1

Ascension Parish OHSEP:

Crisis Information Management System Project

Submitted to:

Tommy Martinez, Parish President Ascension Parish, LA

Cedric Grant, Chief Administrative Officer

Ascension Parish, LA

Pat Bell, Parish Council, Chair Person Ascension Parish, LA

OHSEP Directors

GOHSEP Region II

Blaine Jones, Region II Coordinator GOHSEP, LA

Prepared by:

Richard A. Webre, Director OHSEP Ascension Parish, LA

November 30, 2008

2

Executive Summary

On January 21, 2007 Richard Webre assumed duties as the Director of The Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (OHSEP) in Ascension Parish, Louisiana. On that date he initiated a Six Sigma analysis that evaluated the performance level of mission essential tasks of this office. From that initial analysis it was determined that the current Crisis Information Management System (CIMS) was extremely ineffective. An internal team was organized to address this deficiency. The directors of GOHSEP Region II agreed to fund a small scale pilot through regional Homeland Security Grants to test system integrity, identify challenges with development, and to correct deficiencies before moving towards full scale regional CIMS implementation. Ascension Parish OHSEP volunteered to develop a project team and to manage the pilot program. This team analyzed the problem from two broad perspectives. The comments listed below address the specifics of these two approaches:

• The project must provide a common CIMS to all parishes within GOHSEP Region II while maintaining the critical system components at the parish level. This will resolve the issue of having one parish within the region being solely responsible for system integrity and maintenance. However, each system must be capable of transferring data to each parish for continuity of operations and situational awareness.

• This system must support parish decision makers by providing situational awareness through intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as well as information management and sharing.

Enhancing the performance of these two broad approaches will posture the region in a ready state in terms of data acquisition; subsequently, assisting emergency responders and support personnel in deploying the right personnel and equipment, at the right place, at the right time during any situation requiring emergency management across multiple agencies and jurisdictional boundaries.

Richard A. Webre Director Ascension Parish OHSEP

DEFINE PHASE May 2008

Project Charter 1. Problem Statement: A standardized automated Crisis Information Management System (CIMS) for each parish within Region II is non existent. Currently, the State of Louisiana owns the CIMS (WebEOC) in use by each parish. This system is primarily used to request resources from and provide situational awareness to the state. However, much of the functionality of the system is not provided to local governments.

2. Goal Statement: The primary goal of this project is to provide a common CIMS to all parishes within GOHSEP Region II while maintaining the critical system components at the parish level. This will resolve the issue of having one parish within the region being solely responsible for system integrity and maintenance. Additionally, these systems must support parish decision makers by providing situational awareness through intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and information management. In addition to the broad goals mentioned above the following standards must be achieved by the proposed CIMS:

• Meet the information needs of incidents of any kind. • Comply with the standards of the Incident Command System. • Comply with the provisions of the Emergency Support Functions. • Comply with the structure and tenants of the National Response Frame Work. • Integrate public health agencies into the emergency management system. • Integrate the petrol-chemical industry into the emergency management system. • Integrate the school system into the emergency management system. • Store and display GIS mapping. • Store statistics on critical infrastructure. • Transmit and record damage assessment data. • Be easy to use and maintain. • Be assessable from an outside LAN over the web. • Be easily tailored to the needs of each parish within the Region.

3. Scope: The lines of visibility for this project fall within the boundaries of transforming data from multiple sources within the parish and displaying it in a system that forms a common operating picture for all agencies to use. 4. Assumptions: To benchmark world-class emergency management performance, replicate it, standardize it, and then consistently feed it forward to tactical and support agencies through an integrated CIMS, effective training, and habitual association. 5. Team Guidance: The directors of Region II have given their full support to this initiative. All stakeholders agree on the end state of what the standard of this system should resemble. This initial project will perform as the small scale pilot of a CIMS that will be replicated within each parish in the region during full scale implementation. 3

6. Team Members:

Sponsor: GOHSEP Region II Director: Richard A. Webre Planning Section Chief Marion Johnson Miles Operations Section Chief Crystal Moran Logistics Section Chief NA Documentation Unit: Michele Rayborn

7. Preliminary Project Plan:

The chart below was used during the define phase to set time horizons for phase completion.

Figure 1

Project Plan

October 08Control

August 08Improve & Implement

July 08Analyze

June 08Measure

May 08DefineStart DatePhase

Preliminary Project Plan

4

8. Stakeholder Analysis: To mitigate resistance to change, and to develop a plan of communication, it was critical to identify stakeholders and their level of support early in this project. This communication effort creates buy-in, highlights the benefits to all parties, and helps identify adequate solutions and resources.

Figure 2

Stakeholder Analysis Who are the players and functions needed for support?

Level of Support

Region II Directors

AP OHSEP

ESF 13 ESF 4, 9, 10

Local Medical & Industry

Leaders

DPW & Drainage

Open Active Support, willing to work to make the project a success.

O O O O O O

Provide Support and when necessary lend a hand.

Timid, may harbor some second thoughts, needs a push to get involved.

Doesn't really care about the project, not going to help, but won't hurt it.

Doesn't feel the need to cooperate, will require some persuasion.

Against the Project, states position openly.

Saboteur, will activelyblock the improvement.

5

9. Estimated Operations Impact: The operations impact matrix below was developed to assist in defining needed improvements, the benefits of each, and the impact that each improvement will have on processes within the Ascension Parish OHSEP:

6

Estimated Operations Impact Project Improvements Benefits Estimate of Impact

Information Sharing through a CIMS

All agencies can obtain real time incident related information from SITREPS, documents and parish incidents.

Accurate and timely mission appropriate response to most incidents and events.

Audit Trail Create a permanent comprehensive record of the event or incident.

Obtain the ability to access specific incident related data at any time after or during the incident.

Documentation and Imagery

Obtain the ability to transmit and receive incident documents and images by all agencies.

All agencies can obtain incident related documentation and imagery as needed from a sole source.

Logistics Tracking and Resource Typing

All agencies are aware of possible available resources through out the area of operation.

A coordinated response can be achieved by applying only the amount of resources required to bring the incident under operational control.

CI/KR and damage assessment data

Instant access to critical facility maps, blue prints, imagery and statistics can be stored and retrieved.

Comprehensive situational awareness and PDA data can be tracked and stored.

7

10. SIPOC: The SIPOC graph below is a process map that describes the suppliers, inputs, process, outputs, and customers of the Ascension Parish Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. It ensures that all team members view this project from the same perspective as well as providing leadership with a strategic and operational overview of the process.

Figure 4 SIPOC

(Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers) Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

ESI

Software, licensing and training.

CIMS All agencies

AP OHSEP

Hosting, maintenance and installation of small scale pilot.

Audit trail and situational awareness from the region, state and federal partners.

All agencies

AP GOV

Budgetary documentation.

Resource data base.

All agencies

GOHSEP Region II

Fiduciary agent. Information Sharing, GIS Imagery

All agencies

DHS & FEMA

Funding and guidance.

CI/KR data base All agencies

Process Steps Alert Log-in Enter & Receive Data Process Data Create Audit Trail Log out

11. Voice of the Customer (VOC): The Voice of the Customer (VOC) diagram was used to describe end user needs. Identifying features and specifications, determining improvement efforts, developing a baseline measure of end user satisfaction, and formulating key drivers of customer quality are TQM elements that VOC provides.

Figure 5 Who Are They? What Do They Want & Why?

All First Responding and support agencies (ESF): Medical, Fire, Law Enforcement Government & School Board Industry Emergency Management

Timely, accurate detailed incident related information and data.

Sources Reactive Sources Proactive Sources

Recreating documentation that should have been created during the incident. Depending on memory recall to modify the audit trail or critical tasks and requests during an incedent. Lost records.

Incident management by the minute. Accurate audit trails. Ease of knowledge transfer during shift changes. Standard protocols and procedures.

Summary By addressing the end user and implementing the proactive steps a comprehensive Crisis Information Management (CIMS) system can be obtained.

8

12. Kano Model: The Kano models that follow describe a broad rage of standards that EM process outputs should resemble. Within the category “must be” are the minimum standards that the process must contain. “More is Better” is enhanced performance, and “Delighter” contains best in class standards. Combining all categories equals world-class performance.

Kano ModelDocumentation

Must Be:

Contain a message And event board

More is Better:Must be capable of

Uploading Documents and imagery.

Delighter:

Capable of storing or uploading video.

SITREPS

Delighter:

Communicatesweather, damage, &

intelligence.

Must Be:

Must contain a basicSynopsis.

More is Better:

Data in basic SITREPFormat.

Kano ModelCI/KR

Must Be:Basic Data from CI/KR

study

More is Better:Contains status of

critical facilities.

Delighter:Contains images

Blueprints and video..

Maintenance

Must Be:

Easy to use

More is Better:

Easy to maintain

Delighter:

Tailored to each parish.

9

Kano ModelIntelligence

Must Be:Must contain basic Information from

Al ESF’s

More is Better:Must be capable of Transmitting data

To all ESF’s.

Delighter:Can communicate with

All Parishes in the region and GOHSEP

Logistics

Delighter:Can track the recoveryof all non expendable

resources and equipment

Must Be:

Can request & track local resources

More is Better:Can track and request

state and federalresources.

13. Team Budget Overview: The graph below illustrates the funding stream for this project. Directors of GOHSEP Region II allocated $90,000 from the Region II SHSP Grant to implement this small scale pilot. This project was completed on time and under budget.

Equipment Per Diem Training Annual

Renewal Software Total

Budget $7,000 $3,000 $5,000 $10,000 $65,000 $90,000 Expenditure $6,914.54 $2,686.00 $4,500.00 $9,596.05 $54,500.00 $78,196.59 Balance $85.46 $314 $500 $430.95 $10,500 $11,803.41

10

MEASURE PHASE

June 2008 14. Measure Phase: The measure phase of a project identifies what is critical to quality, assesses the current process capability, and forms a baseline calculation of the current process effectiveness. Emergency managers were questioned about the effectiveness of the previous State level CIMS and they were extremely dissatisfied. Currently, GOHSEP has implemented WebEOC as the official state CIMS; however, this system only provides approximately 10% of the critical functions needed at the local level. Situational awareness and resource requests are basically the only functions available on the state level CIMS. This project will address the needs from a local government perspective. 15. Critical to Quality (CTQ): CTQ elements are the translation of end user needs into quantified requirements. These requirements ultimately form the metrics that emergency managers can use to measure the performance of critical functional areas. Specifications continue to expand until critical elements are identified. Once a system can be measured it can be managed and its level of performance evaluated and required resources determined. The following four slides highlight elements that are critical to a quality CIMS under the four phases of emergency management.

CIMS CTQ: Preparedness

Preparedness

Operational 27/7Monitored By 911

All First RespondersNRF Structured

Resources Typed

Monitored by EOC

Industry, DPW, commercial

All Supporting Agencies

First Responder Equipment

Need Quality Driver Specification

11

CIMSCTQ: Response

Response

1st RespondersLaw, Fire, EMS

DPW, Finance, HRSupport Agencies

Industry & Utilities

USAR, HAZMAT, Military

Hospitals, Nursing Homes

Region, GOHSEP

Petrol Chemical & Energy

Need Quality Driver Specification

CIMSCTQ: Recover

Recover

Local LogisticsEmergency Purchasing

EquipmentState Logistics

Federal Logistics

In Stock Supplies

Disaster Services

Personnel

Commodities

Need Quality Driver Specification

Damage Assessment

Status of Critical FacilitiesCI/KR

16. Baseline Calculation: Based on the critical requirements above the percentage of effectiveness for a local CIMS within the region is zero. A consolidated CIMS on a local level does not exist within GOHSEP Region II.

12

ANALYZE PHASE June 2008

17. Analyze Phase: During the analyze phase root causes for current performance, redundancies, and disconnects were identified that potentially contribute to the problem. A goal in this phase is to identify the vital few problems that create the current performance. 18. Stratification Analysis: All functions and agencies were stratified and analyzed for required data through the CIMS. Initially, approximately fifty areas must be addressed to ensure the flow of information to agencies within the local government. This system must also be capable of pushing information to the state level CIMS for logistical and personnel support. 19. Root Cause Analysis: The vital few root causes for the current CIMS performance are listed below:

• Lack of dedicated regional funding for a CIMS. • Lack of technical support for initial implementation. • Lack of a regional vision for the future. • Lack of defined regional goals and objectives.

IMPROVE PHASE July 2008

20. Improve Phase: During the improve phase a cost benefit analysis was conducted, pilot solutions were created, and the implementation planning process began. 21. Cost Benefit Analysis: The graph below illustrates the initial and annual costs per capita should a parish decide to purchase WebEOC. Annual costs will not be a factor if software renewal is declined. DHS regional funding is available for this project.

2003 Data Parish Population Initial Cost

Per Capita Annual Costs

Per Capita Ascension 84242 .92 .11 EBR 412447 .19 .02 Livingston 102046 .76 .09 Point Coupee 22564 $3.38 .42 WBR 21717 $3.60 .44 Iberville 32811 $2.38 .29 E Feliciana 21095 $3.70 .45 W. Feliciana 15235 $5.13 .62

13

14

22. Solution Statement: The solution to the design of this project on a local level was to design the system boards with two characteristics in mind: The National Response Framework, which follows the ESF/support annex structure, and the hierarchy of the local government and support agencies. It is imperative that the basic design of the system be completed prior to the remote installation on the servers and the beginning of the three day onsite installation process. Understanding how each organization communicates and what data will be required is very important during this phase of the project. The system administrator must be capable of assigning boards to organizations with similar functions. All must have access to the significant event boards; however, law enforcement and industry are cautious as to what organizations have access to their data. The system administrator must be able to control who sees what data. 23. Success Criteria: Success will be attained when all agencies that are logged into the system will demonstrate the ability to transmit and receive data on assigned boards, upload and down load documents and imagery, and request and track resources. 24. System Specifications: Listed below are the specifications for the Ascension Parish version of WebEOC:

• WebEOC Professional – Standard Edition 7.0 • WebEOC Second Server Software • Double Take Standard • Three day onsite training, planning, and installation • Servers, Power Edge, Quad Core, Intel Xeon 2X6MB

25. Unintended Consequences:

a. Hurricane Gustav: The control phase of this project was expected to be complete in October 2008; however, Hurricane Gustav made landfall during the first week in September. The Friday prior to land fall a representative from Emergency Services Integrators (ESI) was working closely with the Planning Section Chief to complete the initial design of the system. Once complete, a representative from each agency was called into the EOC, provided an ID and password, and given approximately thirty minutes of instruction. WebEOC went online at that time and tracked all information that came through the EOC during the hurricane that made land fall on Sunday. A complete audit trail for this incident was established that can be extracted at any time. Because the system was designed prior to remote installation onsite installation was much easier. Below are screen captures from the main and significant event boards from Hurricane Gustav. Twenty-Seven Pages containing 810 significant entries were made during the incident. This does not include entries made for operational tasks and information on ESF boards.

This system is linked to the GOHSEP (state) version of WebEOC so that requests for resources can be made without logging out and then onto the state system.

b. Chemical Industry: More organizations than expected desired access to the system

once it was demonstrated at the LEPC meeting. GAMA Companies and the Sorrento Salt Dome want access to the system for use as a reporting tool to the 911 center for chemical releases and incidents. For this purpose a separate board was designed around the Uniform Hazardous Material Reporting Form and is currently being tested. Additionally, an alarm system can be programmed into WebEOC to alert a dispatcher when a data entry is made during a chemical release. This system will save local industry hundreds of thousands of dollars as opposed to the purchase of other commercially available alerting systems that each plant, the EOC, and the 911 center must purchase annually. Below is a screen capture of the Uniform Hazardous Material Reporting Board.

15

c. Command & Control: The EOC Director and Deputy Director can control what data each organization can view and have access to. All users that are logged on have access to the significant event board; however, only similar agencies with a need to know have access to mutual data. As an example, all fire chiefs have access to ESF 4 Fire, ESF 8 EMS, and ESF 9 USAR. By clicking the icons at the top of the screen the EOC director can obtain a quick snapshot of operations and requests throughout the parish.

16

d. Shelter Operations: Once shelter managers are trained data from each shelter can be input on site. The shelter monitor in the EOC monitors each site, addresses issues, and coordinates with other ESF’s within the EOC to correct deficiencies. Below are screen captures from the shelter boards

26. Results of the Small Scale Pilot: As a result of Hurricane Gustav WebEOC on a local level was able to be tested during a live incident with very satisfactory results. Directors desiring to install Web EOC for their parish must understand that the initial design of the system will change over time as additional uses are found for the system and the growth of the parish is considered. It is critical that a member of the EOC staff be trained to design and modify boards. Based on the Gustav after action review WebEOC is considered to be operating at approximately 90% effectiveness. Modifications will be made that allow logistics to be tracked more efficiently and address the needs of the petrol-chemical industry. Additionally, the local school board’s transportation division and the nursing homes will come on line. TIER II dock facilities, the US Coast Guard, and the local National Guard units have requested access to this system. Once these improvements are made a comprehensive Crisis Information Management System for this parish will be a reality. Also, the possibility of placing blueprints and imagery of critical facilities on this system is being explored in conjunction with the local Planning and Zoning Department. 27. Full Scale Implementation Plan: Should other parishes within GOHSEP Region II decide to implement this project a critical investment justification under the Urban Area Security Initiative will be achieved. That investment justification is critical infrastructure protection through the use of a CIMS. All system configurations & designs from this project can be exported to any parish for use in their WebEOC systems. This will provide substantial savings in R& D and implementation time. The project tracking tool, proposal, statement of work, all quotes, and the products and services list are available to each director in the region upon request. Technical support and advice from the Ascension Parish OHSEP personnel will be made available to all GOHSEP Region II Directors as agreed upon at the time this small scale pilot was approved in May of 2008.

17

CONTROL PHASE

August 2008

28. Ongoing Measurement & Monitoring: This system will be monitored throughout its life cycle to verify benefits and to modify its functions to meet the needs of the parish. Corrective actions will be taken by the planning section chief. 29. Training Development: The EOC training developer was embedded in this project from the outset to capture critical tasks for use in lesson development. Formal training has been developed and tailored to all users in the parish. This is critical to immediately begin the training process once the system is installed. 30. Policies and Procedures: A local user’s manual has been developed along with policies and procedures which are located at the stations within the EOC. 31. Point of Contact: For more information regarding this project please contact the undersigned at (225) 621-8360. Richard A. Webre Director Ascension Parish OHSEP

18