Conducting Situational Analysis

¶ … Homeland Security Written Approach to Situational Assessment? Regardless of what I -- or others -- may believe is a good approach to situational assessment, it is critical that any response to be utilized fall within the guidelines provided by the Incident Command System (ICS). The ICS is defined by the United States Center for Excellence in Disaster Management & Humanitarian Assistance as "a set of personnel, policies, procedures, facilities, and equipment, integrated into a common organizational structure designed to improve emergency response operations of all types and complexities" ("ICS," 2004).

The Incident Command System is a subcomponent of the National Incident Management System (NIMS). One key reason for relying on the ICS framework is that is a scalable, adaptable agency that establishes a familiar hierarchy that enables people from diverse areas and disciplines to conduct efficacious responses to disaster events, and to function collaboratively within initiatives directed at homeland security ("ICS," 2004).

As we know from our studies and discussions, a key success factor in disaster response is the level at which people from multiple agencies who are unaccustomed to working together on a routine basis -- do achieve seamless communication and operational plans (Moynihan, 2009). Multi-agency planning is the base from which effective, comprehensive implementation must proceed. From this, it is apparent that the important contributions of these agencies to disaster response include the provision of standard responses and routinized operation procedures (Moynihan, 2009).

Through these structures, the probability is lessened that miscommunication -- or worse, useless action -- with consume scarce resources and erode crucial response time. Indeed, a primary function of the Incidence Command System is to provide an optimized structure for first-on-scene responders ("ICS," 2004). By insuring that first responders are capable of taking charge at the scene, the response may be directed more rapidly, accurately, and comprehensibly (Moynihan, 2009).

Inherently, the Incident Command System makes provision for a change of command if or when a more highly qualified responder enters the scene, or if the Incident Commander appoints a different first responder to take charge as the Incident Commander ("ICS," 2004). Key Event Characteristics While the structure and hierarchy of the ICS contributes to expedient, organized response, experts also recognize that these attributes can also contribute to response constriction (Moynihan, 2009).

Critical literature underscores the need for the content of training to include information that will prepare first responders to monitor their own mindsets and the manner in which expeditious thinking can limit a holistic perspective (Moynihan, 2009; Yechiam, et al., 2005). That is to say, the more automatic a response is -- the more it is based on past experiences or event recency -- the higher the probability that critical information will be missed, whether through urgency or schema (Yechiam, et al., 2005).

As the following key characteristics are reviewed, consideration must also be directed toward increased awareness of perceptual constraints (Yechiam, et al., 2005). That said, when the following concepts are manifested in the response to a disaster event or incident, the most substantive aspects of the response plan will be conducted in a more coordinated and informed manner (Moynihan, 2009).

The reason for relying on the Incident Command System is that disaster "response requires an array of interdependent competencies, and it is the need to rapidly integrate these competencies that gave rise to and continues to provide the compelling logic for the ICS" (Moynihan, 2009, p.4). The key event characteristics that are essential to conducting situational assessment include the following: Incident action plans, comprehensive resource management, and integrated communication ("ICS," 2004).

If an established Incident Action Plans (IAP) is not already in place, this element would get my immediate attention as the culmination of the situational analysis. All the steps and elements that I attend to during the early phases of the situational analysis should contribute to the establishment of an Incident Action Plan ("ICS," 2004). IAPs provide explicit direction and coordination of the incident response as a point of reference for the duration of the operational period.

Through the Incident Action Plan, the incident supervisors from all represented agencies can ensure that they are conducting their effort in concert with other stakeholders ("ICS," 2004). The familiar format of the IAPs ensures that communication of the incident objectives will be both efficient and coherent, and that activities of operational and support nature will all be coordinated ("ICS," 2004). Use of an IAP promotes reference to strategic objectives that are "SMART" in that they are measurable, feasible, specific to particular implementers, and are to be achieved within the operational period.

The fact that Incident Action Plans can be verbal or written (regulations require that hazardous material incidents must be written) facilitates rapid response, but at the same time curtails any maverick attempt to freelance aspects of the response ("ICS," 2004). Again, this is not to say that deep experience with a particular type of disaster or with certain terrorists would be overlooked -- rather, the IAP can record a modification and the justification for the recommended change, thereby causing the IAP to contribute to the knowledge base.

Even the most reductionist Incident Action Plan must contain answers to the following questions about the critical response elements: 1) What is that we want to do / accomplish? 2) Who will assume responsibility for taking action / for what we do? 3) How will we communicate with each other? And, 4) What procedures do we follow / steps do we take if someone is injured? ("ICS," 2004). Comprehensive resource management is one of the first aspects of a disaster response that I would assess.

Tracking and accounting for all key personnel and the main assets during a disaster response is a substantive challenge.

Many changeable categories make up resources management processes, including the following: 1) The categorization of resources, complicated by the fact that the coding of resources ordinarily follows agency standards for the multiple participating entities; 2) requesting or ordering the required resources, or resources for which there may be anticipated need; 3) dispatching resources according to prioritized need; 4) tracking resources in transit and at destination locations; 5) reimbursement for resources as needed; and 6) resource recovery during phases of the response or at the solution point ("ICS," 2004).

The basic categorization structure that I would follow when conducting the situational awareness includes classification of the resources according to the following designations: 1) Assigned - Resources that are assigned have already been deployed to an assignment in the field and are associated with a particular supervisor who has oversight and capacity to direct the use of the resource; 2) Available -- Resources that are available have been staged for deployment, but they have not yet been assigned or tagged for anticipated future use in a field assignment; and 3) Out-of-service -- Resources that are out-of-service are cannot be assigned, are not available, and have not been assigned due to one or more commonly encountered reasons, such as.