Some people use the latest communications modes, while others are more traditional. Some people rely heavily on e-mail, but many younger people think e-mail is passé and instead prefer text messaging. Some people rely mostly on their landline home phone; some don't have a landline phone. Still others consider social media their primary communication mode; some don’t know what social media is. And individuals who are blind, visually impaired, deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, mobility challenged or have a speech disability rely on different modes of communication.
Creative problem-solvers are beginning to find ways to mitigate the issue. Rather than depending on specific modes of communication, they’re looking toward a system-of-systems approach with flexibility built in to adjust to change. They’re also figuring out that technology isn’t the only answer, but rather a piece that can fall dangerously short without smart management.
System-of-Systems
Wikipedia defines a system-of-systems as “A collection of task-oriented or dedicated systems that pool resources and capabilities to obtain a coalesced, more complex, meta-system offering more functionality and performance than simply the sum of the constituent systems.”
In the case of notifications, the system-of-systems approach means multiple systems are used collectively to ensure that information is delivered quickly and efficiently to a diverse population with dynamic communications preferences. In essence, where one system may fall short, another picks up.
- making telephone calls based on a geographic list or special groups;
- placing calls to cell phones based on the caller's location;
- sounding sirens or other mass notification systems for buildings and campuses;
- posting messages on social media sites;
- popping up messages on desktops (instant messaging);
- sending Short Message Service text messages through priority pathways;
- ensuring that special-needs communities are informed through telecommunications devices for the deaf and other means, such as e-mail with links to a multimedia system for people who rely on American Sign Language;
- displaying messages on digital signs (like Amber Alerts);
- broadcasting messages to encoded receivers via FM radio; and
- sending messages to over-the-air and Web media.
Messages would be targeted to specific populations and crafted to take into consideration the social realities of notifying, warning and alerting the public. (Who should get the message, what should the message say, how often should it be delivered, and from whom should it come?)
The notifications program would be managed, meaning a specific process would be followed for design, sustainment, flexibility and keeping the system fresh.
The Feds Get in the Act
The federal government is pushing the system-of-systems concept for notifications. To that end, FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System office supports creation of multisystem standards, including the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), a data format for delivering public warnings over many systems to many applications.
Two initiatives are visible at this point. One would modernize the Emergency Alert System; initial tests were recently conducted. The other creates the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS), which is designed to broadcast emergency messages to specific geographic areas via cell phones. Standards were announced in December 2009 for the technology necessary to equip mobile devices to receive the messages and for the gateway to manage the messages. The CMAS program is optional for cellular providers, but most have indicated that they will participate. Federal officials expect CMAS to be operational by 2012.
Other initiatives are in earlier stages — including ones involving social media, cable and satellite television, weather radios and other technologies. At the center of these initiatives are standards to make the various pieces work together. Implementing standards in a mature industry is no small order. Denis Gusty, who manages the CMAS and Integrated Public Alert and Warning System efforts of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office for Interoperability and Compatibility, told Emergency Management that creation of the standards is a huge challenge, but is the only way it will work for all involved.
Managed Program
A system-of-systems concept requires a different thought process from the get-go. The answer isn’t simply buying a notification solution from a vendor, going through training and expecting success to occur. Instead, the mission must be approached as a managed program.
The success of a managed program largely depends on understanding, design, control and promotion of the system-of-systems. It must be properly built and managed — accomplished only after a good understanding is developed. Once in place, it must be “sold” internally and externally. The success of a managed program includes the following:
1. Assessment — Good understanding comes from an assessment — a specific process that creates a detailed understanding of “what” is to be accomplished and likely encountered. (This is not the “how” to accomplish; that comes later.)
To develop the assessment, stakeholder collaboration will be required and senior officials must participate. The program won’t succeed without buy-in and involvement from the top.
2. Business case — An effective way to approach a managed project is through development of a business case. (Many organizations require one.) Done right, a business case is more than a justification; it forces consideration of factors that can make or break a project. Plus, it establishes a go-forward plan. Even if not required for project approval, a strong business case can set the stage for success.
3. Design — With the assessment in place, design of the system-of-systems can begin. Design can range from very simple to very complicated, depending on the results of the assessment. Regardless of the degree of complexity, technology design should include a center point — the framework that controls the systems. Depending on the complexity, outside resources may be required — perhaps a systems integrator who has expertise with notification technologies.
4. Management — With the business case and design drafted, a work plan can be developed. It’s very simple. It shows what tasks need to be completed, by whom and when. It’s based on factors developed in the assessment, design and business case phases.
The launch is the next step and is often overlooked, but is critical to success. This helps introduce the project to all parties involved; the more forceful the introduction, the more successful the project.
Measurements are critical. In the measurements stage, specific subjective and objective factors are established for determining success or, more importantly, failure. Emphasis should be placed on providing true information, good and bad.
5. Promotion — By its nature, a notification program requires action by diverse groups of people, and people don’t take action unless there’s a compelling reason. They must be convinced to respond. They have to be sold on it. Think of the notification program as a product that needs promotion. First, brand it. Give the program a name people will remember. Decide what message you would like to convey and craft the message. Again, think about a message that will stick. Then determine how to get the word out — market it.
6. Addressing Special Needs — Any notification program, particularly for delivering messages to the general public, must include provisions for special-needs individuals. A system-of-systems approach helps make special-needs warnings more practical. Where one system may fall short, another system may fill the gap.
7. Costs — On the surface, costs for a managed system-of-systems appear greater than the traditional approach of buying a single solution from a vendor. But a closer look reveals significant money has often been spent on the traditional approach, with little return and success. Others have failed to reach sufficient numbers of intended recipients. Since a proper approach (including regular use and promotion) hadn’t been followed, results were disappointing. A managed system-of-systems approach that’s well executed will produce success and a strong return on investment, even though the dollars spent may be greater.
Difficult Task
The nation’s threats, both natural and man-made, are getting more serious. Simultaneously the communications environment is becoming more complicated. Because of the seriousness of threats and despite the complex communications environment, the general public and first responders need to know that they can depend on systems to keep them informed. Government has the difficult task of ensuring that critical information is communicated quickly through the multitude of communication options.
The managed system-of-systems approach to notifications takes what appears to be a complex and evolving problem and provides a framework for a short-term and long-term solution with built-in flexibility to adapt to change. Following proper program standards, governance and a specific management process ensures the program’s sustainability and validity. Using this approach, officials can create impressive success stories for their community or organization.
Common Alerting Protocol
The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) is a single message format with the essential features to handle existing and emerging alert systems and sensor technologies. CAP provides a messaging structure for use by the various systems that make up the system-of-systems. CAP isn’t universally used by vendors that provide notification and alerting technology, but its acceptance is growing, as evidenced by:
- an increasing number of vendors are claiming CAP compliance;
- requirements for CAP compliance are appearing in local government procurement solicitation documents;
- FEMA announced its intention to use CAP as part of the redesign of its next-generation Emergency Alert System to ensure that the White House is able to issue alerts when warranted;
- the International Telecommunication Union has recommended CAP for worldwide deployment; and
- a U.S. Department of Homeland Security-sponsored event in September 2009 showed CAP working through a hodgepodge of systems.
Higher Education Sets an Example
The University of California, Los Angeles established a system of television stations, radio stations, outdoor sirens, desktop alerts, Twitter, Facebook and text messaging. They’re all tied together through the Common Alerting Protocol standard, according to David Burns, UCLA’s emergency manager. “I have not seen many systems that can pull this off without requiring many people to operate many systems,” Burns said. “Now one person can simultaneously activate all or any component they desire and recall emergency staff, using text-to-speech conversion in the integrated system.”
Other colleges and universities have launched multimodal notification solutions. The managed system-of-systems approach could seem daunting — too many moving parts. Yet, it’s not impractical. Standards, governance and management process provide the discipline and structure to make it happen.
The California Approach
The California Legislature passed a law creating a government-industry partnership work group for recommending an approach to the challenge of effective alerts and warnings to the state’s populace. The work group is proposing a state-maintained system-of-systems approach to serve as a backbone for creating a statewide public warning system. Local systems, regardless of the modes of communication, would tie into the statewide system.
Some of the pieces are in place, including a statewide text alerting system. Other pieces include myriad alerts systems in place throughout the state. The work group suggests the plan should take advantage of existing investments.
Having the pieces in place is meaningless if the pieces cannot be integrated to fit. Right now, they do not. The work group’s recommendation includes a high-level plan for seamlessly integrating the components. Technical and operational standards are to be created, and consistency would be encouraged with federal initiatives.
Among other things, the work group’s recommendations include:
- compliance with the Common Alerting Protocol, a standard for formatting messages so a single message can be delivered to various recipients through various media;
- adoption of standards, processes and procedures established by the state but implemented locally. Subject areas would include:
§ when alerts and warnings should be issued;
§ how they should be issued and who the authorized alert and warning originators are;
§ crafting of messages;
§ speed of delivery and delivery prioritization standards;
§ coordination of alerts that affect multiple jurisdictions;
§ use of concepts that promote thorough delivery, redundancy, security and flexibility so alert and warning technologies deployed by local governments can continue to be used;
§ concepts and testing to ensure the needs of diverse disability groups are satisfied;
§ creation of a California public-private partnership for warnings; and
§ tools for evaluating, procuring and implementing vendor products.
Although financial challenges are particularly acute in California, officials continue their efforts to enhance the statewide system, addressing as many of the issues as possible that don’t require significant state funds.
Statewide notification programs also were recently announced in Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
