Showing posts with label tabletop. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tabletop. Show all posts

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Emergency Response Plan Validation

Deepwater Horizon - a topical Emergency Response Plan

Companies spend tens of thousands of dollars developing Emergency Response Plans...how do you know if it will work or not?  Most times you follow best practices, cross your fingers and hope.

As they said in the Senate hearings a few years back "Hope is not a strategy"

Is there a way to quickly and easily validate your Emergency Response Plan?  How would you go about  determining, bad luck and human frailties aside, that your plan is reasonable and stands a good chance of working?  Let's look at the options we would have a few years ago:

  • Hire an expert or someone independent to look over your plan.  I guess that is better than nothing, since two pair of eyes are better than one, but that person may miss some key things.  Let's examine some facts.  Humans are poor judges of timing and sequence, so it is likely that critical problems will remain around time and space 
  • Wargame the plan.  Gather a group of people together, each taking on a role (like a mini-tabletop exercise) and try and play the plan out bit by bit to see how it may play out.  The problem is that although this does effectively play the human interactions, once again the time and space realist is lacking.
How important is time and space?  Absolutely critical for an emergency!  So is there another tool that can help to validate the plan accurately and realistically?  Fortunately in the last few years, advances in simulation technology have allowed constructive simulations to play a part in plan validation.

First of all "garbage in, garbage out".  If you don't have a simulation that realistically plays time and space, you are wasting your time.  Secondly, if the simulation is not set up to accurately portray what you need simulated then it is not going to help you.  Finally, unless you have a simulation that you can easily change the scenario and rerun the event to ensure the changes make a positive impact within your plan, you are going to have a hard time determining exactly what is broken with your plan and how to fix it.

Step 1 - Select a simulation.

Choose a simulation tool that is easy for you to use, doesn't cost a lot of money to set up and operate and can be easily changed to exercise all aspects of your Emergency Response Plan.  Remember that you are going to have run run the simulation a bunch of times for each possible scenario to ensure that your plan will work, no matter what the circumstances.  If your constructive simulation tool is too hard to use or too hard to adjust, use a different one.

Step 2 – Plan your validation event

Determine what parts of your plan you are going to validate.  Determine how the emergency will unfold and ensure that you know how the emergency response is supposed to occur. 

Take the time to go through the data with a fine tooth comb:
  • Is the mutual aid agreement really in place?  
  • What resources are actually there, right now to deal with an emergency?  
  • Is the equipment the same as listed in the plan?  
  • Are the roads still the same?  
  • What has changed?
In other words, make sure that the simulation you are going to run is realistic and accurately depicts the personnel, equipment and conditions that are really in place.  If pieces are missing or if you are unsure if they can respond, then exclude them from the scenario – you want to have an accurate to borderline worst case scenario, since you seldom read about disasters that unfurled in "best case" conditions.

How many simulation runs are you going to need?  You may need to run the simulation again with a different wind direction, or perhaps run it more than once under different weather conditions to ensure that your plan will work any time of the day or night, or any season.  Plan the scenarios carefully and only combine them if you are certain you will be able discern if one thing or another causes problems.  You don’t want to be left trying to figure out what went wrong – was it the weather or the time of day?

If it is important that your results be statistically valid, you need to decide how many times to run each scenario.  In some cases, multiple runs are needed in order to ensure that the data you collect is valid and any one-off aberrations are smoothed out.   

Step 3 – Run the simulation

Set up your simulation scenarios and run them.  During the simulation run you should follow along with the Emergency Response Plan to make sure that the simulation is doing what it is supposed to and that the right resources are responding at the right times.  Keep notes and record any hunches you may have about how the plan could be run more effectively.  At the end of the simulation run, record the Post Exercise Review information with a useful file name that is easy to reference to the original scenario.

Some constructive simulation tools allow you to play the scenarios in faster than real-time.  If you are doing this, be aware that you may miss critical events if the time is set too fast.  You may decide to slow down the simulation time during these critical events and then speed it up afterwards.

By the end of your simulation runs you should have a number of post exercise review files, copious notes and hunches that need verifying.  Don’t change anything yet!  Finish your experiments then analyze the data before making any changes to your plans or the scenarios.

Step 4 –Analyze the collected information

Carefully review your post exercise review files.  Just like a football coach reviewing the video of a game, you should be able to spot important things that you missed the first time around.  It is best to have a very inquisitive mind during these replays.  Openly wonder why something occurred that way and make a note of the question.

Go through your hunches and try to determine if any of the data support your hunch.  Think of a way to alter the scenario to test your hunch and prove it right or wrong.  “If I re-do it this way, I should be able to easily see if the roadblock needs to be set up further West”, and so on.

There is another important thing you should achieve here – Face Value Validation.  You can determine that your plan works in most circumstances and you should know where it will fail.  A successful plan should be able to easily handle the projected scenario but also be able to withstand the worst case scenario.

Keep a copy of your data and put it somewhere separate if you are running additional scenarios – you don’t want to contaminate your first runs with subsequent runs.  Then make the changes to the simulation scenarios and run the scenarios you need to run again.  You should now be able to prove or disprove your hypothesis – or maybe decide that you need to run a different set of scenarios because there was no clear outcome.

Step 5 – Incorporate the changes in the Emergency Response Plan

Once you have determined through your analysis of the simulation that a change is warranted in the Emergency Response Plan, take some extra time to think about it before you make a change.
  • Was this clearly a time and space issue that had been overlooked in the original plan that the simulation has proven without a doubt…or do you need more research?
  • Can you prove through another means that this change needs to happen?  Remember the “garbage in, garbage out”.  There may have been problems with the way the simulation was set up, so this is definitely a case of “measure twice, cut once”.
SUMMARY

Wow, it seems like a lot of work to use a constructive simulation to validate an Emergency Response Plan!  

Not really, actually.  If you were going to do the validation in real life, what you accomplish in a day with simulation would take months to do and would cost thousands of dollars (and think of the time planning and coordinating the activity!)

A good constructive simulation allows you to make moderate changes to the simulation scenario in minutes, so you are really doing one scenario and making several minor “tweaks” in how it is run.  The hard part is being organized with your data and being clinical with your analysis.  A good simulation will show you exactly where the major holes are in your Emergency Response Plan and will help you to craft the corrective changes you need to make it work properly.

IMPORTANT – even if you don’t have time to completely clinical validation of your Emergency Response Plan, at least run an exercise with it using a constructive simulation.  You will achieve the following benefits by running an exercise with your plan:
  • Participants will know the plan better because they will be using it
  • Participants will know better how to work together
  • The plan will be exercised in at least one realistic setting, and that is better than doing nothing at all!
Finally, if this seems overwhelming, don’t be discouraged – it is not as hard to do as it seems.  Contact me and I can help you or point you to some resources who can assist.

Keep training!

Bruce


Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, July 2, 2010

Why Simulation is Important for Emergency Responders

A beach after an oil spill.Image via Wikipedia
Calling all Emergency Operations Center (EOC) staff...

When was the last time you had a good exercise that tested your abilities? Was the exercise realistic? What did you learn?

I have seen a number of "bad" exercises. Some of the worst have been tabletop exercises where the participants drink their own "bathwater". Everyone gathers around a table, discusses a scenario, nods their heads for a while and goes home...what does that have to do with reality? I think everyone knows that emergency events fall into two categories - the "USUAL" where it happens every day and people are quite comfortable about dealing with them and "UNUSUAL" where the "fit hits the sham".

Unusual events seem to have these characteristics:
  • Multi-agency response
  • Large risk to life
  • Cross-jurisdictional
  • High potential for loss
  • Outside of "normal" response
So how do we train for these types of events? Everyone is busy, time is at a premium and the "day job" simply gets in the way. So we set aside time to conduct an exercise. As discussed above, an exercise needs to be easy to run, not cost a lot, bring REAL value to the training and not take a lot of time.

Live exercises are good, but they cost a lot, take a lot of time and you can't run them realistically because there are limits to what you can do in training. I think that live exercises alway need to be run, but perhaps only occasionally (once every other year) to PROVE that everyone knows their job during unusual events.

Tabletop exercises are cheap and easy to run, but provide poor training. Sure it is better than nothing, but no-one is ever certain that the decisions that are agreed upon around the table are the right decisions. We rely on subject matter experts who attend the tabletop to tell us that the decisions we made were right...but they don't really know, other than through their experience, which won't cover every situation.

If we look next door at the military, they train all the time with simulation tools and have been doing so for years. Here is why they use simulation:
  • Live exercises cost too much and are hard to run
  • Tabletop exercises don't provide quality training
  • Simulation gives training flexibility to practice nearly any eventuality
  • Good simulation tools teach good lessons
Any of this sound familiar? So why is it that the Emergency Response/Public Safety is slow to embrace these technologies. I think we believe we are too busy doing the "USUAL" to worry about the "UNUSUAL", and that if we talk about the "UNUSUAL" once a year or so at a tabletop, that is "good enough".

The problem is that the UNUSUAL always comes back to bite you, and the bite may include loss of life, loss of property, slow response or ineffective response. Look at the hatred that British Petroleum (BP) has garnered in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. They were just doing the USUAL - they had a cut and paste emergency response plan, they went through the motions, attended the safety briefings, etc.. The problem is that the public demands better...for the same price...without spending any extra time.

How do we do more with the same resources? CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION may be part of that solution.

Constructive Simulation is different from first person simulators where you look at the computer screen and see the world in 3D. Instead, you typically see a top-down map of the area and vehicles and persons responding to the event, just like a 911 operator with a map.

Constructive simulations usually allow you to run events that are much more complex and difficult than a live event...AND they provide feedback for decision makers. If someone wants to move fire trucks from a mutual aid partner to the disaster location, these trucks take the same amount of time to move from X to Y as the real trucks. Miracles don't happen. Responses get tested and feedback is provided so that everyone can learn from their mistakes.

Constructive simulations aren't perfect - a computer program is not going to solve all of your emergency response issues. All constructive simulation will do is take a group of effective individuals and their equipment and teach them to work more effectively as a team.

In the next bog, I will describe how a constructive exercise works...

Look forward to your comments!

Bruce
Enhanced by Zemanta