexpected circumstances?
  • How can planning and training processes be improved?
  • Does training have the desired effect?


Last edited on 27 September 2018 10:16:45. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Adaptation_relative_to_events
3.2 Adaptation Relative to Procedure (V2).png
3.2. Establishing conditions for adapting plans and procedures during crises


Often, crises challenge the plans and procedures in place. As a result, organisations need to support and maintain a clear and legitimate space of manoeuvre relative to normative plans and procedures. Such space is important for actors engaged in crisis response in order to adapt to unusual (unanticipated) circumstances. After training or real events, investigating why these adaptations occur can feed the processes of revision of checklists, procedures and policies.

Actors targeted by the concept card

Managers are the primary target of this CC; they expected to implement the interventions in different ways:

  • setting up the proposed activities regularly to enable discussions about adaptation in the context of the rules of work,
  • discussing the rationale behind the rules and the boundaries for deviations in order to ensure accountability (needed to avoid after the fact blame-games);
  • involving actors at all levels of the organisation. In particular:
    • team leaders and other operational personnel who are engaged in crisis management activities;
    • and higher-level managers who act as policy level and are relevant observers of the processes of adaptation relative to rules.

Members of the organisation familiar with resilience notions (e.g., resilience or safety managers), play a key role in conducting events (possibly with the help of external experts) leading and moderating discussions about brittleness.

Introduction

Resilience is positioned in complement to plans and procedures. Plans and procedures often are not fully useful and have to be used as guides to base actions on rather than as comprehensive and accurate descriptions of actions to execute. Flexibility and improvisation compensate for gaps in the procedures, providing solutions needed on the spot.

The management of adaptive capacity discussed here is that of the considered organisation and is limited by the corresponding organisational boundaries. However, crisis situations considered might involve multiple organisations. Adaptation relative to plans and procedures therefore needs to be thought in a cross-organisational context. The application of this guideline will therefore be facilitated by applying Establishing common ground and Understanding roles and responsibilities first. The management of adaptive capacity indeed requires that common ground and understanding of roles and responsibilities are in place within and across organisations. The interventions proposed here can also highlight deficiencies in capacity to coordinate.

The interventions described here aim to capture, understand and improve the use and potential limitations of plans and procedures in their organisational context.

What is needed to establish conditions for adapting plans and procedures:

  • Clarify and rehearse plans and procedures
  • Clarify lines of authority and the autonomy discretion
  • Exercise situations that fall outside normal conditions and involve personnel across the organisation
  • Document events and training sessions (e.g., establish and maintain logs, build narratives) to capture gaps or deviations in plans and procedures as well as innovative adaptations
  • Reflect on gaps and deviations captured or on innovative adaptations
  • Revise plans and procedure, authority and autonomy. Modify training when experiences appear generalisable
  • Rely on members of the organisation familiar with resilience notions, such as resilience or safety managers, to conduct actions, lead and moderate discussions proposed here
  • Involve external experts if such resilience or safety managers are not available

Before a crisis

The foundation for trust is primarily laid down during this phase in terms of training and rehearsal on the rules of work and on different degrees of deviation according to need or severity of the situation.

Nature of Plans and Procedures
Document and rehearse relevant processes and procedures regularly. Regarding larger crises, organise lists indicating who needs to be contacted and when, including, e.g., for technical or political issues. For big crises, there should be specific infrastructure and facilities, and procedures flexible enough to be adapted to different kinds of situations and needs.

Authority Issues
Operators in direct contact with such challenges might, at a given moment, have the best knowledge of the situation and ability to act, while managers remote from the situations supervise operations and coordinate them across larger scales. It is important to clarify roles and authorities in advance and identify situations in which it might be difficult for the usual chain of command to make well-informed and fast decisions in the face of unanticipated challenges.


Capability Issues (skills, expertise)
Managers should develop a good understanding of the type of "adaptations of plans and procedures" that situations might require, as well as of the capabilities present in their organisation. Such capabilities include the ability to recognise early on that/when procedures or routines are insufficient. All levels in the organisation must understand the need to be prepared and to "release" themselves from planned activities when/if necessary. In order to do that, is possible to organise exercises regularly, as a major source of information on potential gaps, which should then be addressed through training programs. In training and preparation, address hypothetical situations that fall outside usual conditions addressed by plans and procedures. Either preplanned or random scenarios of escalation may be used. In such events, assess the adaptive capacity needed according to a scale ranging from only minor adjustments of procedure to abandoning procedure.

A baseline approach should be established in which:

  • the situation and potential implications are assessed,
  • the action alternatives are elaborated,
  • a decision is enforced, and
  • the implications of the decision (e.g., new areas of attention) are described.
  • track and log mechanisms and actions used for expanding skills, expertise and resources within response team/organisation to problem-solving should be tracked and logged, including the strategies and heuristics for integrating them.
  • consider situations in which plans and procedures are ambiguous or even missing, and innovative ways of operating must be identified on the spot.


Learning Process (normal operations vs. crises)
Operators and management, should review training processes and outcomes: Comparing anticipated issues with actions required by the situations, and revising training programs, plans and procedures based on such assessment when necessary.

Triggering questions

Nature of Plans and Procedures

  • Are plans and procedures in place for all operators?
  • Are they rehearsed regularly?
  • Is there flexibility for operators to adapt when situations are unexpected?

Authority Issues

  • What roles will be in charge of abnormal situations?
  • Will they be in a capacity to quickly make informed decisions if such a situation occurs?
  • Would other roles be in a better position to make decisions?
  • Do these roles have the authority to do so?

Capability Issues (skills, expertise)

  • Are operators trained on unusual situations for which plans and procedures are limited?
  • Does training include situations in which they need to solve problems or make trade-offs?
  • Do they experience situations in which they need to show initiative, outside of the regular line of command, in order to act quickly?

Learning Process (normal operations vs. crises)

  • How regularly are training programs reviewed and revised?

During a crisis

During a crisis, organisations are expected to execute and revise plans continuously. They should keep records of the plans and procedures used, as well as of the breaking points and brittleness that justified deviations from the initial plans and procedures. Many of the actions proposed below aim to capture such elements so that they can be used in the AFTER phase.

Nature of Plans and Procedures
Keep a log of procedures used and not used, and the causes for the latter case.

Authority Issues
Ensure especially availability of management support: Managers should provide relevant and timely mechanisms and interfaces for authorising specific courses of action, especially when the actions needed might exceed the defined space for manoeuvre.

Capability Issues (skills, expertise)
Is it important to track mechanisms and actions used for expanding skills, expertise and resources within response team/organisation to solve problems. Strategies and heuristics for integrating them to the response team should be documented for revision in the "after" phase.

Learning Process (normal operations vs. crises)
Use (simple) techniques to record precariousness, breaches and brittleness that trigger deviations from plans and procedures. For instance, indicate the level of deviation and its justification.

After a crisis

As far as possible, revise crisis management processes, reconstruct adaptive capability process, assess performances, adjust or calibrate normative base, and describe prospects for future resilient performance.

Nature of Plans and Procedures
Revise procedures and plans if the actual experience (DURING) is generalisable (see Systematic management of policies)

Authority Issues
Consider whether the defined space for manoeuvre was sufficient, and whether authority was conducted in a functional and proper way when decision support was needed, within or beyond the space for manoeuvre.

Capability Issues (skills, expertise)
If needed, assess training needs in order to close gaps in capabilities.

Learning Process (normal operations vs. crises)
After the crisis phase, it is important to learn lessons in order to match the procedures to the circumstances that emerged in the crisis itself. Reconstruct adaptive behaviour and capacity based on prior training records and notes from past events. To do so, build narratives that capture both coherence and disruptions. Describe deviations according to a useful scale, assess whether they were justifiable, and suggest, if needed, alternative pathways that are retrospectively coherent (but beware of the advantages of hindsight). If possible, define indicators of critical conditions, create lists of lessons learned, or narratives that capture a number of critical issues in a coherent way.

Triggering questions

Nature of Plans and Procedures

  • What were issues with plans and procedures in the situations experienced?
  • Have these issues been identified before?
  • Can the solutions found be used in other situations?

Authority Issues

  • Were people in charge of decisions authorised to make them?
  • Did people recognise that they had authority (e.g., when they didn’t exert it)?
  • Is there any indication of need to revise the space for manoeuvre?

Capability Issues (skills, expertise)

  • Did people have the skills, expertise needed?
  • Were they able to exert existing skills, expertise into combined action?

Learning Process (normal operations vs. crises)

  • Do we have detailed accounts of the events?
  • Can we identify deviations from plans and procedures?
  • Can we make sense of such deviations?
  • Could there have been better alternatives?


Last edited on 22 September 2018 09:51:15. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Adaptation_relative_to_procedures
3.3 Resources.png
3.3. Managing available resources effectively


To better handle the unusual and changing demands of crisis situations and achieve critical objectives, organisations need to be able to use available resources effectively, sometimes creatively, and potentially to bring in additional resources. For the purposes of this card, resources refer to human resources, such as personnel in various roles and divisions of an organisation, as well as to material or immaterial resources, such as equipment and tools. In other words, to anything that is necessary or useful in order to accomplish the tasks at hand.

Actors targeted by the concept card

  • Actors who have the responsibility to decide on the allocation of resources within CI organisations and agencies, such as operational managers and commanders who manage resources in their regular activity, as well as high-level managers who can authorise reallocation of resources.
  • Actors who can contribute resources to support crisis response.

Introduction

What is needed to manage resources

Crises will typically require additional resources to be handled in time, before they degrade further and lead to worse outcomes. Taking the example of personnel as type of resources, "additional resources" might mean more of the same type of actors as those operating in usual circumstances, or types of competences that are different from the ones usually available (or both). The general belief is that, in emergency situations, if additional resources are requested at the moment they are needed, it might already be too late. Conditions must therefore be created in advance for providing and enabling the necessary increased resources. In addition, while many efforts need to be put before crises occur in order to facilitate the effective use of resources during operations, what constitutes such effective use needs to be specified in the situation because it depends on context. Supporting the effective management of resources includes three main types of interventions:

  • Identifying the required resources: their types and amount necessary to respond to a given crisis, and where they exist, within or beyond the regular team, department and organisation
  • Establishing conditions to use resources in order to request, include or reallocate these resources
  • Assigning resources to objectives

The interventions proposed in each phase of crisis describe more specific activities for each type.

Before a crisis

Identifying the required resources

  • Build understanding of the resources required in challenging situations, especially based on the results from resilience assessment (see Noticing brittleness and Assessing community resilience)
  • Locate where adequate resources might exist, which might be identified based on past situations in the results from Identifying sources of resilience
  • Build lists of available resources, such as a roster of personnel, that includes their location(s)
    • For personnel, listed skills might include technical as well as non-technical skills
    • Such lists can be used to match resources with operational needs

Establishing conditions to use resources

  • Manage competences, skills, knowledge, capabilities
  • Establish conditions to share resources across departments, organisations: conduct joint training, develop letters of agreement
  • Leverage networks created through Establishing networks
  • Identify and implement in the organisation methods and strategies to bring in additional resources (see for instance the Front Line Anomaly Response in the Methods section)

Assigning resources to objectives

  • Anticipate authority issues in crisis events over national vs. regional vs. local control of resources
  • Ensure plans and procedures address how to prioritise activities, scale up situations and request and handle extra resources
  • Anticipate difficulties to add extra resources to existing operations, for instance related to coordination within and between teams (ensure the cards Establishing common ground and Understanding roles and responsibilities have been implemented)

Triggering questions

Establishing conditions to use resources

  • Are we have aware of human resources that can potentially be shared with other organisations or departments of our organisation?
  • Can we distinguish between human resources that can be shared with other organisations and human resources who cannot be shared in any circumstance?
  • Do we know who should be consulted to receive authorisation to take advantage of the human resources of another organisation or department?
  • To take advantage of the human resources of another organisation or department are we sufficiently aware of their level of training, skills and competences?

During a crisis

Establishing conditions to use resources

  • Clarify who controls resources, based on what information
    • Ensure local actors have some discretion for using resources due to their knowledge of local context
    • Ensure regional/national actors can monitor use of resources across larger scale

Assigning resources to objectives

  • Manage reallocation of personnel: tasks, location
  • Create and maintain buffers
    • Free up resources: changing priorities
    • Deploy resources
    • Avoid situations in which everybody is busy

Triggering questions

Identifying the resources required

  • Are all our resources currently committed?
  • What would be needed if the situation degraded?

After a crisis

Assigning resources to objectives

Triggering questions

Identifying the resources required

  • Could other resources have been deployed?
  • Where would have they come from?

Assigning resources to objectives

  • How were additional resources integrated to operations?


Last edited on 29 September 2018 15:02:30. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Manage_available_resources


Community resilience.png
4.1. Assessing community resilience


The assessment and monitoring of community resilience prior to, during and after the occurrence of crises allows policy makers to establish interventions and plans in collaboration with community leaders and members, in order to ensure communities will be better able to manage and recover from future events.

Actors targeted by the concept card

The actors that are directly concerned by this concept card are:

  • decision and policy makers,
  • formal and informal community leaders.

The cornerstone of community leadership in an emergency situation is the local authority. The results of resilience assessment should be provided to decision makers in the local authority. Based on these results they would be able to build (preparedness) and implement interventions and response plans. The capability card applies to management levels as well as operational level during implementation phases.

Introduction

The use of a community resilience assessment process allows policy makers to establish planning to strengthen communities. When the process can be used at different times, it allows for an understanding of how a community can better prepare, is impacted by crises, and recovers from them. The Community resilience assessment process is based on data collection. Thus, could be done by several methods, including community members' survey (recommended), analyzing formal databases or questioning of key informators. The assessment should be managed by experts, but the process of assessment may involve volunteers and un-professional workers.

What is needed to assess community resilience

  • Identify a tool/ method and process for community resilience assessment
  • Conduct assessments at different points in time
  • Identify how assessment results can be turned into interventions in the communities
  • Identify how assessments prior to crises allow for anticipating impact and recovery
  • Anticipate challenges to conduct assessments, especially during crises, and establish alternative methods (e.g., less demanding)
  • Understand limitations and assessments conducted

Before a crisis

Prior to crisis events, decision makers and policy makers use resilience assessment to identify the weaknesses and strengths of the communities under their responsibility. Based on the resilience scores obtained, intervention plans should be made in order to reduce the weaknesses and reinforce the strengths, thus improving the community resilience. Once intervention plans have been implemented, it is useful to perform new assessments in order to identify the impact of the intervention plans on the community. The basic action is to identify a valid method for assessing community resilience. It is essential to use a multi-dimensional method that relates to different aspects of the community, such as leadership, social components, preparedness and infrastructure. There is no a gold standard to assess community resilience, but it is important to choose a validated method to maximise study reliability (for example the CCRAM in the Relevant methods section).

Triggering questions

CR assessment tool

  • Is there an accepted tool for measuring community resilience?

CR assessment process

  • Is the study population representing all population strata, including vulnerable population with special needs?
  • What is the aim of the assessment? To create a baseline? To measure the impact of intervention plan?

CR assessment results

  • How do we translate the study results to intervention plans?
  • How could the organisation (from the whole business/CI sector) be involved in strengthening the community resilience in accordance with the assessment's results?

During a crisis

Measuring the impact of the emergency on the community members during the short period; analyzing trends and gaps between assessment points; Planning intervention plans or applying adapted plans prepared in the past and stored for these situations. Measuring community resilience during emergency is a complicated issue. It is of utmost importance to understand the impact of the emergency situation on the community members, but it is difficult to seek the information and to analyze it.

Triggering questions

CR assessment process

  • Can we measure community resilience during the emergency situation?

CR assessment results

  • What are the factors (independent variables) that are associated with an increase of community resilience score?
  • Does the organisation (from the whole business / CI sector) have a special capabilities and resources to enhance the community resilience?

After a crisis

Measure the impact of the emergency situation on the community members in the long term; assessing the rehabilitation after the emergency. Assessing community resilience after the emergency situation enables to understand the long term impact of the emergency, as well as the rehabilitation process. In case the CR assessment was conducted in several time points (before and during the emergency), it is important that assessment reports refer to results of these assessment.

Triggering questions

CR assessment results

  • Can we understand the impact of the emergency situation on the community?
  • Can we build an intervention plan based on the results of measurements?
  • Does the organisation (from the whole business / CI sector) have special capabilities or resources to enhance the resiliency of the community?


Last edited on 27 September 2018 07:44:30. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Assessing_community_resilience
4.2 Identify Sources of Resilience (V3).png
4.2. Identifying sources of resilience


One of the aims of Resilience Engineering is to learn from the everyday performance and from successful operations, rather than by only through lessons learned after failures. In line with this, identifying Sources of Resilience means investigating the mechanisms by which organizations successfully handle expected and unexpected conditions. Such mechanisms (e.g., strategies, processes, tools) allow the organization to adapt, perform and deliver required services in spite of the variability and complexity they experience in their operations. This adaptive capacity can be recognized by looking at the work-as-done, both in daily operations and unusual or exceptional scenarios, in order to identify sources of resilience and to learn from what goes well.

Actors targeted by the concept card

Actors that may benefit from this topic include actors involved in safety, security, and change management activities, audits, safety assessments, concept development sessions, debriefing sessions, after-action reviews, exercise analyses, and incident investigations. This may include policy makers, middle and line management, operational management, and a variety of operational roles.

Introduction

Organizations need to invest in the understanding of everyday operations in order to better be prepared for crisis situations. Resources for building up and maintaining this understanding need to be allocated, an investment with the purpose of retaining, enhancing or amplifying the organization's (or, organizations') resilient capabilities. This means, among other resources, that time needs to be available from experts to share their views on the functioning of the system, as well as facilitators or analysts (possibly experts on resilience management) that are able to compile this knowledge so that the organization may learn from it in a methodological manner.

To identify sources of resilience:

  • Build the necessary skills to understand and identify sources of resilience at different levels of the organization.
  • Select methods for the identification of possible sources of resilience with the involvement of roles and actors at different levels in the organization, making sure to account for an adequate diversity of perspectives. In order to achieve such diversity, combine individual interviews and workshop-based techniques, taking into account time constraints and availability of resources.
  • Plan the methods around triggering questions to be used as guide for defining and describing margins and couplings in daily operations (triggering questions before) or looking back at past events to identify successful skills, strategies, and procedures (triggering questions after).
  • Use the outcome of your analysis to revise your internal guidelines, training or to create ad-hoc ones.

Before a crisis

The following triggering questions can be used to guide a discussion aimed to understand work-as-done, both in daily operations and in situations of crisis.
This can be done in a number of activities, such as dedicated workshops, through interviews, group interviews, observational studies informing analyses, and over-the-shoulder observations, etc. The analyses as such can be part of other safety, security, and change management activities, audits, safety assessments, concept design sessions, etc.
The discussion should be intended as a way to improve the capability of the organization to react to a situation of crisis, by revising internal guidelines and procedures in light of the existing practices that have shown to work well.

Triggering questions

Adaptive capacity:

  • Which strategies (e.g. working methods or contingency procedures) can be used to handle a sudden loss of capacity and/or increase in demands?
  • For which events is there a response ready?
  • How and when can existing roles and tasks be reorganized in response to such events?
  • Is the personnel exposed to unusual situations as part of the training?

Operational Margins:

  • Which margins are available in everyday operational situations that can be used to handle suddenly increased demands?
  • Which margins have been defined and anticipated beforehand?
  • How is it possible to increase existing margins?
  • When is it necessary to negotiate this increase with other actors? With which actors?
  • Are there criteria to establish when it is possible to revert to the original margins?

Resources:

  • How and when can additional resources (human, technical, material) be allocated/called in to integrate existing ones?
  • What back-up (incl. legacy) resources and working methods are available? Is personnel (still) familiar with these in order to readily use them?
  • What kind of coordination with other actors needs to be established for additional resources?
  • Are there criteria to establish when it is possible to revert to the original set of resources?

Monitoring:

  • Which roles in the organization can monitor the margins/resources available, both during and after an unexpected increase in demands?
  • How are margins/resources monitored?
  • Which monitoring mechanisms are put in place by the organization to anticipate and assess possible threats that may occur in the future?

Goal trade-offs:

  • During the management of everyday operations or crises, are there different goals that may come in conflict (e.g. ensuring adequate safety margins vs. minimizing economic losses)?
  • How do operators succeed in meeting conflicting goals and finding appropriate balance among them?

Dependencies and interactions:

  • What strategies (could) foster a smooth coordination among actors and minimize constraints and bottlenecks?
  • Where do more efforts need to be spent to understand the potential for small variations in conditions and performance outcomes to combine, propagate, and amplify across organizations (so-called “cascading”, “butterfly” or “snowball” effects)?
  • What do operators (need to) know about the other parts of the system that they are interacting with?
  • How are formal and informal networks nurtured that are useful in handling crises?

During a crisis

Observe and document application of procedures, methods etc. and their outcome, i.e. not only when they fail, but also when they succeed. Take a step back and reflect on whether conflicting goals are balanced appropriately, where more adaptive capacity is needed, and whether complexity is handled appropriately.

Triggering questions

Probe where things are going well by asking:

  • Where do we never experience (this problem/good operation)? Why is that?
  • Is the organization flexible, adaptable? To what extent and in what way can the organization change to adapt to demands?
  • Do we support colleagues in case of overload?
  • Do we have people available with different competences that can take different roles if required?

After a crisis

The following triggering questions can be used after the occurrence of an actual crisis which was successfully managed, in order to understand which of the existing practices have shown to work well. This can be done in a number of activities, such as dedicated workshops, debriefing sessions, after-action reviews, exercise analyses, interviews, group interviews, incident investigations, lessons learned analyses, etc. Example activities that can be done during these activities using the triggering questions are:

  1. Analyzing the differences between the intended use of procedures and their actual use during the crisis (Understanding which surprises were experienced and which strategies or working methods came out to be successful).
  2. Sharing of case studies between organizations (Explaining what happened, from the point of view of those involved, and ask to the participants how they would have reacted to the same situation).
  3. Proposing changes and/or adaptation to existing plans, resource allocations, guidelines, and procedures, based on what was learnt from the crisis.

Triggering questions

Adaptive capacity:

  • Which strategies (e.g. working methods or contingency procedures) were used to handle sudden losses of capacity and/or increases in demands?
  • Were the exiting roles reorganized in response to such events?
  • Was the allocation of tasks among different actors modified?
  • Were the situations experienced in the context of training activities useful to handle the situation?

Operational Margins:

  • Which margins were actually available to handle sudden losses of capacity and/or increases in demands?
  • Which of these margins were defined and anticipated beforehand?
  • As the crisis developed, was an adjustment of the margins required?
  • Was it necessary to negotiate margin adjustments with other actors?
  • If the available margins were changed during the crisis, when was it possible to revert to the original margins?

Resources:

  • Was it necessary to allocate/call in additional resources (human, technical, material) as the crisis developed?
  • Was a coordination with other actors needed in order to allocate/call in such additional resources?
  • If additional resources were called in from other organizations or from other departments, when was it possible to release them back?

Monitoring:

  • Which roles in the organization monitored the margins/resources available?
  • How were margins/resources actually monitored?
  • Were the threats experienced during the crisis somehow anticipated by the available monitoring mechanisms?
  • In which way did the available monitoring mechanisms help to anticipate the threats?

Goal trade-offs:

  • During the management of the crisis, did we experience situations of conflicting goals that affected our way of managing it?
  • How did the operators succeed in meeting conflicting goals and finding the appropriate balance between them (e.g. ensuring adequate safety margins vs. minimizing economic losses)?

Dependencies and interactions:

  • Which strategies worked better to minimize constraints and bottlenecks when coordinating among different actors?
  • How did the knowledge of other parts of the organization contribute to facilitate the handling of sudden losses of capacity and/or increases in demands?
  • Which strategies worked to minimize the cascading-effects of the crisis?
  • How can we improve existing training by taking into account successful synergies with different organizations/departments experienced during the handling of the crisis?


Last edited on 25 September 2018 13:10:14. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Identifying_sources_of_resilience
Noticing brittleness.png
4.3. Noticing brittleness


The interventions proposed here aim to support organisations to identify sources of brittleness in order to invest in their correction.

Brittleness is experienced in situations of goal conflicts and trade-offs, or when there is a competition for resources and a need to establish priorities under time pressure. Other difficulties emerge when an organisation struggles to manage functional interdependencies between different parts of the same organisation, or when there is insufficient buffer capacity to provide additional resources. Noticing brittleness also means observing operational variability and comparing work-as-done with work-as-imagined, so to reveal how the system might be operating riskier than expected. In addition, brittleness manifests itself when the organisation is unable to learn from past events, such as near misses and accidents.

Actors targeted by the concept card

Managers are expected to implement the interventions in two ways:

  • setting up regular activities that lead to discussions about brittleness and its identification;
  • involving actors at all levels of the organisation, in particular team leaders and other operational personnel who are engaged in crisis management activities.

In addition, members of the organisation familiar with resilience notions (e.g., resilience or safety managers), possibly with the help of external experts, play a key role in conducting events, leading and moderating discussions about brittleness.

Introduction

What is needed to notice brittleness:

  • Engage personnel at all levels of the organisation in understanding and noticing brittleness.
  • Create the conditions for personnel across the organisation to expose and discuss things that do or might not go well in crisis situations.
  • Implement recommended activities regularly to facilitate the personnel's capacity to notice and discuss brittleness.
  • Rely on external experts if resilience or safety managers familiar with notions of resilience are not available.
  • Select methods for the identification of possible sources of brittleness with the involvement of roles and actors at different levels in the organisation, making sure to account for an adequate diversity of perspectives. In order to achieve such diversity, combine individual interviews and workshop-based techniques, taking into account time constraints and availability of resources.
  • Plan the methods around triggering questions to be used as guide for the analysis (see examples of triggering questions below for the phases ‘Before’, ‘During’ and ‘After’ a crisis).
  • Use the outcome of your analysis to revise your internal guidelines or to create ad-hoc ones.

Note Brittleness is a useful concept because it can be easier to describe and notice when systems can break down. However, this focus on "what goes wrong" is complementary to the approach described in Identifying sources of resilience. It would actually be counter-productive to only focus on the negative aspects of systems and operations: it is fundamental to also understand the nature and characteristics of resilience and how it exists in the organisations considered.

Before a crisis

The assessment of potential sources of brittleness can be performed in two types of situations:(1) on a periodic basis, as part of established self-assessment activities; (2) In anticipation of specific events, to ensure resilience capabilities are in place. Relevant examples of the latter case include especially:

  1. Anticipated surge in demands (e.g., due to seasonal peak of activity, or to the approach of an identified threat)
  2. Relevant change brought to the system of interest (e.g. a new technology, a new policy, a new role being introduced).

In all of these cases, the analysis should aim to reveal and discuss potential issues that the system under investigation might experience when handling a crisis. For those organisations which have already identified a list of mitigation measures in case of accidents and crises (e.g., in classic risk management activities), the assessment of brittleness should also focus on understanding what might go wrong when applying the mitigation measures.

Triggering questions

Lack of Resources (human, technical, material)

  • Are there situations in which the resources we expect to have to respond to a crisis/emergency may not be available?
  • What can we put in place to relieve, lighten, moderate, reduce and decrease stress or load?
  • Where could we easily add extra capacity to remove stressors?

Lack of Information

  • Can we anticipate situations in which we will lack the necessary information to handle a certain event?
  • Do we have a protocol in place to gather the missing information?
  • Can we anticipate situations in which we may experience uncertainty based on the history of our operations?
  • Which processes and/or plans are insufficiently defined and may represent a source of uncertainty?

Goal Conflicts

  • What goal conflicts and trade-offs may arise or increase?
  • In such situations, will we be able to establish priorities?
  • Can some goals be temporarily relaxed or sacrificed to reduce the trade-offs?

Constraints and Bottlenecks

  • What constrains us in our ability to execute?
  • What conditions may push our system towards its limits?
  • Who will be most heavily loaded/stressed?
  • Can we anticipate situations in which our operations will be constrained by other organisations?
  • Can we anticipate situations in which our operations act as a constraint for other organisations managing a crisis?

Difficulties to adjust

  • Do we have the capacity to reallocate existing resources if needed. What may prevent us from reallocating them?
  • Do we have a policy that allows us to modify normal operations when needed?
  • Do we expect that major mismatches between official procedures and actual practices may occur?

Limits of mitigation plans

  • If we have safety/emergency plan, what can go wrong when applying the planned mitigation actions?
  • What could prevent us from applying some of the mitigation actions?

During a crisis

During time-critical types of crisis, it may be difficult to use triggering questions as a checklist to be read step-by-step. However, it is important that all the professionals involved in the management of the crisis are fully aware of the topics addressed by the triggering questions and can consider such topics, even without reading them.

For crises that develop over longer time (e.g. Icelandic volcano eruption, or Ebola outbreak) it is possible to organise workshops or operative meetings to reflect with other colleagues on the possible sources of brittleness, and use the triggering questions to support the reflection. The same approach can be used during a drill or a simulation by a facilitator to guide the simulation and stimulate participants to notice brittleness.

Triggering questions

Lack of Resources (materials, information, personnel..)

  • Do we need additional resources (human, technical, material) to manage the event?
  • Are other part of our organisation able to renounce to some of their resources, to support us in managing the event?

Lack of information

  • Is there additional information available to address the crisis that we are not considering?
  • In case of lack of relevant information to handle the situation, can we put a protocol in place to gather the missing information?
  • Can we ask the advice of a colleague who is not involved in the crisis, to support us in correctly interpreting the situation?

Constraints and Bottlenecks

  • Are our operations during the crisis blocked by member of other organisations?
  • Are we hindering the operations of the members of other organisations during the crisis?

Difficulties to Adjust

  • Are we in a capacity to reconsider our priorities?
  • Can we delay the achievement of some goals, in favour of more urgent ones?
  • Can we consider deviations from normal procedures to manage the event?

Difficulties to learn from the crisis

  • Are we able to capture experiences from the crisis, in a format that support the dissemination of “lessons learned” inside the organisation
  • Will the format of such “lessons learned” encourage remedial actions by the management?

Difficulties to learn from previous events.

  • Are we adequately considering “lesson learned” from the past?

After a crisis

Depending on time of implementation, resources and objectives, organisations can:

  • Conduct quick assessments based on methods such as the focus groups described in Practice 1, for instance during debriefing sessions.
  • Conduct more in-depth analyses based on methods that focus on understanding operations in context (e.g., CTA – see Method 1). Data used in such analyses can come from data recorded during the crisis experienced, investigation reports or debriefings, whether it was an actual event or an exercise.
  • Across longer timeframes, assessments need to be conducted about how the organisation has reacted after crisis events, for instance whether it has prioritised and invested resources in the analysis and enhancement of resilience

Triggering questions

Lack of Resources

  • Were our resources (human, equipment, material) adapted to the scale of the event?
  • Which were the missing resources, competences, strategies (if any)?

Lack of Information

  • Did we experience cases in which the information we had was insufficient to effectively handle the situation?
  • Were there difficulties to put in place protocols to gather the missing information?
  • Did the crisis we experienced reveal wrong assumptions we had about the nature of threats we are exposed to, and about our capacity to handle them?
  • Did the crisis we experienced challenge the plans we had established?

Goal Conflicts

  • What goal conflicts and trade-offs did we experience?
  • Were the goal conflicts unusual or unexpected?
  • Were we able to establish priorities?
  • Did we sacrifice any goal in a way that reduced our ability to adapt to certain circumstances

Constraints and Bottlenecks

  • What were the bottlenecks?
  • Where our operations dependent on others?
  • Were the operations of others' dependent on ours?
  • Was collaboration with other organisations effective? If not, which were the constraints?

Difficulties to adjust

  • Were we able to deploy or mobilise additional resources when needed? If not, what prevented us from doing so?
  • Were other parts of the organisation able to renounce to some of their resources when needed? If not, what prevented them from doing so?
  • Were we able to adjust goals and priorities when needed? If not, what prevented us from doing so?
  • Were we able to modify normal operations when needed.
  • Did we observer an excessive mismatch between official procedures and actual practices during operations.

Difficulties to learn from the crisis

  • Were we sufficiently able to capture experiences from the crisis and collect them in a format easy to share inside the organisation?
  • Were we sufficiently able to use these experiences to promote "after action review" inside the organisation?

Difficulties to learn from previous events

  • Have past, potentially similar, events in our own organisation sufficiently helped us being prepared for this crisis?
  • Have similar events in other organisations or domains sufficiently helped us being prepared for this crisis?

Limits of mitigation plans

  • If a safety/emergency plan was available, what went wrong when applying the planned mitigation actions?
  • Did we miss any mitigation action that would have been necessary?
  • What prevented us from applying some of the mitigation actions?
  • Did some mitigation actions result insufficient to handle the associated hazards?


Last edited on 22 September 2018 09:38:21. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Noticing_brittleness


6.1 Systematic management of policies(V3).png
6.1. Systematic management of policies


Policies are a form of statements of intent and are often used to guide decision making throughout all levels of operation within in both public and private organizations. Policies are not static documents, but evolve with the organization and must thus be managed. The purpose of Systematic management of policies is to support structured development and management of policies for dealing with emergencies and disruptions characterized by occurrence of emerging risks and threats. The aim is to achieve adaptive and holistic policy management involving policy makers and operational personnel, both within public and private organizations. Note, that when this capability card is used by operational personnel, it rather refers to systematic management of plans, procedures or checklists.

Actors targeted by the concept card

The actors that are concerned by this capability card are public and private entities with tasks and roles related to dealing with emergencies and disruptions. This capability card relates to the following stakeholders: operational personnel and policy-makers. Operational personnel are those who select, use, apply or follow regulations, procedures and policies during dynamic situations (emergencies and disruptions). Policy-makers are those who design, review, validate and sign off regulations, procedures, and policies (here in sum called “policy”).

The scope of this capability card is response operations to all types of emergencies and disruptions. The applicability of this capability card is to all administrative and management levels, all types of actors and to cross-border, cross-organizational, and cross-domain settings.

Introduction

To achieve a systematic management of policies, several activities and perspectives need to be considered regarding: the policy management process, the policy assessment, and the policy training and implementation support. The policy management process needs to consider how to involve several stakeholders (e.g. operational personnel) to ensure a viable applicability of the policies. The assessment of policy needs to consider how the policies actually work in an operational context and in the context of other policies. Policy training and implementation support needs to consider how policies can be implemented in the organization, in an appropriate and supportive manner for the operational personnel, to manage the change of work practices.

Before a crisis

Proactive systematic policy management can be achieved by organizing working groups, policy-specific or general discussion workshops, regular policy review meetings, policy-testing exercises, and other policy revision activities, within and between different roles and organizations. The analysis of the policy management process and specific policies can be done with for example a structured walkthrough of the policy, or having a more loosely organized brainstorming session.

Letting stakeholders meet and discuss the policies that they are jointly using and how policies are managed is key to holistic assessment of policies. Both formal and more loosely-structured assessments can benefit from imagining future use of a policy by going through hypothetical scenarios, or by recalling situations from actual operations or exercises. In the planning of policy revision activities also consider aspects regarding training and implementation of policies in the operational setting.

Triggering questions

Policy Management Process

  • Reflect on the policy management process
    • How are emergent risks and threats identified and described?
    • How are identified risks and threat used in the policy management process?
    • How well is the cross-domain, cross-organizational or cross-border perspective included?
  • Involve operational personnel in the policy management process
    • Are operational personnel included and invited to participate and provide expertise and experience in the processes involved in policy making?
    • Are bottom-up organizational processes provided to encourage dialogue between policy-makers and operational personnel?
    • How do these processes support establishment of common ground, understanding and trust between policy-makers and operational personnel?
  • Design policies for flexible use
    • Can policies be designed so that their parts (items, sections, etc.) can be used flexibly and as inputs to decision making in specific situations, rather than sequentially procedures to strictly follow?

Policy Assessment

  • Identify and evaluate existing policies
    • How many and which policies are operational personnel expected to work by?
    • Have conflicts between these policies been analysed (between different roles and organizations)?
    • Have conflicts between policies of operational personnel of different organizations following different policies been analysed?
    • Are there situations where operational personnel would need support but policies do not apply?
    • Is operational personnel supported sufficiently by the existing policies?
  • Identify weaknesses in application of existing policies
    • Are policies easy to understand in various situations?
    • Are policies too constraining to deal with actual situations or too general to give concrete guidance?
    • Have operational personnel developed alternative ways of working, compensating strategies, or work-arounds during their actual use of policy? Why?
    • Has this actual use of policy in terms of difficulties of application, alternative ways of working, compensating strategies, or work-arounds been analysed with the purpose to understand them (instead of counting and condemning “violations”)?
    • Have gaps between policies and reality been analysed and identified?
  • Assess policies as part of the whole context, rather than individual policies
    • Has a joint validation of purpose and underlying intent of policies been performed?
    • Have sets of policies been evaluated together in order to assess their joint applicability, complexity, overlaps, bureaucratization, and conflicts?
    • Have different roles’ and organizations’ perspectives and views on the same policies been included in assessments?
    • Have the amount of policies and expectations on policy-driven actions versus actions that cannot or should not be covered by policies been addressed and put into context?
    • Has the need for support for interpretation of policies, pre-authorizing exceptions, and handling exceptions been identified and addressed?
    • Can policies that have low fitness-for-purpose be redesigned or removed?

Policy Training and Implementation Support

  • Impose strategies or mechanisms for communication, training, and support
    • Is a communication strategy in place on how information on new, modified, redesigned, or discontinued policies will be communicated to relevant actors (both policy-makers and operational personnel)?
    • Is a training strategy developed on when and how operational personnel will be trained on policies?
    • Are supporting mechanisms put in place to provide support to operational personnel when applying policies during response operations?
  • Consider implementation aspects of new or revised policies in the planning of policy revision activities
    • Are preparations and processes established for how to provide guidance to operational personnel on when to apply policies and when policies are known not to be applicable in some situations?
    • Are preparations and processes established for making policy-makers available during response operations?
    • Are preparations and processes established for resolving policy conflicts during response operations?
    • Are processes in place for tracing policy changes over time and following-up the effect of these changes?

During a crisis

During crises, consider which roles could need support in applying policies or resolving situations where policy use is problematic. Allocate specific roles in your organization that have the responsibility for addressing these policy issues during crises. Below are suggested themes and triggering questions to be included in these activities.

Triggering questions

Policy Management Process

  • How is the information regarding application of policies documented to facilitate organizational learning?

Policy Assessment

  • Do operational personnel know how to act or who to contact when conflicts between policies occur, a policy is not fit for purpose, or when policies are missing?
  • Is guidance provided to operational personnel on when to apply policies and when policies are known not to be applicable?

Policy Training and Implementation Support

  • Is guidance provided to resolve policy conflicts during response operations?
  • Are policy-makers available during response operations?

After a crisis

Actual crises often provide ample opportunity to learn how and why policies did or did not have the desired effects in actually supporting the crisis management operation. During after-action reviews, debriefing sessions, and analysis work for lessons learned, allocate explicit attention to the use of policies and potential opportunities for improvement. These can be complemented with specific follow-up interviews, workshops, and analyses of communication logs or operational documentation and other recorded data when it is necessary to inform the lessons learned process regarding the use of policies. Consider the perspectives of multiple organizations and roles, as opinions and experiences on the same policy can differ widely. Include the following themes and triggering questions in these activities.

Triggering questions

Policy Management Process

  • Has feedback been collected on applied policies from different organizations, domains, and levels in order to have a holistic perspective?
  • Has the use of the sets of policies in the context of work and the situation been analysed, and has the fitness of policies for the event been assessed?
  • Did operational personnel employ alternative ways of working, compensating strategies, or work-arounds during their actual use of policy? Why?
  • Has this actual use of policy been analysed with the purpose to understand them (instead of counting and condemning “violations”)?
  • Could the changes in operational environment leading up to and during the event have led to outdating of policies?
  • What lessons can be learned from the actual use of policies?
  • What lessons can be learned about the flexibility of use of policies?

Policy Assessment

  • Could additional policies (as part of suggesting lessons to be learned) risk negative effects, by increased documentation and bureaucratization of work, increased workload, diminished creativity and innovation, or decreased ability to meet unexpected events?
  • How are lessons learned fed back into the policy design process?
  • How are lessons learned fed back into redesign of more flexible policies?
  • Are recommendations for policy redesign followed-up in a systematic way?

Policy Training and Implementation Support

  • Have the operational personnel applied current policies in an advisable manner that could be included in training or policy revision?
  • Have the operational personnel had sufficient training and support to be able to apply current policies?
  • Have policy conflicts or other policy related problems been identified and how were they resolved?


Last edited on 25 September 2018 13:30:09. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Systematic_management_of_policies


Communication with the public.png
7.1. Communication strategies for interacting with the public


The response of the general public that is potentially affected by a crisis, or could be helpful in resolving a crisis, has an impact on the outcome of the crisis response work. Therefore, organizations need to develop and implement communication strategies for Interacting with the public that can help facilitate beneficial responses to crises and crisis response efforts. Communication and interaction with the public during a crisis will be facilitated if daily communication strategies and regular interaction with the public is already well established. The recommendations presented here are aimed at both public and private entities at all levels that are involved in crisis management, in particular crisis managers and roles within the organizations related to design, development and evaluation of communication plans and strategies. Even though not all personnel involved during a crisis or incident needs to communicate directly with the public, being aware of communication strategies aimed at the public and the need of communication competencies can be of use.

Actors targeted by the concept card

The actors that are concerned by this capability card are public and private entities with tasks and roles related to dealing with emergencies and disruptions. The capability card relates to 1) crisis managers that see the need to interact with the general public to avoid, affect, or stimulate their involvement in the crisis, and 2) those who design, review, validate and sign off communication strategies/policies in these organizations, such as managers in general, or specific information, communication, or media officers/strategists.

Indirectly affected actors: formal and informal leaders, and individual citizens of the general public potentially affected by, or helpful in, crises (including those not yet directly affected by or engaged in the response).

The scope of the capability card is response operations during all types of emergencies and disruptions.

Introduction

There are several considerations to explore and investigate in order to achieve the full potential of effective communication with the public that are applicable to all phases of crisis management and everyday operations. These considerations have been formulated in terms of triggering questions that can be used within the organization, in the context of workshops, focus groups involving communication strategists and other domains experts, to check the effectiveness of the communication strategy that the organization is adopting. The triggering questions are different depending whether we are Before, During or After a crisis or emergency situation.

Before a crisis

The triggering questions BEFORE are meant to stimulate organizations to assess their communication strategies in order to increase their preparedness and capability to respond in the phase of a crisis or emergency situation.
When planning for crisis response, it should be taken into account that the public can be helpful both in the prevention phase and during the actual occurrence of the crisis. Therefore, it is important to give proper value to this opportunity through adequate messages. To be able to benefit from resources and assistance provided by the public there is a need for proper organization, planning, education and training.

Triggering questions

Adequacy of the Plan

  • Do we have a communication strategy or crisis communication plan that gives guidance on who and how to communicate?
  • Are relevant roles aware of their responsibilities with regard to communication?
  • Is our communication plan sufficiently coordinated with other relevant authorities/organizations?
  • Do we have mechanisms to prevent misalignment or conflicts regarding communication among both different organizations and/or different parties of the same organization (e.g. through an appointed common spokesperson)?

Capability to guide effective crisis response by the public

  • Does the communication plan include adequate information on how to guide crisis response by the public?
  • Are we making sure the information shared with the public does not cause unnecessary alarm or distress?
  • Does the communication plan include information to the public on how to avoid using resources that may be needed by others during a crisis?
  • Do we provide information on crisis management also during normal/ordinary situations?
  • Have we prepared standard public messages or information blocks for use during crises?
  • How do we communicate the individual responsibility to increase public preparedness, avoiding an overreliance on authorities?

Communication Channels

  • Through what kind of channels are we able to communicate?
  • Do we use communication channels that people already use every day?
  • Are the communication channels sufficiently up-to-date?
  • Does the selection of our communication channels take into account the needs or routines of the public in target?
  • Is there a risk of our communication channels being overloaded?

Adequacy of Competencies

  • Are we proficient at using the available communication channels?
  • Are relevant roles trained, educated, and exercised using this strategy/plan?
  • Are we using the appropriate terminology for communication with the public (consider, for instance, different demographics)?
  • Do we have access to the appropriate competences (subject matter experts, domain experts etc.) while developing communication strategies/plans?
  • Does the communication officer/s have the appropriate (technical) domain knowledge in order to understand, and respond to, information requests from the public (and thus have the ability to work independently)?

Clarity and Accessibility

  • Are people aware of where they can access the information?
  • Have we considered in which languages the information needs to be communicated?
  • What processes or routines do we have to fact-check/quality-assure before we communicate it?
  • Do we clearly communicate responsibilities of individuals, as well as of the agencies involved in crisis management?

Acceptability and Trustworthiness

  • Does our communication strategy adequately encourage trust and acceptance by the public?
  • Is our information presented in a way or place that makes it trustworthy?
  • Is our communication avoiding any expression of blame culture, which could be seen as unhelpful or counterproductive scapegoating?
  • Are we adequately communicating the benefits of being prepared in case of crisis and not just prescribing how to be prepared?

Prevention of Misinformation

  • Do we have procedures to monitor and react to misinformation spread by non-official communication channels?
  • Do we have a strategy to counter misinformation and rumors?
  • Do we have adequate technical information security in order to prevent misuse or manipulation of our social media/web channels (i.e. prevent hacking and spoofing in order to distort or change official information)?

Ability to listen and collect feedback

  • Are we able to engage with the public in order to understand and recognize the diversity of local communities, the local needs, and the available or lacking resources? How?
  • Are we able to integrate information from the public or other sources into our communication? How?
  • How do we seek feedback from the public?
  • What capability do we have to respond to information requests or other interactions with the public?
  • How do we communicate the need for people to be self-reliant to a certain degree?

Capability to trigger public engagement

  • Does our communication strategy/plan facilitate public participation? How?
  • How do we ask for help/resources that corresponds to actual needs?
  • Are we prepared to communicate in a timely manner (i.e. do we have prepared messages, websites or other forms of communication)?

During a crisis

The triggering questions DURING can be used to assess and adjust the communication strategies employed by the crisis management team or communications strategist in order to continually tune communications to the most appropriate form and content during crisis management. Issues such as management of acceptance and trust, collection and sharing of relevant and accurate information, as well as the prevention of misinformation, should be constantly monitored as the crisis develops.

Triggering questions

Adequacy of the Plan

  • Do we need to coordinate our current communication with other authorities/organizations?
  • Do we need an appointed common spokesperson to manage the communication towards the public and the media (to avoid misalignment or conflicts among both different organizations and/or different parties of the same organization)?

Capability to guide effective crisis response by the public

  • Are we communicating the information required to avoid being affected by the consequences of a crisis?
  • Is our communication informing the public on how to avoid using resources that may be needed by others or interfere with our response?

Communication Channels

  • What communication channels are we using (i.e. websites, media, social media)?
  • Are we using relevant communication channels that people already use every day?
  • Are the communication channels sufficiently up-to-date?
  • Is there a risk our communication channels are overloaded?

Adequacy of Competencies

  • Are we proficient at using the available communication channels?
  • Are we using the appropriate terminology for communication with the public (consider, for instance, different demographics)?
  • Do we have access to the appropriate competencies (for instance, a communications officer on duty)?

Clarity and Accessibility

  • Is the public in target able to understand the information (e.g. use of complex probabilistic models, language barriers etc.)?
  • Is our information sufficiently accessible to the public?
  • Is our communication adequate to meet the actual needs of the public/media?

Acceptability and Trustworthiness

  • Are we communicating in a way to lessen the psychological impacts of people involved and to avoid them feeling a sense of isolation?
  • Does the public perceive our communication as trustworthy?
  • Do we need to disclose more information and be more transparent to increase acceptance and trust by the public?
  • Are we communicating the benefits of following our communication or adhering to our advice?

Prevention of Misinformation

  • How do we check if misinformation is spread by non-official communication channels?
  • Do we know if the public is ill-informed or diverted by rumours and misinformation?
  • How can we counter and mitigate the effects of misinformation (and rumours)?
  • How can we redirect the public to official channels for trusted information?
  • How are we responding to information needs of the public, to avoid making them look for answers elsewhere?
  • How are we checking the accuracy of our information?

Ability to listen and collect feedback

  • How are we using the public as a partner in the crisis?
  • Are we giving the public sufficient opportunities to help in gathering and spreading relevant information?

Capability to trigger public engagement

  • Does our plan include guidance for the public on how to contribute with resources/capabilities to the management of the crisis?
  • How are we recognizing and reinforcing supportive behaviours by the public?
  • Does our communication encourage the public to provide support to us?

After a crisis

Conducting post-event learning in relation to the way the communication was managed during the crisis, can improve the readiness for future crisis events. This may be done as part of analysis, after-action review in the context of workshops and focus groups, using the triggering question AFTER.

Triggering questions

Adequacy of the Plan

  • Was our communication plan sufficiently coordinated with other relevant authorities/organizations?
  • Can we derive lessons-learned, which are worth documenting and feeding into future plans?
  • How can these lessons learned be captured into communication strategies/policies (see also 6.1 Systematic management of policies)?

Capability to guide effective crisis response by the public

  • Was the information on guiding crisis response by the public included in our plan adequate?

Communication Channels

  • Were the communication channels used during the crisis sufficiently up-to-date?
  • Was the selection of our communication channels adequate to the public in target?
  • Did we experience an overload of our communication channels during the crisis?

Clarity and Accessibility

  • Did people experience difficulties in accessing our information source during the crisis?
  • Was the necessary information communicated in a language, or in different languages, understandable by the public in target?
  • Were the responsibilities of individuals, as well as of the agencies involved in crisis management properly communicated?

Adequacy of Competences

  • Do we need to acquire new available communication channels?
  • Are relevant roles trained, educated, and exercised using this strategy/plan?

Acceptability and Trustworthiness

  • Did the public perceive our communication during the crisis as trustworthy?

Prevention of Misinformation

  • Were we successful in counteracting misinformation and rumours?

Ability to listen and collect feedback

  • Did we adequately engage with the public during the crisis to understand and recognize different needs, due to local specificities and diversity of the involved communities?
  • Were we able to integrate information from the public with other sources of information in an effective manner?
  • Were we able to respond to information requests by the public in a timely manner?

Capability to trigger public engagement

  • Did the rescuers involve the public in an appropriate way?
  • Was the involvement and interaction with the public useful?
  • How did the public experience the crisis and their involvement in the response/relief efforts?


Last edited on 27 September 2018 07:06:52. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Interacting_with_the_public
7.2 Involving public.png
7.2. Increasing the public's involvement in resilience management


To integrate the organization in a network of relevant actors and agencies. The integration is aimed at enhancing the organization’s ability to respond to the needs of both the organization as well as the local community in times of change and emergency.

Actors targeted by the concept card

The idea of creating a network integrating organizations and the community is innovative, and one which will require engaging organizational decision makers to address the administrative and logistical aspects. During the implementation phases, the operational level as front line workers will be involved.

Introduction

The integration of various levels of organizations and public requires a constant examination of this process, including ethical issues of balancing between different needs and interests. Formal or informal leadership could represent the public interest. It is important to integrate community leaders in mapping resources and needs in planning for potential crisis. Business organizations can be very helpful in using their vast databases to help the authorities – municipalities create a good status snapshot at certain times. To increase response, integrating the educational system is an effective option to advance preparedness plans, and school children are a target population, with preparedness training adapted to their level of knowledge and emotional development.

Before a crisis

During non-emergency periods, organizations should be involved in building relationships and networks with other relevant agencies. The involvement of the public (community members as well as business sector) in the process of preparedness may be through participation in drills and exercises and in planning joint SOPs for times of emergencies. The SOPs should include definitions of interfaces between the public sectors and organizations within them. Public leadership – formal and informal alike – and business sectors should understand the all-hazards approach and its implications and prepare the public as well as the businesses for multiple scenarios. The business sector can contribute with knowledge and expertise in adding their professionals as well as technology. In order to enhance capacity during the preparedness phase, it is important to publish preparedness plans, keeping the balance between increasing public awareness without creating panic, making sure to prevent "crisis fatigue." The local authorities should involve the public in promoting and creating CERTs (Community Emergency Response Teams). Among possible uses of business-sector resources is designating corporate clinics to work with the municipality when disaster strikes or joining the community effort in rebuilding supply chains.

Triggering questions

  • Does the organizations SOP address emergency situations other than workplace emergencies?
  • How does an organization maintain alertness without introducing anxiety?

During a crisis

During an emergency, the organization and the local community must handle challenging situations, balancing between needs and limited resources. The public and business sectors may initially help identify resources by actively participating in the local authorities' efforts to monitor the existence or lack of resources through social networks, calling call centers and reporting systematically (especially the corporate sector) on available resources. The business sector should try and maintain working supply chains and work with the municipalities through crisis communications practices to ensure the public receives basic services. Communication companies could be instrumental in using applications and survey techniques monitoring population reactions. Social media and other forms of communication should be used to spread two-way information between professionals and the population. The informal leadership and business sectors may participate in directing the public to alternate resources. Challenges for heterogenic population including formal and informal leaders:

  • Prevent confusion and contradicting guidelines.
  • Balancing between human rights and following the guidelines (e.g. evacuation).
  • Identify the languages – communication with leaders.
  • Updated information for agencies.

It is important to think creatively in order to reveal hidden resources, (e.g., mapping professional skills of each organization and business). For example, rather than viewing the aging population as a burden, it should be viewed and utilized as a resource. As such, beyond providing special needs for the ageing population, the elders my contribute to the community in a range of capacities.

Triggering questions

  • Assuming cellular communication fails, are people aware of where landlines are located?
  • How can the elderly population be trained as a resource for emergency situations?
  • If infrastructures are cut off, does the specific organization (form the business sector, for example) have special means that could deliver emergency supplies?

After a crisis

In the post-crisis period, both organization and community bear the task of rehabilitation and returning to normalcy. After the dust (real and metaphoric) has settled, it is time to examine the lessons learned, map the functioning of the various actors, and the effectiveness of the networks. This is the time to rebuild, a process in which the business sector, and organizations within it, play a major role providing work power and resources. SOPs that were enacted during the emergency must be flexible enough to relax back into routine mode. Both the public and the organization will need strong and reliable leadership, clear information, and a vision of the benefits of continued cooperation. The business sector may offer incentives in the form of jobs to those taking place in rebuilding.

Triggering questions

  • How can organization-community relationships be enhanced following their cooperation during the crisis?
  • How can they “cash in” on the momentum created?
  • In your organizations, which incentives can you offer people working to rebuild the community?


Last edited on 27 September 2018 10:16:09. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Public_involvement_in_resilience_management


9.1 Alternative ways of working.png
9.1. Alternative Working Methods


The card supports the development and the maintenance of Alternative Working Methods (AWMs) in case of system failure. System failures are situations in which an essential component to ensure continuity in the service offered by the organization is either lost or functioning in a degraded mode and there is no backup, emergency or contingency solution available by design. Applying an AWM means performing one or more activities within the organizations in a way which is remarkably different from what described in existing procedures or practices, in order to bypass the constrain created by the system failure. It may imply following different steps in the way to perform the activity, using different tools or cooperating with different people (or all of the above) with respect to what is normally done without the system failure.

Actors targeted by the concept card

Executive management roles, Management and Operational roles

Introduction

What is needed to manage Alternative Working Methods (AWMs)

  1. Identify major system failure scenarios affecting the critical infrastructure capability managed by the organization to ensure continuity of its service
  2. Define AWMs to ensure business continuity in the event of system failure:
    2.1 Revise existing working methods;
    2.2 Consider the applicability of older working method;
    2.3 Propose new AWMs.
  3. Disseminate the information on the AWMs inside the organization and/or organize training activities to ensure mastery of them by the personnel of the organization.

The triggering questions provided for the before/during/after phases are intended to guide the different actions suggested by the card through self-assessment. The questions should be selected in a flexible way depending of priorities within the organisation. Once a question is considered relevant, the response to it should always come with a rationale. Simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answers will not suffice.

Before a crisis

1. Organize a Focus Group with representatives of the managerial levels and front-end operators to address the topic of AWMs.

2. Identify major system failure scenarios affecting the critical infrastructure capability managed by the organization to ensure continuity of its service:

  • Focus on major system failures such as loss of essential functions or degraded modes of operations with a potential of jeopardizing the business continuity of the organization and the safety of people inside or outside the organization (normal maintenance operations or activation of backup systems in ordinary scenarios to be considered out of scope);
  • Consider the analyses made through the CC Noticing brittleness (if available);
  • Involve experts of specific system failures as appropriate to receive specific advisory.

3. Define alternative working methods to ensure business continuity in the event of system failure, while maintaining the safety of people inside and outside the organization:

  • Revise existing AWMs;
  • Consider the applicability of older working methods;
  • Propose new AWMs;
  • Consider the analyses made through the CC Manage available resources (if available);
  • Consider the analyses made through the CC Adapting plans and procedures during crises (if available)
  • Select on or more alternative AWMs for each of the identified system failure.

4. Assign to a person or role in the organization the responsibility to approve the adoption of the AWM in case one of the considered system failures will occur.

5. Write a report describing the defined (or revised) AWMs.

6. Organize awareness campaign to disseminate the description of the defined working methods to the relevant personnel and/or arrange training activities focussed on the same contents (training activities should be preferred in case the adoption of the AWM is not straightforward for personnel who never applied it and if allowed by budget constraints).

7. Inform other organizations that may be impacted by the application of the AWMs, as appropriate.

Triggering questions

Identification of System Failures

  • What kind of system failure has the potential to compromise the continuity of the service offered by our organization?
  • Can we think of an unprecedented system failure with the potential to compromise the continuity of the service offered by our organization?
  • Can we think of a system failure for which there is no straightforward backup, emergency or contingency procedure identified by design?
  • For which kind of system failure the identification of an AWM represents a priority for our organization?

Review of Existing AWMs

  • Is our personnel aware of the AWMs we identified for specific system failures
  • Did we verify if the AWMs we identified for specific system failures are still applicable and fit for the purpose? Did the last check occur too long ago?
  • Did we check if the tools necessary to support the identified AWMs are still usable?
  • Did we check if the tools necessary to support the identified AWMs are still accessible to the personnel?
  • Are the skills and competences of our personnel adequate to apply the AWMs if needed?

Consideration of Older Working Methods

  • Can we revert to ‘old school methods’ that existed before the system affected by the failure was available in the organization?
  • Would the older working methods be capable of managing the complexity of the process that we previously supported with the system affected by the failure?
  • What is the level of obsolescence of the tools used as part of older working methods?
  • Do we maintain the tools formerly used in older working methods in a way that would allow us to reuse them in case of system failure?
  • Can we make adaptations to the tools used as part of older working methods to compensate for their obsolescence?
  • Are we periodically refreshing the skills and competences that would be needed by the personnel to reuse the older working methods?
  • Does the cost to rebuild skill and competences to reuse older working methods exceeds the expected benefits?

Definition of New AWMs

  • What kind of physical redundancy we may use to compensate for the system failure?
  • What kind of functional redundancy we may use to compensate for the system failure?
  • What kind of human backup we may use to compensate for the system failure?
  • Can we provisionally use a tool to compensate for the system failure in a way different from what originally intended in its design?

Limitations of Selected AWMs

  • Is the AWM we have identified expected to reduce the level of safety of operations until the system failure is not repaired?
  • Does the AWM we have identified rely on the same infrastructure that has caused the failure of the main system?
  • Does the AWM we have identified rely on resources of other organizations on which we do not have full control?
  • Is the AWM we have identified at risk of causing undesired side effects on other organizations with whom we collaborate?

Dissemination and training on AWMs

  • Did we inform properly all the relevant personnel in our organization regarding the identified AWMs?
  • Do we need to organize a dissemination campaign in order to make sure the relevant personnel in the organization is aware of the identified AWMs?
  • Do we need to inform the point of contacts of other organizations of the AWMs we have identified?
  • Do we need to develop training modules to make sure the relevant personnel in our organization have the necessary competences and skills to master the identified AWMs?

During a crisis

1. As soon as a system failure occurs, check whether the failure corresponds to one of the typologies for which an AWM was identified and start the process for applying it.

  • Ask approval for the application of the AWM to the person or role to whom this responsibility was assigned
  • Adopt measures to inform about the application of the AWM all the personnel whose activity might be impacted by the alternative methods
  • Check whether the alternative working method requires on-the-fly adaptations
  • As soon as permitted and at regular time intervals, verify whether the system failure has been recovered and if the adoption of the AWM can be suspended


2. If no AWM was previously identified for the ongoing system failure, establish a task force to identify an AWM aimed at ensuring business continuity and safety, until the system failure has not been repaired. The task force should:

  • Consider the applicability of older working methods
  • Propose new AWMs
  • Consider the analyses made through the CC Manage available resources (if available and allowed by time constraints).
  • Select one or more AWMs to operate until the system failure has not been repaired.

3. Disseminate the information on the AWMs being selected inside the organization, making sure that the relevant personnel is informed as appropriate

4. Make sure that the personnel required to use the AWMs have sufficient mastery of them, also by organizing ad-hoc training activities, if allowed by time constraints.


5. Inform other organizations that may be impacted by the application of the AWMs, as appropriate.


6. Inform the relevant personnel in the organization (and the point of contacts in other organizations, if involved) when the failure requiring the AWM has been repaired and it is possible to revert to the normal working method.

Triggering questions

Identification of System Failures

  • Are we experiencing a system failure that could be managed with one of the AWMs we have previously identified?

Review of Existing AWMs

  • Based on the information we have, is the AWM previously identified for this type of failure fit to manage the situation?
  • Does the available personnel possess the necessary competence and skills to apply the identified AWM?

Consideration of Older Working Methods

  • If no specific AWM was previously identified to address the ongoing system failure, can we revert to an older working method in order to manage the situation until the failure is not repaired?
  • Does the available personnel possess the necessary competence and skills to apply the older working method?

Definition of New AWMs

  • If no specific AWM was previously identified, what kind of physical redundancy we may use to compensate for the system failure?
  • If no specific AWM was previously identified, what kind of functional redundancy we may use to compensate for the system failure?
  • If no specific AWM was previously identified, what kind of human backup we may use to compensate for the system failure?
  • Can we provisionally use a tool to compensate for the system failure in a way different from what originally intended in its design?

Limitations of Selected AWMs

  • Do we expect that the use of the identified AWM will maintain operations at an acceptable level of safety?
  • If the application of the identified AWM relies on resources from a different organization, are these resources currently available?
  • Do we expect that the use of the identified AWM will cause undesired side effects in other organizations?

Dissemination and training on AWMs

  • If a decision was made to use an AWM, did we inform all the relevant personnel in our organization?
  • If the identified AWM is expected to have side effects on the work of other organizations, did we coordinate properly with the points of contact of these organizations?
  • If not all the personnel at hand is adequately trained to use the identified AWM, can we organize ad hoc training sessions to manage the situation until the system failure is not repaired?

After a crisis

1. Organize a Focus Group with representatives of the managerial levels and front-end operators to analyse the use of AWMs adopted during the crisis (if any). The Focus Group should:

  • Assess to what extent the AWMs were successful in maintaining business continuity and safe conditions until the system failure was not repaired
  • Check whether the skill and competences of the personnel were adequate to apply the AWM
  • Check whether the AWM caused undesired side effects in other organizations cooperating in the management of the crisis (If available, the analyses made through the CC Adapting plans and procedures during crises may also be used as input).

2. Consider whether any AWM emerged during the crisis (and previously unknown) proved to be successful in managing the crisis, to an extent that makes it a potential candidate for similar cases of system failure in future.

3. Propose new AWMs to manage the system failure that occurred during the crisis or other potential system failures identified during the post-hoc analysis of the occurred crisis.

  • Select or revised one or more alternative AWMs for each of the system failure identified

4. Assign to a person or role in the organization the responsibility to approve the adoption of the AWM in case one of the considered system failures will occur

5. Write a report describing the defined (or revised) AWMs

6. Organize an awareness campaign to disseminate the description of the defined working methods to the relevant personnel and/or arrange training activities focussed on the same contents (training activities should be preferred in case the adoption of the AWM is not straightforward for personnel who never applied it and if allowed by budget constraints) .

7. Inform other organizations that may be impacted by the application of the AWMs, as appropriate.

Triggering questions

Identification of System Failures

  • During the development of the crisis, did we experience a system failure that compromised the continuity of the service offered by our organization?
  • During the development of the crisis, did we experience a system failure for which there was no straightforward backup, emergency or contingency solution available by design?

Analysis of Emerging AWMs

  • During the development of the crisis, did we observe any recovery action that we consider a valid reference to define a new AWM in case of system failure?
  • Does the comparison between work-as-done and work-as-imagined during the crisis suggest that a new AWM would be required to manage a given system failure?
  • During the development of the crisis, did we observe any successful informal practice that would deserve being converted into an official procedure?

Review of Existing AWMs

  • Did we experience situations in which an AWM was used but came out not to be applicable or fit for the purpose?
  • Did we experience situations in which there was an attempt to use an AWM, but the necessary tools were not properly maintained?
  • Did we experience situations in which there was an attempt to use an AWM, but the necessary tools were not accessible to the personnel?
  • Did we experience situations in which an AWM was not used because the relevant personnel did not have the necessary skills and competences?

Consideration of Older Working Methods

  • Did we experience situations in which the adoption of an older working method resulted inadequate to manage the complexity of the process managed with the ordinary working method?

Limitations of Selected AWMs

  • Did we experience situations in which the use of an AWM degraded the safety of operations to a level considered unacceptable?
  • Did we experience situations in which the use of an AWM was not successful, because its functioning relied on the same infrastructure causing the failure of the main system?
  • Did we experience situations in which the use of an AWM was not successful, because its functioning relied on the resources of another organization that came out not to be available?
  • Did we experience situations in which the use of an AWM caused undesired side effects in other organizations?

Dissemination and training on AWMs

  • Did we experience situations in which an AWM was not used because the personnel was not informed of it?
  • Did the crisis reveal that a dissemination campaign concerning an identified AWM was not adequate to the purpose?
  • Did we experience situations in which the use of an AWM was not successful, because the point of contacts of other organizations were not informed of it?
  • Did we experience situations in which the use of an AWM was not successful, because the training modules focusing on it were inadequate to prepare the personnel of our organization?


Last edited on 27 September 2018 10:14:57. Read updated and full text at:
https://h2020darwin.eu/wiki/page/Alternative_ways_of_working