Crisis Mapping - CIID Service Design Thinking Workshop from 2018 Kochi Flood (Pre/During/Post)
<origin story> The seed of Crisis Mapping was first planted in Kochi during the Life-Centred Service Design class I taught with Leila Byron at CIID Summer School. Kochi has just experienced a massive flood event in 2018 and many of our workshop participants were not only affected by the flood, but instrumental in orchestrating the response. This was the perfect opportunity to apply service blueprinting to a community-scale event. We divided the class into 3 groups: pre-flood <prep>, during the flood <response>, post-flood <recovery>.
When COVID-19 hit, Leila wrote up "Service Design For Crisis Prevention" reflecting on lessons from the class.
Fast forward to August 8th, 2023, Maui experiences the deadliest fire in US history. My house is less than a mile from the Kula Fire. We evacuate. Over the next days and weeks and months, I experience something akin to what my students in Kochi had with the 2018 flood, the ripples of a large-scale community-wide natural disaster, and the complex, semi-chaotic response of citizens and first-responders all working together to whip up just-in-time logistics and recovery efforts of food, water, electricity, connectivity, and shelter.
Crisis can be an individual experience, just one person having a bad day, or a collective experience that impacts an entire community or country. Crisis can flare up and be extinguished in moments, or simmer and drag on for weeks, months, or even years. Crisis reponse could be limited to a single first-responder, a lifeguard or medic, or it could require the coordination of a coalition of private citizens, county workers, state employees, and federal agencies. Crisi Mapping seeks to understand and develop a robust methodology for analyzing, planning for, and responding to the full spectrum of crisis.
WHY/WHAT/HOW
PURPOSE: Crisis Mapping is a sense-making process that develops artifacts, "crisis maps", a subset of service blueprints are created to improve the effectiveness of crisis management by providing a visual tool that helps identify and understand the dynamics, resources, and gaps within crisis response systems. The core purpose is to enhance coordination, facilitate rapid and informed decision-making, and ultimately save lives and minimize damage during crises.
PRODUCT: The final product is a dynamic, interactive Crisis Map that visually represents the complex web of interactions and dependencies within crisis management systems. These maps are used by decision-makers to strategize responses, by communities to understand potential impacts, and by organizations to train and prepare for future crises.
PROCESS:
Stakeholder Collaboration: Engage diverse groups including emergency services, government agencies, and the community to share perspectives and information.
Data Integration: Collect and utilize both real-time and historical data to provide a comprehensive view of the crisis landscape.
Visualization and Scenario Planning: Use mapping techniques to visualize complex information and create scenarios to test different response strategies.
Part 1: Understanding Crisis Mapping
What is Crisis Mapping?
Crisis Mapping is a method to visualize and analyze crisis response networks, identifying bottlenecks, gaps, and opportunities. It integrates data from multiple sources to create a dynamic representation of crisis situations.
The Dynamic Complexity Scale (DCS)
The DCS measures the complexity and impact of crises on a scale from simple to very high complexity, incorporating real-time data, predictive analytics, and multi-dimensional factors.
Introduction to Crisis Mapping
Crisis Mapping is a practical tool designed to improve how we respond to emergencies by giving us a clear picture of what's happening on the ground. It helps us see who’s involved, where the resources are, and what the gaps are, making it easier to coordinate our efforts.
Purpose of Crisis Mapping
The main goal of Crisis Mapping is to make crisis response more efficient and effective. By providing a visual overview, these maps help everyone involved—from firefighters and police to community leaders and volunteers—understand their roles and work together better during an emergency.
Core Components of Crisis Maps
Data Sources: Crisis Maps pull in data from various sources like maps, infrastructure details, and real-time updates from the field. This gives a full picture of the situation.
Stakeholder Input: Involving all relevant parties in the mapping process ensures that we get the best possible information and insights. This collaboration is crucial for creating an accurate and useful map.
Visualization Techniques: Using clear and simple graphics, these maps show complex situations in a way that’s easy to understand. This helps identify problem areas and resources quickly.
Benefits of Crisis Mapping
Enhanced Coordination: With a clear visual map, it’s easier to see how different teams and resources can work together, leading to a more coordinated response.
Informed Decision-Making: Crisis Maps provide the information needed to make quick, informed decisions about resource allocation and response strategies.
Community Engagement: These maps also help educate the public about risks and responses, making the whole community more resilient and better prepared.
Think of Crisis Mapping like a game plan in sports. Just as a coach uses a playbook to coordinate players and strategies, Crisis Mapping helps us see the whole field, understand the plays, and work together as a team to tackle whatever comes our way.
Enhancing Crisis Management
Crisis Maps are essential tools designed to significantly improve the effectiveness and efficiency of crisis management efforts. Their primary purpose is to provide a comprehensive visual representation of the crisis response landscape, enabling better understanding and coordination among various stakeholders.
Key Objectives:
Life-Saving Coordination:
Purpose: The ultimate goal is to save lives by ensuring that emergency responders and support systems can work together seamlessly. During crises, rapid and well-coordinated actions are crucial for minimizing casualties and ensuring timely assistance to those in need.
Impact: By clearly mapping out the roles and responsibilities of different agencies and organizations, Crisis Maps help eliminate confusion, reduce response times, and enhance the overall effectiveness of crisis interventions.
Resource Optimization:
Purpose: Efficiently allocate resources to where they are needed most. Crisis Maps highlight the available resources, including personnel, equipment, and supplies, and their current deployment status.
Impact: This helps in making informed decisions about reallocating resources in real-time to address the most critical areas, ensuring that no resources are wasted and that all critical needs are met promptly.
Identifying Gaps and Opportunities:
Purpose: To identify gaps in the current crisis response system and uncover opportunities for improvement. Crisis Maps visually represent the entire response network, making it easier to spot bottlenecks, overlaps, and areas that require additional support or restructuring.
Impact: This proactive approach allows for continuous improvement in crisis management strategies, ensuring that the system evolves and adapts to emerging challenges and changing circumstances.
Training and Preparedness:
Purpose: To serve as educational tools for training new responders and educating the public. By visualizing past crises and hypothetical scenarios, Crisis Maps can be used to simulate real-world situations, helping stakeholders understand their roles and prepare for future crises.
Impact: Enhanced preparedness reduces panic and confusion during actual crises, as everyone involved knows what to expect and how to respond effectively.
Community Engagement:
Purpose: To involve communities in the crisis management process. By making Crisis Maps accessible and understandable to the general public, communities can better understand potential risks and become more actively involved in preparedness and response efforts.
Impact: A well-informed and engaged community can contribute valuable local knowledge and resources, enhancing the overall resilience and effectiveness of crisis response efforts.
Conclusion
Crisis Maps are not just tools for emergency responders but vital instruments for saving lives, optimizing resources, identifying systemic improvements, training stakeholders, and engaging communities. By providing a clear, comprehensive visual representation of crisis management systems, Crisis Maps help ensure that all parties can act swiftly, effectively, and in a coordinated manner during emergencies. This ultimately leads to a more resilient and prepared society, capable of facing crises with confidence and competence.
Part 2: The Natural Forces Classification System
Levels of Crisis Complexity
1. Breeze - Alpha - Green
Description: Minor, localized incidents easily managed by a single agency.
Examples: A small house fire or a minor burglary.
Response Needed: Local fire department or police handle it solo.
Impact: Low, no long-term effects.
Coordination: Minimal, within one organization.
2. Gale - Beta - Yellow
Description: Regional issues involving multiple agencies, moderate impact.
Examples: Traffic accidents with multiple vehicles or localized floods.
Response Needed: Police, fire services, EMS working together.
Impact: Moderate, short-term effects.
Coordination: More involved, several organizations.
3. Storm - Gamma - Orange
Description: Significant regional crises needing inter-agency coordination.
Examples: Industrial accidents, regional power outages.
Response Needed: Emergency services, utilities, health departments.
Impact: Significant, could have long-term effects.
Coordination: High, across multiple sectors.
4. Tempest - Delta - Red
Description: Major, widespread crises requiring extensive coordination.
Examples: Major hurricanes, large-scale terrorist attacks.
Response Needed: Regional/national agencies, extensive planning.
Impact: Severe, long-term recovery.
Coordination: Very high, involving many agencies.
5. Cataclysm - Epsilon - Purple
Description: Extraordinary, global crises needing multi-layered responses.
Examples: Global pandemics, tsunamis.
Response Needed: Global coordination, long-term response.
Impact: Catastrophic, prolonged recovery.
Coordination: Extremely high, international cooperation.
Implementation and Use
1. Visual Representation:
Color-Coded Maps: Use green, yellow, orange, red, and purple to show severity.
Greek Alphabet Labels: Alpha (A), Beta (B), Gamma (C), Delta (D), Epsilon (E) for clear categories.
2. Communication:
Workshops and Training: Teach stakeholders the classification system.
Public Awareness: Use media to educate the public about the crisis levels and actions required.
3. Decision-Making and Planning:
Scenario Planning: Develop and test strategies for each crisis level.
Resource Allocation: Allocate resources based on crisis severity and complexity.
Benefits
Easy to Understand: The natural forces analogy is straightforward.
Quick Communication: Helps quickly convey crisis severity.
Flexible: Applies to various crises, from local to global.
By adopting this system, front-line workers can better understand, prepare for, and respond to crises, ensuring coordinated and effective management.
Breeze - Alpha - Green
Typical Breeze
Description: A minor, localized incident that can be handled by a single agency, such as a small house fire or a minor burglary. These situations are usually resolved quickly with minimal impact on the broader community.
Key Elements:
Who’s Involved: Local police or fire department.
Communication Channels: Direct communication within the responding agency.
Touchpoints: Incident site, local dispatch center, and any witnesses or victims.
Infrastructure: Local emergency services infrastructure (fire trucks, police vehicles).
Staff and Roles: First responders, dispatch operators, on-scene incident commander.
Protocol: Immediate response to the incident, assess the situation, provide necessary intervention, and document the event.
Chain of Command:
Leadership: On-scene incident commander leads the response.
Reporting: Responders report to their direct supervisors and dispatch.
Coordination: Minimal, within the single agency involved.
Success Factors:
Rapid Response: Quick arrival and intervention by first responders.
Clear Communication: Effective communication within the agency.
Adequate Resources: Availability of necessary tools and personnel.
Proper Training: Responders trained for the specific type of incident.
Breeze That Goes Wrong
Description: A Breeze incident can escalate if not managed properly, leading to more significant issues.
What Can Go Wrong:
Delayed Response: Slow arrival due to miscommunication or resource unavailability.
Miscommunication: Poor information sharing can lead to inadequate response.
Inadequate Resources: Insufficient equipment or personnel to handle the incident.
Unexpected Complications: Secondary issues arise (e.g., fire spreading to neighboring structures).
Known Issues and Potential Solutions:
Issue: Communication breakdowns.
Solution: Implement robust communication protocols and regular drills.
Issue: Resource shortages.
Solution: Ensure proper resource allocation and maintain a reserve.
Issue: Inadequate training.
Solution: Regular training and scenario-based exercises.
Gale - Beta - Yellow
Typical Gale
Description: Regional issues requiring the coordination of multiple agencies, with moderate impact, such as traffic accidents involving multiple vehicles or localized floods affecting a small community.
Key Elements:
Who’s Involved: Police, fire services, emergency medical teams, and possibly local government.
Communication Channels: Inter-agency communication channels, coordination centers.
Touchpoints: Incident site, hospitals, emergency operations center.
Infrastructure: Emergency services infrastructure, hospitals, local government resources.
Staff and Roles: First responders, medical personnel, emergency managers, local officials.
Protocol: Multi-agency response, situation assessment, resource deployment, and incident resolution.
Chain of Command:
Leadership: On-scene incident commander from the lead agency.
Reporting: Regular updates to a central coordination center.
Coordination: Inter-agency coordination through predefined protocols and communication channels.
Success Factors:
Inter-agency Cooperation: Effective collaboration between all involved agencies.
Efficient Communication: Clear and timely information sharing.
Resource Availability: Sufficient resources and personnel from all agencies.
Proactive Planning: Predefined protocols and regular inter-agency drills.
Gale That Goes Wrong
Description: A Gale incident can escalate due to mismanagement, leading to severe consequences.
What Can Go Wrong:
Lack of Coordination: Agencies not working together effectively.
Resource Misallocation: Resources not deployed where needed most.
Communication Failures: Information not shared promptly or accurately.
Secondary Issues: Additional incidents arising from the initial crisis.
Known Issues and Potential Solutions:
Issue: Inter-agency coordination breakdown.
Solution: Establish clear roles and responsibilities, regular inter-agency meetings.
Issue: Resource misallocation.
Solution: Use resource management software and cross-agency training.
Issue: Communication failures.
Solution: Implement robust communication systems and protocols.
Storm - Gamma - Orange
Typical Storm
Description: Significant regional crises necessitating inter-agency coordination and substantial impacts, such as industrial accidents or regional power outages.
Key Elements:
Who’s Involved: Emergency services, public utilities, health departments, local government.
Communication Channels: Centralized emergency operations centers, multi-agency radio networks.
Touchpoints: Incident site, regional command centers, hospitals, utility companies.
Infrastructure: Public utilities, emergency services, health infrastructure.
Staff and Roles: First responders, utility workers, health officials, emergency managers.
Protocol: Comprehensive response involving multiple sectors, coordinated through a central command.
Chain of Command:
Leadership: Regional emergency manager or appointed incident commander.
Reporting: Regular briefings to a central coordination center.
Coordination: Multi-sector coordination through central command.
Success Factors:
Centralized Command: Effective leadership and decision-making from a central point.
Resource Management: Efficient deployment and use of resources across agencies.
Clear Communication: Reliable communication channels and protocols.
Preparedness: Regular drills and emergency planning exercises.
Storm That Goes Wrong
Description: A Storm incident can escalate into a major disaster if not managed effectively.
What Can Go Wrong:
Command Confusion: Unclear leadership and decision-making.
Resource Shortages: Insufficient resources to manage the crisis.
Poor Communication: Breakdowns in information flow between agencies.
Cascading Failures: One failure leading to another, compounding the crisis.
Known Issues and Potential Solutions:
Issue: Command confusion.
Solution: Clear command hierarchy and roles, established emergency plans.
Issue: Resource shortages.
Solution: Mutual aid agreements and pre-staged emergency supplies.
Issue: Poor communication.
Solution: Redundant communication systems and training.
Tempest - Delta - Red
Typical Tempest
Description: Major, widespread crises requiring extensive coordination and resource allocation, such as major hurricanes or large-scale terrorist attacks.
Key Elements:
Who’s Involved: Local, state, and federal agencies, NGOs, community organizations.
Communication Channels: National emergency communication networks, command and control centers.
Touchpoints: Affected regions, emergency shelters, hospitals, command centers.
Infrastructure: Extensive emergency services, disaster relief infrastructure.
Staff and Roles: First responders, emergency managers, national guard, relief workers.
Protocol: Extensive multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional response, long-term recovery planning.
Chain of Command:
Leadership: National or state emergency management agency.
Reporting: Continuous updates to state and federal command centers.
Coordination: Multi-jurisdictional coordination through national frameworks.
Success Factors:
Robust Command Structure: Clear leadership and decision-making protocols.
Resource Mobilization: Rapid deployment of national and international resources.
Effective Communication: Comprehensive and reliable communication systems.
Community Engagement: Active involvement of community organizations in response and recovery.
Tempest That Goes Wrong
Description: A Tempest incident can escalate into a catastrophic event if mismanaged.
What Can Go Wrong:
Leadership Failures: Inadequate leadership leading to delayed decisions.
Resource Mismanagement: Poor allocation and deployment of critical resources.
Communication Breakdowns: Failures in communication across jurisdictions.
Prolonged Recovery: Ineffective recovery efforts leading to long-term impacts.
Known Issues and Potential Solutions:
Issue: Leadership failures.
Solution: Strong leadership training and established protocols.
Issue: Resource mismanagement.
Solution: Centralized resource management systems and pre-positioned supplies.
Issue: Communication breakdowns.
Solution: Redundant and robust communication networks.
Cataclysm - Epsilon - Purple
Typical Cataclysm
Description: Extraordinary, global crises requiring multi-layered responses over extended periods, such as global pandemics or severe natural disasters like tsunamis.
Key Elements:
Who’s Involved: International organizations, national governments, NGOs, global health agencies.
Communication Channels: International communication networks, global command centers.
Touchpoints: Global coordination centers, affected regions, international aid organizations.
Infrastructure: Extensive global disaster response infrastructure, international aid logistics.
Staff and Roles: International relief workers, global health officials, national guards, military.
Protocol: Extensive global coordination, long-term recovery and rebuilding efforts.
Chain of Command:
Leadership: International bodies (e.g., United Nations, WHO).
Reporting: Continuous updates to global coordination centers.
Coordination: Global coordination through international frameworks.
Success Factors:
Global Coordination: Effective collaboration among international agencies and governments.
Resource Mobilization: Rapid global deployment of resources and aid.
Effective Communication: Reliable global communication systems.
Sustained Effort: Long-term commitment to recovery and rebuilding.
Cataclysm That Goes Wrong
Description: A Cataclysm can have devastating global impacts if not managed properly.
What Can Go Wrong:
Global Leadership Failures: Ineffective global leadership and decision-making.
Resource Shortages: Insufficient global resources to manage the crisis.
Communication Failures: Breakdown in global communication networks.
Prolonged Global Impact: Extended recovery and rebuilding period.
Known Issues and Potential Solutions:
Issue: Global leadership failures.
Solution: Strong international leadership frameworks and cooperation.
Issue: Resource
What is a Typical Breeze? A "Breeze" represents minor, localized incidents that can be managed by a single agency without extensive external support. Examples include a small house fire or a straightforward burglary. These situations typically involve quick responses where the primary agency has clear protocols and the resources to manage the incident effectively.
Staff and Roles:
Primary Agency: Local fire department or police.
Roles: Firefighters or police officers are the front-line responders, with a commander or senior officer coordinating the response.
Infrastructure and Communication:
Communication Channels: Direct radio communications within the agency, possible use of a central dispatch system.
Infrastructure: Local fire station or police department resources, including fire trucks, police vehicles, and standard firefighting or law enforcement tools.
Protocol and Leadership:
Protocol: Standard operating procedures for fires or burglary responses, which might include securing the area, assessing the incident, and undertaking necessary containment or arrest efforts.
Leadership: Handled by the on-scene commander or the senior officer present, who directs the response based on training and protocols.
What’s a Breeze that Goes Wrong? A "Breeze" can escalate if unexpected complications arise, such as a small fire spreading due to flammable materials or a burglary turning into a hostage situation.
Chain of Command with a Breeze:
The chain of command is usually straightforward, with the senior on-site officer taking charge and reporting back to their superiors as needed. Decisions are typically made quickly and on the ground.
Success Factors of a Breeze:
Efficiency: Quick and decisive action.
Preparedness: Proper training and readiness with necessary tools and information.
Communication: Clear and direct communication within the involved agency.
What Can Go Wrong in a Breeze:
Underestimation: Misjudging the severity of the incident can lead to inadequate responses.
Communication Failures: Poor communication can result in delayed or incorrect responses.
Resource Limitations: Insufficient resources can hinder the effectiveness of the response, even in minor incidents.
Known Issues and Potential Solutions:
Issue: Delayed response times due to miscommunication or logistical issues.
Solution: Improve communication systems and ensure regular maintenance and checks of response equipment.
Issue: Inadequate training for uncommon complications in typical scenarios.
Solution: Enhance training programs to cover a wider range of potential complications and conduct regular drills.
By thoroughly understanding each of these elements, stakeholders can better prepare for, respond to, and manage "Breeze" level crises, ensuring they are contained effectively and do not escalate into more severe situations.
What is a Typical Gale? A "Gale" represents moderate, regional incidents that involve multiple agencies and have a moderate impact. Examples include traffic accidents involving multiple vehicles or localized floods affecting a small community. These situations require coordination between different emergency services, such as police, fire, and emergency medical teams.
Staff and Roles:
Primary Agencies: Police, fire services, emergency medical teams (EMS).
Roles:
Police: Traffic control, securing the area, and initial incident assessment.
Firefighters: Rescue operations, controlling fires, and ensuring structural safety.
EMS: Providing medical assistance, triage, and transportation to hospitals.
Infrastructure and Communication:
Communication Channels: Multi-agency coordination through central dispatch, radio communications, and potentially mobile command centers.
Infrastructure: Local emergency response resources, including ambulances, fire trucks, police vehicles, and support from nearby agencies if needed.
Protocol and Leadership:
Protocol: Incident Command System (ICS) often activated, involving a coordinated response plan with clear roles and responsibilities for each agency.
Leadership: An incident commander (often the senior most responder from the primary agency) oversees the entire operation, with section chiefs managing specific areas such as operations, planning, logistics, and finance.
What’s a Gale that Goes Wrong? A "Gale" can escalate if coordination fails, such as multiple vehicle accidents causing a chain reaction or a flood leading to secondary disasters like landslides or infrastructure damage.
Chain of Command with a Gale:
The chain of command involves the incident commander at the top, with clear communication channels to section chiefs and team leaders within each responding agency.
Success Factors of a Gale:
Coordination: Effective multi-agency collaboration.
Preparedness: Well-practiced emergency response plans and drills.
Communication: Reliable and clear communication systems across all agencies.
What Can Go Wrong in a Gale:
Coordination Failures: Miscommunication between agencies can lead to conflicting actions.
Resource Shortages: Insufficient resources to handle the scale of the incident.
Unexpected Complications: Secondary incidents exacerbating the initial crisis.
Known Issues and Potential Solutions:
Issue: Delays in response due to poor coordination.
Solution: Regular joint training exercises and clear pre-established protocols for multi-agency responses.
Issue: Resource allocation problems.
Solution: Maintain resource inventories and establish mutual aid agreements with nearby jurisdictions.
Issue: Communication breakdowns.
Solution: Invest in interoperable communication systems and ensure all responders are trained in their use.
By thoroughly understanding the dynamics and potential pitfalls of "Gale" level crises, stakeholders can improve their readiness and ensure a coordinated and effective response to moderate, multi-agency incidents.
Case Studies for Gale-Level Crises
Case Study 1: Multi-Vehicle Traffic Accident
Event Overview: A severe traffic accident occurred on a major highway involving multiple vehicles during rush hour. The crash resulted in significant injuries and blocked all lanes of traffic.
Agencies Involved:
Police: Traffic control, securing the scene, conducting initial investigations.
Fire Services: Extracting trapped individuals, controlling any potential fires.
EMS: Triage, providing immediate medical care, transporting injured to hospitals.
Key Challenges:
Coordination: Ensuring seamless communication between police, fire, and EMS.
Resource Allocation: Managing the high demand for emergency vehicles and personnel.
Traffic Management: Redirecting traffic to prevent further accidents and ease congestion.
Response Analysis:
Success Factors: Quick response times, effective use of Incident Command System (ICS), and well-coordinated multi-agency efforts.
What Went Wrong: Initial communication delays led to slower response in clearing the wreckage.
Lessons Learned: Importance of interoperable communication systems and regular joint training exercises.
Case Study 2: Localized Flood
Event Overview: Heavy rainfall resulted in flash flooding in a small community, causing significant property damage and disrupting local infrastructure.
Agencies Involved:
Police: Evacuating residents, securing flooded areas.
Fire Services: Conducting water rescues, providing sandbags to prevent further flooding.
Public Works: Clearing blocked drains, restoring infrastructure.
EMS: Providing medical assistance to those injured or affected by the floodwaters.
Key Challenges:
Evacuation: Rapidly moving residents to safe areas without causing panic.
Resource Distribution: Ensuring timely availability of sandbags, rescue boats, and medical supplies.
Infrastructure Damage: Addressing immediate repairs to prevent further hazards.
Response Analysis:
Success Factors: Effective pre-planning and community awareness programs, rapid deployment of resources.
What Went Wrong: Delays in sandbag distribution led to additional property damage.
Lessons Learned: Enhanced inventory management for emergency supplies and better pre-flood infrastructure assessments.
Case Study 3: Industrial Accident
Event Overview: An explosion at a chemical plant caused a significant fire, releasing hazardous materials into the surrounding area.
Agencies Involved:
Fire Services: Extinguishing the fire, containing hazardous material spills.
Police: Evacuating nearby residents, securing the perimeter.
EMS