Emergency Management Review - Developing and … … · · 2015-04-28Improving the Quality of Business Continuity Management Through Greater ... Emergency Management Review

EmergencyManagementReview Special Irish EditionIreland’s Application of the Systems Approach to Emergency Management 2005 -2013

Current Practice in Emergency Management Education

A Journal for the Emergency Management CommunityPublished by: The EPC

Volume 2, Issue 2

Improving the Quality of Business Continuity Management Through Greater Engagement with Front-line Employees

Emergency Management Review (EMR) is a peer reviewed journal that aims to facilitate an exchange of knowledge in all areas of emergency management and civil protection between the academic and practitioner fields. It provides an international forum where broadly defined ‘lessons’ can emerge from many different sources, including commissioned and academic research, field based good practice and experiential case studies. A core aim of the journal is to encourage the development and dissemination of evidence and insights around emergency management and civil protection from a range of academic disciplines, as well as from practicing managers and professionals. Articles published within the journal are all double blind peer-reviewed, and must make a clear contribution to theory and/or practice of emergency management. Papers should also demonstrate awareness and understanding of existing debates and issues. EMR covers:

• Qualitative and quantitative empirical research articles • Practitioner perspectives, good practice and case studies • Theoretical and conceptual articles • Literature reviews • Articles on emergency management education and learning • Methodological advances

EMR will publish papers that contribute to understanding and debate around emergency management and its related subject areas, and that develop issues relating to theory and practice. Papers should make a clear contribution to such debates, and should be of interest to academics and practitioners. To submit a paper for review and publication authors should send extended abstracts of 500 – 1000 words or completed papers of 4000 – 5000 words to the Editor via email at [email protected] EMR is a journal for the Emergency Management Community published in association with the The EPC, The Hawkhills, York, YO61 3EG. Tel: 01347821406

Editorial Team

Editor: Eve Coles, Emergency Planning College, UK, Deputy Editor (Ireland): Caroline McMullan, Dublin City University, IRL,

Book Review Editor: Lucy Easthope, University of Lincoln, UK

Editorial Advisory Board

Patrick Alcantara, Business Continuity Institute Kevin Arbuthnot, University of Bradford / Fire Service College, UK Sarah Stuart-Black, Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, New Zealand Edward Borodzicz, University of the West of Scotland, UK Paul Brown, Yorkshire Ambulance Service, UK Viv Brunsden, Nottingham Trent University, UK Andrew Coghlan, Australian Red Cross / ISA; RC39: International Research Committee on Disasters Michael Conway, Renaissance Contingency Services Ltd, IRL Gill Dickson, Essex County Council, UK Dominic Elliott, University of Liverpool, UK Alan Elwood, Risk & Resilience Ltd, NI Mark Engledow, NHS England Anne Eyre, Trauma Training, UK Denis Fischbacher-Smith, University of Glasgow, UK Gerard P Hodgkinson. University of Warwick, UK

Alan Jones, West Sussex County Council, UK Mark Leigh, The EPC, UK Amy Lee, Stephenson Resilience Ltd John Lindsay, Brandon University, Canada Martina McGuinness, University of Sheffield, UK Robert MacFarlane, Cabinet Office Civil Contingencies Unit, UK Stewart Mashiter: University of Wolverhampton, UK Tony McAleavy, Coventry University, UK Dominic Mellon, Specialist Registrar in Public Health, UK Virginia Murray, Health Protection Agency, UK Brenda Phillips, , USA Wyn Price, Head, Emergency Management, Welsh Assembly Government Jacqui Semple, Resilience Manager, Angus Council Louis Tapia, CoreLogic, USA Brian Toft, Coventry University, UK Eileen Tully, Dublin City University Tricia Wachtendorf, Associate Director, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, USA

EMR is supported by: Cabinet Office Civil Contingencies Secretariat, the Emergency Planning College (EPC) and the Scottish Resilience Development Service Disclaimer: Articles published in EMR represent the views of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Editorial Team or its Advisors

Copyright © 2014

mailto:[email protected]

Contents

Emergency Management Review, 2 (2) 2015

Emergency Management Review

Contents Editorial 2 John Brophy

Research Digest

Irish Research 2015 5 Gavin Brown

Articles

Ireland’s Application of the Systems Approach to Emergency Management 2005 – 2013 7 Pat O’Riordan & Sean Hogan

Improving the Quality of Business Continuity Management Through Greater Engagement with Front-line Employees. 25 David Begg Current Practice in Postgraduate Emergency Management Education 45 Caroline McMullan & Gavin Brown

Book Reviews

Cyber War Will Not Take Place 66 Thomas Rid Mark Leigh

Qualitative Disaster Research (Understanding Qualitative Research) 68 Brenda D. Phillips Gavin Brown Collective Conviction: The Story of Disaster Action 71 Anne Eyre and Pam Dix Dr Lucy Easthope

Editorial


EDITORIAL

Welcome to this special Irish Edition of the Emergency Management Review. It is our hope that those of you who may be unfamiliar with the Irish application of the systems approach to Emergency Management will find this edition interesting and enlightening, and that practitioners and academics alike will gain further useful insights to, and knowledge of, the nuances of different approaches to the discipline and profession of Emergency Management as we apply them in Ireland. What a difference a decade makes. In 2005, when the UK Civil Contingencies Act was but a year old, the Irish Framework for Major Emergency Management was just being finalised. A two-year development programme for roll-out of the structures and arrangements outlined in the framework followed from September 2006 to September 2008. This involved a significant effort throughout our Principal Response Agencies and Principal Emergency Services. There was no formal academic qualification in emergency management available in Ireland at that time, and many of our practitioners and academics alike looked to Universities in the UK to further their knowledge in the field. We had no national risk register, and no formal means of hazard identification or risk assessment for Major Emergencies was in place. Our structures and arrangements for managing Major Emergencies are now embedded throughout our Emergency Management services and the wider EM community. The 5-phase all-hazard, systems approach adopted in Ireland is reviewed in this edition. We also now have a national risk register in place, not before time it should be said. Equally or more importantly, we also now have established academic programmes in place, with the MSc in Emergency Management (MSEM) at Dublin City University and the 3U MSc in Humanitarian Logistics and Emergency Management delivered jointly by DCU and Maynooth University. The programmes have produced a steady stream of high-calibre graduates since the first course was delivered in 2007. The fact that the programmes have not just survived, but have prospered, throughout a severe economic crisis is testament to the increasing recognition of EM as a profession (as outlined by Eve Coles in Vol 2 issue 1) as well as to the commitment, drive and professionalism of those involved in the organisation and delivery of the programme, in particular Dr. Caroline McMullan of DCU and Dr. Graham Heaslip of MU. There are now in excess of 100 graduates of the programme, including all three Principal Emergency Services, voluntary agencies and NGOs, private industry and regulatory bodies. The current class has a distinctly international flavour, with a Fulbright scholar from Seattle in the USA and others from Italy and the UK. The

Emergency Management Review, 2 (2) 2015 2

Editorial

increasing pool of qualified and experienced people, as well as an increasing body of academic research, can only bode well for the future of EM in Ireland. Increasingly, resilience and business continuity are becoming more common-place terms heard in everyday business life. It would seem that the efforts of the BC profession over many years are finally paying dividends in the ever increasing consciousness of organisational leaders. The importance of planning for disruption to critical services and the need to exercise Business Continuity and other contingency plans has finally been accepted. The introduction of the International Standard for Business Continuity in 2012 may have given impetus to the field, and the improving quality of BCM through greater engagement with people at the front-line of organisations is reviewed in detail in this edition. I am delighted that the launch of this edition is taking place in conjunction with the Emergency Management Research Symposium which will be held on the DCU campus, and that the Republic of Ireland branch of the Emergency Planning Society is sponsoring and supporting the event. The increase in research in the field of EM is one benefit of a developing profession underpinned by academic rigour. There are significant EM research projects currently underway in a number of universities in Ireland, including Trinity College Dublin, DCU and MU, and the symposium will provide an opportunity for all to get an insight into the latest developments in these projects. The EM profession needs a strong, vibrant and well-regarded professional body to represent the interests of all involved in the field. The EPS is well placed to grow its membership base and to continue to be the primary professional body to represent the wide ranging interests of all involved in the various disciplines across the Emergency Management spectrum. However, significant effort by all members of the profession is required to ensure that their interests are represented by the EPS, and to that end I encourage readers to get more involved with their local branch in organising and attending activities and events. Finally, my thanks to the Emergency Management Review editor Eve Coles for the opportunity to pen this editorial and for her continuing dedication to the production of this peer reviewed journal – we who digest it salute you.

John Brophy, MSc, MEPS, MIITD. Emergency Planning Society, Republic of Ireland Branch Chair.

April 2015

Emergency Management Review, 2 (2) 2015 3

Research Digest


4

Research Digest

IRISH RESEARCH 2015

This research digest provides an overview of three key research projects taking place in Ireland during 2015. The topics range from humanitarian logistics to the use of technology during an emergency and, finally, individual and household emergency preparedness. The paper provides an insight to just three of the many emergency related research projects taking place in the country and does not set out to catalogue all emergency related scholarship. Humanitarian Logistics Research at Maynooth University – Dr Graham Heaslip Dr. Graham Heaslip is currently involved in a number of research projects all within the humanitarian operations space. His research, some of which is funded via the Australian Research Council, seeks to address challenges within humanitarian operations that relate to strategic alliances, servitization, service triads, supply chain innovation (among others). Of particular note is his research into extending the concept of servitization, which is usually applied in a commercial context, to the area of humanitarian logistics. Servitisation is the innovation of a firm’s capability and processes to shift from selling products to selling value-added services. By adding services to core products, firms differentiate their offering from competitors, increasing customer dependency and establishing barriers to competition. Managing services in a business-to-business setting is becoming more important as increasing competition forces organisations to work more closely with external partners in the supply chain. An example of such collaboration is the service triad, in which purchased services are delivered directly by service providers to customers. Graham finds that innovation, particularly supply chain innovation, is little understood in the humanitarian context, in spite of various endeavours to innovate products such as ready-to-use therapeutic foods and the shift from delivering materials to cash transfer programmes. It is because of this that his research focuses on extending the academic literature on supply chain innovation. In particular he focuses on how innovation from the humanitarian sector can influence commercial innovation practice as well as the concept of service triads, their application to humanitarian operations and the appropriate governance structures required. Utilisation of Technology in Emergency Management Research at Trinity College Dublin - Prof. Khurshid Ahmad Slándáil is a 3 year (April 2014-March 2017) EU-FP 7 funded project that aims to build and test a prototype system for managing disasters/emergencies by gathering and fusing data available in different modalities, texts, images and maps, in digital media, especially social media, with due regard to ethical and factual provenance of data used to generate information to mitigate and recover from disasters, particularly water-borne disasters like floods. The fused information will be shared between the conventional first-responders, the police and civil protection authorities, and the citizenship in a comprehensible and transparent manner. This requires input from experts in public communications and in multi-cultural and multi-lingual communications. Slándáil is an acronym for Security System for LANguage and Image anALysis, and it’s the Irish word for security.

Research Digest


5

Project Slándáil is collaboration of emergency operatives, (An Garda Síochána, Police Service of Northern Ireland, UK; Bundeskommando Leipzig, Germany, and Protezione Civile Venetto, Italy), academics in ontology and information extraction (Trinity College Dublin and Leipzig University), computer vision (Ulster University), in multilingual and multicultural mass communication (Padova University and Stillwater Communications Dublin), ethics (School of Ecumenics, Trinity College Dublin), and a security-oriented consultancy (CIES, Dublin). There are two software and applications-oriented enterprises in the Project: one dealing with social media applications (CID, Frankfurt) and the other with emergency management systems (DataPiano, Venice). The common purpose of the Slándáil Consortium is to make maximum ethical use of factual data available in the social media, in particular and digital media ion general, to enhance the performance of emergency management systems. The project has completed its first 10 months: the partners in the Slándáil consortium have produced a user–specification of needs, prototypes for processing social media and print media dealing with emergency messages, and a study of how emergency services communicate with the general public for generating confidence and trust. Emergency Preparedness Research at Dublin City University – Dr Caroline McMullan, Gavin D. Brown, Dr Ann Largey Academics in DCU Business School launched an “Individual and Household Emergency Preparedness Survey” during the latter half of 2014. The study seeks to identify the current levels of emergency preparedness within the Irish population. The comprehensive survey examines the perceived likelihood and impact rating of a wide range of emergencies such as flooding, infectious disease and terrorism. The output from this section of the survey will facilitate a comparison between the official and the general public’s view of the Irish risk landscape. This will be achieved by comparing the output from the study with the current National Risk Register (see below).

Source: A National Risk Assessment for Ireland, 2012. Available from: http://www.emergencyplanning.ie/media/docs/A%20National%20Risk%20Assessment%20for%20Ireland%20Published.pdf

http://www.emergencyplanning.ie/media/docs/A%20National%20Risk%20Assessment%20for%20Ireland%20Published.pdf

http://www.emergencyplanning.ie/media/docs/A%20National%20Risk%20Assessment%20for%20Ireland%20Published.pdf

Research Digest


6

Within the survey, respondents were asked to review their perceived level of preparedness and resilience. They provided information relating to: household plans; emergency supplies; insurance; transport availability and vehicle refuelling patterns. This data will provide useful indicators which may be used to ascertain overall levels of community resilience. Of critical importance to national and local government, the study generates data concerning the level and type of assistance which individuals feel they may require in the event of an emergency. Finally, respondents were asked to identify what they consider to be the funding and strategic priorities for government in relation to emergency management at a national level. In particular they were asked to rate the importance of investment in the protection of: private property; cultural landmarks; utilities; and critical infrastructure. Respondents were also asked if they supported the disclosure of information in relation to local and national hazards; at-risk structures; and the use of local taxation to fund resilience. From an academic perspective, the team at DCU will explore whether risk perception is influenced by factors such as gender, age, and education. But this data will also allow for an investigation into the levels of preparedness between say that of urban versus rural dwellers. Never before has a survey of this type and magnitude been undertaken in an Irish context. The results, as well as contributing to international academic research, will influence policy development in Ireland and will allow for benchmarking against resilience in other countries.

Gavin D. Brown Research Officer – Emergency, Risk and Continuity Management

DCU Business School April 2015

Ireland’s Emergency Management: O’Riordan & Hogan

IRELAND’S APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEMS APPROACH TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

2005 – 2013

Pat O’Riordan Emergency Management - Health Service Executive

St Camillus Hospital, Limerick.

Sean Hogan

National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management Customs House,

Dublin 1.

ABSTRACT In 2004 the Irish Government instigated a comprehensive review of arrangements for responding to major emergencies and in particular the 1984 Emergency Planning Framework. The result was a new Framework for Major Emergency Management, based on the Systems Approach, which was launched in September 2006. While the new Framework was founded on the same principles of inter-agency co-ordination as the 1984 document, it expanded greatly the guidance provided for practitioners and also added some new features, including the Lead Agency concept and a standard Information Management System. Following a two year development programme, the new arrangements became operational in September 2008 and since then they have been successfully deployed on a number of occasions, most notably during the severe weather of 2009 and 2010. Keywords Irish Emergency Management; A Framework for Major Emergency Management; Programme Implantation; Systems Approach; Ireland. INTRODUCTION Major Emergencies are rare, high impact events, which can bring death, destruction, loss, suffering and disruption to individuals, communities and societies. When a major emergency occurs, the public expects that the Government will ensure that there is a swift, integrated and effective response from its public services and in particular from the frontline emergency services. This is a critical element of the implicit contract between a government and its citizens and there have been some notable international examples of disappointment on this issue.

Emergency Management Review 2 (2) 2015

7


In the aftermath of the attack on the Twin Towers, in September 2001, governments all over the world moved to reassure the vulnerable and to strengthen their capacity to protect their citizens from adverse events. Initially, the concentration was on security and the threat from global terrorism, but eventually, the focus widened to include all major threats, regardless of the source. In late 2004 the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government initiated a review of the arrangements for preparing for and making a co-ordinated response to major emergencies. An Emergency Planning: Framework for Co-ordinated Response to Major Emergency (1984) (hereinafter Framework 1984) had been put in place in November 1984, in the aftermath of a number of deadly fires and transport accidents as well as some severe weather emergencies which had occurred in the early 1980s. Although there was a general belief that this Framework (1984) had served the country well, there was also a widely held view that a review was overdue and that real levels of emergency preparedness left a lot to be desired. The key objectives of such a review would be to provide a focus for the re-energising of the broad range of organisations and agencies which need to be involved in this area and to bring Ireland in line with international good practice in this field. International practice in emergency management varies with, in as far as it can be ascertained, the levels of government commitment ‘mainly related to the intensity of the perceived threat of disasters and the resources available’ (O’Riordan, 1992 p.35). However, in recent decades, the value and application of a systems approach in emergency management has come to be recognised in many countries which have had to confront this topic. The systems approach to emergency management involves a set of related elements, which occur in an integrated cyclical process, in order to achieve continuous improvement of the emergency management process, as the agreed goal. These elements can have different names in different jurisdictions, but are described here as five stages – (1) Hazard Analysis/ Risk Assessment, (2) Mitigation/Risk Management, (3) Planning/Preparedness, (4) Co-ordinated Response and (5) Recovery / Review. The systems approach also involves the integration of emergency management efforts along a number of key axes, both horizontal, e.g., between the different public sector players involved, and vertical, e.g., between the different levels, which can include local, regional, national and international levels. The systems approach can also facilitate effective transition between the pre- event and post-event phases; and between the public services on the one hand and the private, voluntary and community sectors on the other.


8


At a very early stage of the review process in 2005, it was apparent that a new Framework was required and a number of key decisions were taken. It was clear that engaging in a legislative-led approach would delay progress in the emergency management area and therefore, it was agreed that an updated framework would be issued as guidance for implementation by all agencies, with the backing of a government decision/approval, rather than having specific legislative provision. It was also agreed that the new Framework would be addressed primarily towards enabling effective collaboration between what are termed in Ireland as the Principal Response Agencies (PRAs) (An Garda Síochána, the Health Service Executive and the Local Authorities (the fire service sits within the Local Authority)); that it would be based on the systems approach to emergency management; that it would fit with existing administrative structures at local, regional and national levels with only necessary co-ordination structures being added; that it would define and promote common terminology for use within and between all sectors; that it would state what needed to be done by individual agencies/ sectors and would, as far as possible, indicate how common tasks could and should be done; and that it would be written in clear, user-friendly, language, accessible to the very wide audience for whom it was intended, rather than being for emergency management specialists. The draft of A Framework for Major Emergency Management (2006) (henceforward Framework 2006) was issued for consultation in late 2005; it was brought to the Government in May 2006; and issued as government policy in September, 2006. In parallel with approving the Framework (2006), the Government also approved an intensive two-year development/implementation programme, which involved the undertaking of local and regional risk assessments, the writing of new format major emergency plans, the delivery of a range of relevant training, the holding of exercises, and the testing of plans and procedures across all PRA services in all regions of the country. This programme concluded with a cut over by all agencies to the new Major Emergency Management (MEM) system, as planned, at 12 noon on Tuesday, September 30th, 2008. Since then, the system has been used to manage a range of emergencies which have arisen in Ireland and the cyclical process defined by the systems approach has continued to maintain and enhance preparedness across the PRAs, through the structures for implementation which were established across the country. This paper describes the review process leading to the preparation of the new Framework (2006) for MEM, some of the principal features of the Framework (2006), the 2006-2008 Development Programme and aspects of the use of the Framework (2006) during adverse events since 2008. Above all, it highlights the


9


benefits to Ireland of the adaptation and application of the structured systems approach to emergency management. DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK The issue of a possible review of major emergency arrangements, and specifically the Framework (1984), was first raised formally at a Government Taskforce meeting in February 2004. After the need to conduct a review was established, there was a period of delay while the arrangements and mechanisms for carrying out the review were resolved. Additional emergency planning structures had been created by the Irish Government in the immediate aftermath of the events of 9/11, and it was necessary to clarify mandates and interface issues between the civil emergency management process and terrorism-related/wartime emergency planning. After a period of discussion, in November 2004, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government mandated his Department to lead and support the review process, which it was agreed would deal with co-ordination arrangements among the PRAs and be conducted under the auspices of an existing Inter-Departmental Committee on Major Emergencies. This committee had been established by the Government in 1986 and included the parent government departments of the three Principal Emergency Services, i.e., the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (in the chair), the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Health & Children (O’Riordan 1992). The Department of Defence was also represented on the Inter-Departmental Committee. Having established its mandate, the Inter-Departmental Committee agreed in December 2004, that a Review Working Group would be established to conduct the review, with membership drawn from the three PRAs; that research, drafting and administrative support for the process would be provided by a project team to be established in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and that the Review Working Group would report to and be overseen by monthly meetings of the Inter-Departmental Committee. The authors of this paper were mandated as Chair and Deputy Chair of the Review Working Group. The Chair of the Review Working Group, Principal Fire Adviser in the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, was also appointed as review project team leader. The approach approved was for the Review Working Group to undertake a process of consideration of the existing Framework (1984), identify the issues involved, gather the views of key stakeholders, carry out a literature review and conduct research, as appropriate, develop proposals, consult with relevant third parties and report to the Inter-Departmental Committee. It was also decided to


10


procure an international expert to support the review. It was thought that this approach would facilitate the resolution of anticipated inter-agency difficulties and it was also recognised that the involvement of international expertise would validate and give public confidence to the outcome. The first meeting of the Review Working Group was held in January 2005, and the first task was the preparation of a project plan which set out the mandate, structure, approach, anticipated tasks and timescale of the project. This project plan also listed the principles which would inform the process, including:

• Building on the strengths of the Framework (1984); • Ensuring consistency with day-to-day inter-agency working arrangements; • Focusing on the delivery of services to the public when they need them

most; • Taking appropriate cognisance of resource issues; • Ensuring that the views of key stakeholders were considered; • Providing clear, accessible, useful and targeted output for key audiences.

Early in February, 2005, the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government issued tender documents, on behalf of the Inter-Departmental Committee, for the appointment of an external consultant to the review process. Following the receipt of tenders a UK based consultancy specialising in Crisis Management, were appointed to this role at the end of April. Developing a list of issues/topics, and rating and prioritising these was one of the first steps of the review. This involved consideration of the relevant literature and international practice, as well as the views of local practitioners, on each topic, as well as looking at what (if anything) the Framework (1984) had to say on the subject. With this approach the Review Working Group set out, on a case by case basis, to develop its thinking on the topic involved and to reach a practical view, acceptable to all, on what should be included on the topic in the new Framework (2006). In many cases this was a relatively simple and non-contentious process, while in others it was more difficult and complex. In all cases, topics were allocated to members of the Review Working Group to research and, as issues were agreed, the project team began writing up the first drafts. The consultant group played an important part in this process, suggesting different approaches on a number of topics, which unlocked issues which might otherwise have proven to be difficult. Their role also included reviewing drafts prepared by the Review Working Group and project team members. It was also agreed that, in the event of disagreement on any issue, every effort would be made to achieve consensus. Where that proved impossible, the external


11


consultant would advise and, where, at that stage, two sectors were in agreement, the third sector should accept this position. In the event, this mechanism was never invoked during the entire drafting process. This feature of the process is attributed by the authors to the healthy and respectful working relationships and a cooperative spirit which developed among the review members. A key factor in the group’s success was the on-going hearing and clarifying of concerns around the table which facilitated the working out of mutually acceptable approaches. Engagement, from a very early stage, with the voluntary emergency services sector in Ireland also provided an excellent platform for the development of effective inter-agency working. At an early stage, a number of important decisions were taken. The first was that that the structure of the Framework (2006) document would follow the five stages of the systems approach, and that the one hundred or so topics which had been identified would be grouped around these. The initial drafting process produced a large volume of written material and it was agreed that the main Framework (2006) document would be pruned and be relatively short, so as to be user friendly. To facilitate this approach, key support information would be included in a separate appendices document and detailed guidance material on specific topics would be provided in a further separate suite of documents. A key decision in relation to content at an early stage related to the vexed “Who is in charge?” question. The approach proposed was to give both the mandate and responsibility for co-ordinating the response to any major emergency to a “Lead Agency” and to underpin this approach with clear structures and process, which would enable effective co-ordination to be delivered by the lead agency, with the collaboration of all other agencies. At this stage it was also decided to replace the 1984 term Major Emergency Planning with a new title of Major Emergency Management (MEM) in order to emphasise the fact that planning is just one phase of the overall process of managing emergencies. On June 9th, 2005, a first draft of the Framework (2006), plus some of the Appendices, was made ready and a preliminary consultation process began across the three PRAs and a limited number of other stakeholders. This process continued until the end of August 2005, when comments were received. During this time, work on the refining of existing texts and the preparation of new texts continued. Also, at the end of July 2005, a proposed risk assessment methodology was piloted at a workshop in Limerick, Ireland, which was facilitated by the external consultants and involved members of the well-established Mid-West Major Emergency Planning Group.


12


From September 2005, the updated sections of the Framework (2006) and appendices, as prepared by the Review Working Group and project team members, as well as the relevant comments from the preliminary consultation process, were considered by the Review Working Group and the process of completion and improvement of the document continued. Also, at that stage, a workshop was held on the proposed new information management system, involving members of the Review Working Group, again facilitated by the external consultants. This helped to illustrate some key ideas and clarify the thinking of the group on that very significant topic. By mid-November 2005, a new draft of the Framework (2006) was ready and this was issued for consultation and comment to a wide spectrum of interested parties, including the PRAs, government departments, relevant state agencies, such as the Health and Safety Authority and the Irish Aviation Authority, and relevant voluntary emergency services, including the Civil Defence, the Irish Red Cross, Order of Malta, St. John Ambulance Brigade and a number of mountain and cave rescue organisations. There was a wide and deep consultation process within the various sectors and organisations and the resulting comments fed in to another round of improvement of the Framework (2006) text and diagrams. At the same time, work on developing the suite of new guidance documents continued. In the period from January to May 2006, the text of the Framework (2006) was refined again and again by the Deputy Chair of the Review Working Group and key project team members in the Department of Environment. In May 2006, the Framework (2006) was brought to the Government by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, on behalf of the Interdepartmental Committee IDC members, by way of formal memorandum. The resulting government decision included approval of:

• The text of A Framework for Major Emergency Management (2006) as the basis of inter-agency co-ordination and collaboration;

• The implementation of the Framework (2006) by the three PRAs through a two-year Major Emergency Development Programme (2008-2008);

• The establishment of a National Steering Group for Major Emergency Management to replace the existing Inter-Departmental Committee, with representation from the three Principal Response Agencies, their parent government departments, the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence with a brief to:

o Oversee the Major Emergency Development Programme;


13


o Continue to develop, maintain and update the new Framework (2006) as necessary;

o Report on these issues to the Government Task Force on Emergency Planning.

During the summer of 2006, detailed preparatory work was undertaken on resourcing the Development Programme while work continued on finalising the necessary guidance documents. On 12 September 2006, the Framework (2006), the Framework for Major Emergency Management Appendices (2006) and the initial Framework for Major Emergency Management Guidance Document One, “a guide to risk assessment in major emergency management” (2010) and the Framework for Major Emergency Management Guidance Document Two, “a guide to preparing a major emergency plan” (2010) were issued, without fanfare, by the respective government departments to the PRAs for implementation. KEY FEATURES OF THE FRAMEWORK Among the key features of the Framework (2006) is the embedding of emergency management arrangements within existing executive organisations, rather than creating separate emergency management agencies. This approach is based on the view that the real strength of effective emergency management is achieved by harnessing existing public services, rather than creating specific, stand-alone, infrequently-used, specialist organisations. Thus, while the provisions of the Framework (2006) encompass and harness approximately half of the numerical strength of Irish public services, being intended for use by the PRAs, no new organisations were created during the development programme; rather, a number of fora were created for effective co-ordination of emergency preparedness. While, as might be expected, the Framework (2006) sets out arrangements for the co-ordination of preparedness and response by the PRAs, a key strength is that it also spells out in unambiguous terms the steps that need to be undertaken by each PRA in giving effect to these requirements. The Framework (2006) also identifies the roles of each PRA in emergency management, which are generally in line, in each case, with the normal business of that PRA. In particular the Framework (2006) can be seen as defining an approach, as well as the method and techniques, for delivering the co-ordination goal. In terms of approach, it establishes the “Lead Agency” concept and gives a clear mandate, and accompanying responsibility, to the nominated Lead Agency to deliver on the co-ordination function. Any one of the three PRAs can be the Lead Agency, depending on the nature of the emergency. Lead Agency status is, by and large,


14


associated with the ‘centre of gravity’ of the response as it relates to the management of an emergency. In this regard, co-ordination is seen as a distinct function, additional to all other roles. To facilitate the achievement of co-ordination, the Framework (2006) sets out the facilities and arrangements that are to be put in place for the co-ordination of the site, local and regional level responses to emergencies, as well as setting out how this local response should link to the national level. In terms of techniques, a key aspect of the Framework (2006) is the introduction of a standardised information management system which is used to assemble, analyse and display information on the crisis to the relevant co-ordination groups. The system is also used individually by each PRA’s crisis management team to manage their response. The information management system was designed to work as a simple four-board system. On the first board, the ‘Recognised Current Situation’, the present situation, described clearly and succinctly, is displayed. On the second ‘Key Issues’ board the topics which are identified as being of greatest relevance to the group in question are displayed. This board is, in effect, the prioritised agenda of the group. The third board sets out the high level ‘Strategic Aim/Priorities’ against which key issues and intended actions are benchmarked. The fourth and final board is the ‘Action Board’ which records the steps (and who is being assigned responsibility for them) being undertaken to bring the situation under control. Interestingly, while the information management system grew out of the need for a common methodology for processing information, it has become, in effect, a common incident management approach. A new and unique feature of the Framework (2006) is the introduction of an appraisal system. This requires each PRA to complete on an annual basis an appraisal/survey document in which it confirms and provides evidence that it has undertaken a specified range of emergency management enablers and key internal actions, as well as participating in specified inter-agency activities. Likewise each MEM region must complete on an annual basis a similar appraisal/survey document. Finally, while it primarily provides a structure which enables the RPAs to work together, the Framework (2006) also establishes a national approach for co-ordinating the activities of the myriad of organisations and bodies which need to be involved in identifying hazards, working to mitigate these, planning and preparing to respond, making co-ordinated response and working through the recovery/review phase. Thus the Framework (2006), which is universally


15


applicable and has the full approval of the Government, is in effect the core arrangement whereby all agencies and organisations, public, voluntary, community and private, collaborate in emergency management. THE MAJOR EMERGENCY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2006 – 2008 In 2006, as well as seeking government approval for the new Framework (2006), approval was also sought for transition arrangements to the new approach and for the allocation of a two-year period for the development of the new structures and arrangements. This recognition of the need for an extensive transition period was a major departure from the approach taken when the Framework (1984) was first issued and, in the view of the authors, was a key success factor for the entire Framework project. The project team located in the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which had successfully supported the development of the new Framework (2006), was mandated by the Government to carry on to the next stage of the process. A project initiation document was prepared by the project team, which identified the key steps and benchmarks for the two year period ahead. The Key Stages in the project were identified as:

• Project initiation; • Provision of internal and inter-agency training; • Roll out of risk assessment process; • Preparation of new format major emergency plans; • Identification and enhancing of physical space for co-ordination facilities; • Conduct of first round of exercises; • Cut-over to new system; • Conduct of first round of appraisals.

Next, the new inter-agency working structures, set out in the Framework (2006), were implemented at both national and regional levels, while each of the three principal response sectors put in place its own internal arrangements to achieve delivery of what was termed ‘The Major Emergency Development Programme (MEDP) 2006 -2008’. Interestingly, at a regional level, some of the Framework (2006) structures being put in place were, in effect, merely the formalising and renaming of existing structures and practices which had developed organically in a number of old Health Board regions, under which the relevant Local Authorities, Garda Divisions and Health Board collaborated on the implementation of emergency planning issues (O’Riordan 1992).


16


The key role at national level during these two years was to provide leadership and support for the process. The National Steering Group, with the support of the National Working Group, choreographed progress within each of the three sectors as well as the development of inter-agency tasks. This included the development of a suite of additional Guidance Documents and Protocols. To facilitate the large numbers across the PRAs requiring training on the new inter-agency arrangements and processes, at the national level tenders were issued and contractors were appointed to develop training packages and deliver training on:

• On-site Co-ordination; • Local Co-ordination; • Information Management; • Public Information and the Media; • The Conduct of Exercises.

At the regional level, the eight Regional Steering and Working Groups went to work with a great deal of enthusiasm and good will. In some cases new appointments were comprised of officers with a full time commitment to MEM. In all areas, new working relationships were forged across the different sectors as each region worked its way through the nationally agreed programme. Over the two years, each stage of the project presented its own challenges. Conceptually, the MEDP project involved a move outside of the pool of personnel who had been involved in the Framework’s (2006) development, to an engagement with much broader communities within the PRAs. Although issues emerged in the various sectors, at the national level, there was no wavering from the intended transition date and, while each sector may have moved at a slightly different pace, all crossed the same ground, working through each of the key stages listed above. As planned, at midday on 30 September 2008, each PRA switched their major emergency response arrangements to those set out in the new Framework (2006). THE FRAMEWORK IN PRACTICE The MEM Development Programme (2006-2008) was followed by a further consolidation phase, involving the commitment and efforts of many individuals at the national level, across the eight MEM regions and within each of the three sectors. At a national level, the National Steering Group meets approximately four times a year to exercise its oversight role on the progress of the MEM project across the


17


country. It also has a more specific developmental role, through setting and supervising the work programme of the National Working Group. The National Steering Group hosts biannual meetings with the Chairs of the eight Regional Steering Groups and also organises an annual National Conference, in order to facilitate an effective exchange of views on processes, procedures and, in particular, new initiatives, between the national and regional levels. The National Working Group meets six to eight times a year and has developed a programme of plans, guidance material, inter-agency Protocols and training materials in a wide range of areas. These include significant additional aspects from those initially envisaged such as a Mass Fatality Plan, a template for a Regional Inter-Agency Public Communications Plan, Guidance on Severe Weather Emergencies, a Marine Emergencies Protocol and on-going training packages for the various Co-ordination Groups (Major Emergency Management 2013). In each of the eight regions, the Regional Steering Group is chaired and led on a rotational basis by senior officials, including Local Authority managers, Chief Superintendents of An Garda Síochána and Health Service Executive Managers. The Regional Steering Groups meet on a regular basis and ensure that the requirements of the Framework (2006) and of the National Steering Group are implemented in their areas. In large part, these requirements are delivered via the efforts of the local Regional Working Group. These Regional Working Groups are the driving force for progress in MEM in their regions. Furthermore, in recent years the Regional Working Groups have played a significant and increasing role in the development of new and innovative processes and practices in MEM, particularly in areas such as, the development of inter-agency co-ordination facilities, the preparation and testing of Seveso external emergency plans, the delivery of training, the organisation of exercises and the development of inter-agency communications. As the regions have developed, significant intra-regional sharing of ideas and initiatives has emerged which is facilitated by the biannual meetings of the Regional Steering Group Chairs with the National Steering Group and by the annual conference. The above inter-agency processes have been complemented within individual PRAs by the establishment of general and topic specific MEM groups, the development of guidance on PRA specific issues, the provision of training and the organisation of exercises. Within each PRA and Region, the systems approach of the Framework (2006) drives a cyclical process that includes an annual review of the relevant risk assessment, annual programmes of training and exercises linked to the risk


18


assessment scenarios, regular reviews of major emergency plans and an annual Appraisal. This on-going process ensures that the relevant levels of MEM preparedness are continually under review and, as a result, the authors contend are constantly improving. That is not to say that there haven’t been fallow periods in individual regions, but there appears to be a close and good fit between the MEM activity and the support/priority given to it by extremely busy senior officials in the PRAs. Less than 14 months after the new MEM Plans and associated arrangements were adopted on 30 September 2008, the new system received its first significant test. A period of heavy rainfall in early November, 2009, culminated in exceptional rain during the days leading up to the 19th of November. The result was severe flooding across a wide swathe of the country from Galway in the West, through Clare and Cork, to Wexford in the South East of Ireland. Roads became impassable, homes and business premises were flooded and daily life was interrupted in many areas. Cork city was one of the worst locations effected, with a loss of the public water supply extending the crisis period (National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management 2011). Individual PRAs responded, as per their statutory responsibilities, by, closing roads, diverting traffic, rescuing individuals from vehicles and buildings, providing emergency accommodation, caring for displaced persons, providing sandbag defences and where appropriate, monitoring water quality and providing temporary water supplies as required. Further to this, they also, provided information for the public on all aspects of the crisis. Major emergency structures and arrangements, including inter-agency Local Coordination Groups and sectorial Crisis Management Teams, were activated across the affected regions and played a significant role in the management of the response. The Local Coordination Groups, in particular, played an effective role in:

• The sharing of information, the early identification of emergent problems and coordination of effort across the PRAs, both locally and regionally;

• The facilitation of liaison and cooperation with key external agencies, such as the Met Eireann, the Defence Forces, the Electricity Supply Board, the Office of Public Works and the Voluntary Emergency Services;

• The collection and collation of information for use at the national level; and • The provision of key information from a single source to the public in each

of the affected regions.

At a national level, the Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government assumed the role of “Lead Government Department” and convened a


19


National Co-ordination Group, with the National Director for Fire and Emergency Management, one of the co-authors of this paper, mandated by the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) to lead the national level response to what was seen as a major crisis. Although the national dimension was outside the scope of the Framework (2006), many of its principles and approaches were used effectively at this level. This flooding event was the first occasion when the arrangements and structures set out in the Framework (2006) came to the attention of the media, the political system and the public. There were complaints about individual aspects of the response to the flooding, particularly the adequacy of the warnings given for and response to the flooding in Cork city. However, the new Framework (2006) arrangements became part of the story and were seen by the political system, the media and, to some extent, by the public to have worked. Their existence and implementation showed the PRAs in a positive light, in terms of having plans and procedures for co-ordinated response in place and being able to execute them. The clean-up after this flooding was still underway when Ireland was hit by another Severe Weather event. A lengthy cold spell, which commenced in the second half of December 2009, and continued through to the middle of January 2010, saw frost, ice and snow dominate the Irish weather system. This weather led to consequential difficulties for most elements of society, including motorists, pedestrians, employers, farmers, the emergency services and, in particular, elderly and vulnerable people living alone. Once again, the PRAs responded in their allocated roles, gritting roads, clearing footpaths, rescuing individuals from stranded vehicles, providing specialist healthcare services to individuals in isolated areas, assisting key staff, such as intensive care nurses, to get to work, and providing information for the public. Once again, the MEM structures and arrangements, including, Local Coordination Groups and Crisis Management Teams, were activated across the country and played a significant role in managing a coordinated response. The National Co-ordination Group was again convened by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, the cold weather of December 2009 to January 2010 was but a foretaste of what was to come. On 27 November 2010 an extremely cold spell began which lasted until 26 December. A combination of frost, ice and heavy snowfalls, with temperatures as low as minus 16 degrees, once again caused problems for Irish society, including all types of transport, businesses, agriculture, the health services and individuals. Many roads were impassable without 4x4 vehicles; salt supplies for road gritting came under extreme pressure; individuals could not get to work; schools were closed; food supply was a problem in some isolated areas; and


20


hospitals were put under pressure by extra patients in emergency departments, many with fractures resulting from falls on icy surfaces. When the thaw finally came dramatically on 26 December 2010, the rapid change in temperatures resulted in numerous public water supply issues, due to bust pipes, which in turn led to thousands of properties being flood damaged. This extended the crisis until mid-January 2011. In response to these events, the national, regional and local coordination structures were, once again, mobilised and maintained for the full period of the crisis. Lessons which had been identified during the flooding and cold spell crises of the 2009/2010 winter were put to good use. Around the country, Local Co-ordination Groups were activated and maintained. Once again, these were effective in promoting co-ordination, liaison with support groups, particularly the Defence Forces and the Voluntary Emergency Services and Community sectors, and the provision of information to the public. At a national level, the Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government convened the National Co-ordination Group. This group played a key role in the development and maintenance of a “whole of Government” response to the crisis. Meetings were held daily at which all Government Departments and their key agencies, as well as other critical organisations, were present. This greatly facilitated the exchange of information and the development of cooperation and coordination across a wide range of agencies and issues. Sub-groups of the National Co-ordination Group were formed to deal with specific issues, such as public information, salt supply and emergent legal issues. Daily information and briefings were provided to the media and this greatly enhanced the public perception that, although there was a nationwide crisis, there were people ‘in charge’ who were working together effectively and who knew what they were doing. These positive perceptions, although not shared perhaps by all commentators, were in marked contrast to reports of previous episodes of severe cold in 1947, 1963 and 1982. It is the view of the authors that Government Ministers, the media and the public were reassured at these times of crisis by the standard co-ordination structures in use all around the country, staffed by people who projected an air of competence. The key factors underpinning this were the common Framework (2006) and the fact that the key staff in each of the principal response agencies knew one another and had been involved together in inter-agency MEM training and exercises. A further key aspect of that growth in confidence was the consistent use, at national, regional and local levels, of the common terminology and approaches set down in the Framework (2006).


21


In the years since 2008 some of the major emergency plans prepared under the Framework (2006) have also been activated for major emergencies that did not involve severe weather. One of the most significant of these involved an aircraft accident at Cork Airport on 10 February, 2011. The emergency services responded quickly to the scene and a major emergency was declared. Unfortunately, six of the twelve people on board the aircraft were killed. The structures and arrangements set out in the relevant PRA major emergency plans were activated and underpinned what was generally seen to have been an efficient and effective response. Interestingly, this real emergency followed an airport exercise which had been held a short time previously, as part of the local MEM inter-agency programme. Reviews have been conducted and reports have been prepared on the above severe weather events and the Cork Airport crash, as well as for the many exercises which have been conducted since the new system came into use. Many issues have been raised in these reports, including the need for more effective inter-agency training, more use of modern information technology tools, more and better exercises and some improvements in the guidance provided ancillary to the Framework (2006). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, none of these reports have suggested any change to the basic provisions of the Framework (2006). It is the authors’ view that this results from the fact that the Framework (2006) is based on and aligned with international good practice, as well as being testament to the scope, depth and quality of the work of the original Review Working Group, to the widespread and persistent consultation process involved, and to the painstaking and extensive review of the details of the two principal documents that preceded the publication of the Framework (2006) in 2006. CONCLUSION The process begun in February 2004 led to the development of a new Framework (2006) for MEM, based on the internationally accepted systems approach; the roll out of that Framework (2006) across every Division of An Gárda Síochana, every region of the Health Service Executive and every Local Authority; the establishment of Regional Steering Groups, Regional Working Groups and associated sub-groups in each of the eight MEM Regions; the establishment of a National Steering Group, a National Working Group and associated sub-groups; the training of large numbers of PRA employees as information managers and members of Site Co-ordination and Local Co-ordination Groups; the holding of numerous exercises and the documentation of Appraisals in each PRA and each MEM Region on an annual basis.


22


This progress has been achieved through the enthusiastic engagement and support of large numbers of people across the three principal sectors involved. As a result, Ireland is undoubtedly better prepared for major emergencies that it would otherwise be, without incurring any significant additional costs. This improved preparedness is an obvious benefit to the public at large and specifically to the individuals who are or will be the victims of major emergencies. The importance of effective emergency management arrangements in enabling society to continue to function in adversity has been underlined, as has the critical importance of providing accurate, relevant and timely information to the public during a crisis. There have also been other, secondary, benefits of the Framework project. Managers across the PRAs have a better understanding of and added competencies in the management of all types of crises. Individuals in each of the PRAs have met and developed good working relationships with colleagues in other PRAs, while links have been made to key individuals at all levels in the public service. These positive outcomes for the individuals involved have had beneficial consequences for the day-to-day management of internal and inter-agency issues across the PRAs, to the benefit of the societies which they serve. Finally, the successful development and roll out of the Framework (2006), to an agreed programme, can be seen as an exemplar of what is best in inter-agency working across the public service. In this project, government departments, national agencies, Local Authorities and many individuals joined together to work on a productive endeavour with the common goal of achieving an optimum output with minimum, if any, regard for sectional interests. This is a goal which is often sought, but is probably claimed more regularly than it is achieved. At the same time, the Framework (2006) for MEM project in Ireland has demonstrated how a mandated public sector group can, using a study of the available literature as well as an examination of international best practice, bring the lessons learned to bear on the process of identifying, mitigating, preparing for, responding to and recovering from real life issues/emergencies, to the advantage of their fellow citizens and society at large. REFERENCES A Framework for Major Emergency Management (2006), Dublin: Stationery Office. A Framework for Major Emergency Management Appendices (2006), Dublin: Stationery Office.


23


A Framework for Major Emergency Management Guidance Document One (2010), A guide to risk assessment in major emergency management, Dublin: Stationery Office. A Framework for Major Emergency Management Guidance Document Two (2010), A guide to preparing a major emergency plan, Dublin: Stationery Office. Emergency Planning: Framework for Co-ordinated Response to Major Emergency (1984), Dublin: Stationery Office. Major Emergency Management (2013), A Framework for Major Emergency Management, http://www.mem.ie accessed 8th June 2014. National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management (2011), Towards integrated emergency management: a report on the review of the response to exceptional severe weather events of 2009 – 2010, Ireland: Department of Environment, Community and Local Government. O’Riordan, P. (1992), Emergency Planning in Ireland, Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

Pat O’Riordan is a civil engineer with a background in project management. He began working on Emergency Planning in 1990. Since then he has played a lead role in Emergency Planning developments at regional and national levels. He was deputy chair of the review group which produced the 2006 Emergency Management Framework and was appointed chair of the implementation working group. He is the author of “Emergency Planning in Ireland”, published in 1992, and joint author of “Before, during and after radiation emergencies”, published in 1997. He is a Fellow of the Emergency Planning Society. Sean Hogan is a civil engineering graduate from UCD. He worked with fire services in North Tipperary and Galway, before joining the Department of Environment. As Principal Fire Adviser, Sean led and oversaw the Major Emergency Development Programme and the Fire Services Change Programme, community fire safety initiatives and the development of fire services infrastructure. On the establishment of the National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management in June 2009, Sean was appointed as its first National Director.


24

http://www.mem.ie/

Improving the Quality of Business Continuity Management: Begg

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF BUSINESS CONTINUITY MANAGEMENT THROUGH GREATER ENGAGEMENT WITH FRONT-LINE EMPLOYEES.

David Begg M.Sc. MSEM, Dip. Arch Tech 28 Riverforest View

Leixlip Co.Kildare

[email protected] ABSTRACT

The apogee of effective Business Continuity Management (BCM) is the attainment of full embeddedness within an organisation's culture. To achieve this, BCM must become a routine occupation for employees at all organisational levels. This research builds upon past research which shows that BCM responsibility is generally retained at management level.

The research examined the use of the Human Resources concept of employee engagement as a method to improve front-line engagement specifically with BCM. To do this, existing levels of employee engagement and awareness were measured within a discrete business line of a large Irish company. Interventions based on drivers of employee engagement were introduced and the resulting changes in BCM quality were measured.

Findings showed that existing levels of BCM training and awareness were low and that front-line employees were not routinely involved in continuity planning or management. Introduction of drivers of employee engagement such as training and reporting tools achieved improvements in the sample population but effective manager/employee collaboration proved elusive. The research showed that employee engagement techniques can be successfully deployed within an organisational team to improve BCM quality and awareness through collaboration with front-line employees.

Keywords: Business Continuity, Employee Engagement, Resilience, Risk Management


25



INTRODUCTION The apogee of effective Business Continuity Management (BCM) is the achievement of full embeddedness within an organisation's culture, with BCM becoming a core organisational competency engaging all employees, ensuring widespread confidence that key objectives will be met in the face of disruption and providing for continual improvement of BCM systems (BSI 2006, 2012). Unfortunately, achieving embeddedness is difficult, time-consuming and costly and may never be attained if organisations believe BCM is a discretionary process which does not contribute to its profitability (Kotheimer and Coffin 2003).

Robust stakeholder engagement is a cornerstone of a strong Business Continuity strategy however, BCM is generally viewed in the literature, and in practice, as a management concern and rarely has the baton of responsibility been passed down to operational employees as key stakeholders. In research conducted by Garrett (2012) into the status of BCM in Irish companies, only 8 per cent of front-line employees had responsibility for BCM and only 14 per cent were the owners of the Business Continuity Plan (BCP) and, therefore, responsible for its implementation.

While BCM responsibility generally appears to rest with Senior and middle managers, front-line employees are ideally placed to spot early warning signs of imminent failure and may also be best suited to determining the impact an interruption might have. Front-line employees in this context are non-managers who have specific skill sets utilised in the discharge of specific tasks. In some cases, they may be latently aware of the early signals of imminent failures but lack the tools to escalate these signals. They may be able to make an important contribution to BCM but may not have been given the opportunity or encouragement to do so by their organisation.

Engendering employee engagement is an established HR concept used to increase employee productivity. It empowers employees, giving them the support and tools to encourage discretionary effort beyond core responsibilities. By aligning BCM and employee engagement, it may be possible to fully embed BCM within an organisation's culture. However, the qualitative judgement of front-line employees may lack sufficient perspective and requires management collaboration to ensure robust risk calculation. Improving the quality of this risk 'conversation' is important in terms of BCM as it represents an inclusive risk management approach which can be adapted to meet changing threat environments.

The following research presents an investigation into the possibility of improved engagement by front-line employees with BCM. It was conducted within a mid-sized organisation based in Ireland and attempted to link employee engagement as a HR concept and BCM as a risk management concept by determining if drivers of employee engagement could be used to improve front-line employee commitment to BCM.

The subject organisation provides goods and services to the public, is largely office-based and is part of a larger organisation undertaking a wide range of industrial and commercial activities. At the request of the organisation, it will be referred to as the 'Business' while


26


the parent group of businesses will be known as the ‘Organisation’ to protect its anonymity.

A single business line within the ‘Business’ was selected for the conduct of the research and involved the participation of all the employees therein. A number of qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques were utilised including, surveys, interviews, archival research, a focus group and a review of the available literature.

BUSINESS CONTINUITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Historically, BCM has been an IT concern (Elliott, Swartz and Herbane 2010), concentrating on the protection of key IT infrastructures, but, in recent years, BCM has been subsumed within the broader Risk Management (RM) activities of an organisation, driven by the requirements of customer service and internal governance (Gallagher 2007; Hinson 2012).

In its simplest terms BCM asks the following questions:

• What’s the worst that can happen to us? • How quickly would we reach the point of no return? • Where would we be operating tomorrow if the worst happened? • How quickly could we return to business-as-usual? (Gibb and Buchanan 2006;

Tammineedi 2010).

Dervargas (1999) points out that implementation of a BCM strategy is intended to reduce disruption to, and ensure an orderly recovery of, normal operations in the event of an interruption. BS 25999 described a six stage approach to BCM which it referred to as the Business Continuity Lifecycle. While superseded by ISO 22301 in 2012, the ultimate expression of a successful implementation of this Lifecycle remains the achievement of full emdeddeness in an organisations structure (Elliott, Swartz and Herbane 2010), providing for continual improvement of a BCM system through the ‘Plan, Do, Check, Act’ cycle (BSI 2006, 2012). Leadership commitment, competence, awareness and communications in particular are cornerstones of ISO 22301 (BSI 2012) meaning that BCM has become a core value of the organisation with stakeholders having confidence in it to cope with every disruption.

However, funding and resources for BCM activities are often viewed as discretionary with the result that BCM is under-resourced and not fully understood throughout the organisation. The organisation is faced with undertaking a cost/benefit analysis which examines whether it is willing to invest generally to make business gains, or in BCM specifically to avoid losses (Kotheimer and Coffin 2003).

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

Organisations have their own cultures or shared ‘set of values, guiding beliefs, norms, and ways of thinking that are shared' (Daft 2004 p.601) and an effective RM culture is one in which organisations develop shared awareness for the early warning signals, prodromes or signal detectors (Parsons 2010; Fink 2002; Mitroff 2004). This has much to do with


27


whether organisations are crisis-prone or crisis resistant (Elliott, Swartz and Herbane 2010; HSE 2005), however, Veil (2011) argues that there are cognitive barriers to spotting early warning signals because employees may be mindlessly functioning in routine tasks.

Employee Engagement is a term which is gaining popularity amongst organisations wishing to optimise employee performance. It seeks to harness the discretionary effort of employees to lead to an 'enhanced organizational effectiveness coupled with heightened employee well-being' (Macey et al 2009 p.xvi). Engaged employees are proactive, taking actions aligned with corporate goals and doing what is necessary without questioning whether it is part of the job (Macey et al 2009). All employees have a ‘stake’ in how well an organisation is run, have ‘a vested interest in an organization’s achievements' (BSI 2006 p.5; Graham and Kaye 2006) and are, therefore, stakeholders.

As stakeholders, many employees have seen their roles becoming increasingly routine or mundane due to a preponderance of sophisticated IT systems. They still suffer, however, the rotations, down-sizing and regular change common in modern organisations. As a result, employees are less likely to give 'loyalty above and beyond the call of contract' (Graham and Kaye 2006 p.27) and the best employees are far more likely to leave if they do not feel confidence in their organisation (Graham and Kaye 2006 p.28). In fact, it is estimated that between 50% and 70% of workers are disengaged (Wollard 2011) with many disengaged employees satisfied with their lot but having essentially 'checked out', putting in time but not approaching their work with energy or passion (Fox 2010).

There is a practical correlation between engagement and productivity meaning engagement can be fostered ‘as a driver of increased performance' (Gruman and Saks 2011 p.123). Macey et al (2009) argue that engagement also serves to lower the risk profile of an organization because engagement opens up decision making 'to those who can add value' (Smythe 2007 p.11). Therefore, engagement should be encouraged for its risk reducing benefits as well as improved productivity.

ENGAGEMENT AND BCM

Garrett (2012) notes that, in a 2009 survey of Irish companies, respondents had experienced losses of people (15%) and skills (12%) more often than IT disruptions (10%). This would indicate that the traditional BCM focus on IT is potentially misplaced and that organisations may be better served by shifting BCM focus to its employees. In the context of BCM, employee engagement should stem from the belief that employees are an organisation’s most important resource and its greatest responsibility when it comes to managing a crisis (Devargas 1999). Yet, the research presented by Garrett (2012) notes that front-line employees had limited responsibility for BCM in Irish companies and shows that BCM is retained as a management responsibility.

The quality of this limited engagement is unclear but engagement by Managers with front-line employees during risk evaluations or Business Impact Analyses (BIA) is not sufficient on its own to ensure BCM is embedded throughout the organisation. Engagement must be maintained beyond any initial consultation through on-going collaboration, leadership from senior personnel, assignment of responsibilities, awareness, skills training and exercising plans (BSI 2006). Existing cultural barriers to widespread inclusivity must be


28


overcome and the organisation must view BCM as a core competency rather than a discretionary process.

The literature pays lip service to the notion of employees as stakeholders who should be considered as part of an organisation’s BCM activities but ‘little regard seems to be given to the role of company employees in disaster recovery’ (Pollard and Hotho 2006 p.732). This means that the potential contribution of engaged employees to risk management processes may go undervalued. Much of the guidance provided by technical standards and scholarly publications is aspirational or idealised, with little consideration given to the practical implications of implementing new BCM practices. Nonetheless, employees’ awareness of, and input into, BCM will increase resilience which, in turn, improves an organisation’s chances of surviving a business interruption. In order for this to happen, though, change is inevitable and management and front-line employees must be willing to collaborate, particularly where no collaboration previously exists. In order to overcome potential front-line employee cynicism, collaboration must be structured and procedurally clear to persuade employees that change has actually happened and continuity plans must be incorporated into an organisation's change management process to ensure details are updated as required (Wollard 2011; Townsend and Gebhardt 2008; Hinson 2012).

Figure 1: The engagement management model (Adapted from Gruman and Saks 2011 p.128, Fig.1)

ISO BS 22301 (BSI 2012) holds managers responsible for the delivery of BCM within an organisation and sets out their responsibilities with regard to implementation and embedding BCM. Appropriately positioning decision-making within an organisation's hierarchy ‘where decisions are pushed to the lowest level commensurate with skill, but where higher levels of management can override decisions made by lower levels’ (Davies and Walters 1998 p.399) ensures reliable performance and avoids centralised ‘brittle’ decision-making (ibid). Gruman and Saks (2011) have developed an Engagement Management Model (See Figure 1) which encompasses a number of drivers of employee


29


engagement. By collaborating and agreeing processes with employees, helping them implement changes (through training and leadership) and by providing performance feedback it is possible to improve employee engagement, performance and, ultimately, organisational resilience.

BCM WITHIN THE ‘BUSINESS’

The research undertaken within the ‘business’ sought to determine if drivers of employee engagement may be used to improve front-line employee commitment to BCM. It sought to examine current levels of employee engagement in the organisation and determine if BCM activities could be improved by encouraging a greater involvement by front-line employees. The research was carried out in a discrete business line within the ‘Business’ and was, therefore, not random. The population consisted of twenty one employees across all levels of management. Non-probability, purposive sampling was used to frame the sample selection as it is useful for small sample populations and the particular business line selected represents a 'typical case' (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2009 p.239) and meant that selection bias was not a consideration. The triangulation of research methods was also employed to ensure reliable and valid data was collected in an attempt to overcome the difficulty in forming generalisable conclusions from such a small sample size.

A Participatory Action Research strategy was adopted involving the use of comparative surveys, semi-structured interviews and a focus group to gather data in the field. All participants in the research had a full understanding of why the investigation was taking place and of who was responsible for implementing any recommended changes (Bell 2010). It was important that the Researcher and subjects had a common understanding of the ethical framework within which they are collaborating to avoid conflict and provide re-assurance that research responses would be consequence-free (ibid). By protecting the anonymity of all respondents and assuring them that the data would be retained in the sole possession of the researcher, a high response rate was achieved across all methods.

Resultant data was linked to the three drivers of employee engagement described by Gruman and Saks (2011) as the research was attempting to use these drivers to support a culture of embedded BCM.

In addition, Table 1 shows a number of interventions taken during the research as they apply both to Stage Six of the BCM Lifecycle (BSI 2006) (embedding BCM in the organisation’s culture) and each of the three drivers of engagement described by Gruman and Saks (2011). In particular, interventions concentrated on Driver Two, Engagement Facilitation, as this driver fulfilled the experimental aspect of the PAR approach.

The principle interventions consisted of:

1. a 90 minute training and awareness session for all employees: An introduction to best practice and current ‘Organisation’ activities.

2. the introduction of a Business Continuity 'Risk Ticket': No formal method for the evaluation or recording of risks was available to employees at the start of the


30


research. The 'risk ticket' (Figures 2 and 3) was drawn up and issued to all employees within the research area following introductory training. The ticket was intended to encourage thought about impacts on key processes or systems and to act as a simple BIA for the effected process by requiring mitigating actions to be considered.

Table 1: Employee engagement drivers applied to Stage Six of the BCM Lifecycle (Adapted from: BSI 2006; Gruman and Saks, 2011)


31


Figure 2: The business continuity 'Risk Ticket' (front)


32


Figure 3: The business continuity 'Risk Ticket' Guidance Notes (reverse)


33


Subjects were asked to raise at least one BCM risk using the Ticket and return it, through their manager to the researcher (acting in the organisational role of BCM Coordinator). It offered concrete advice on how to make judgements on likelihood and impact and the risk could also be collaboratively measured with managers, thus leading to a 'risk conversation' and providing a platform for appraisal and feedback. Two surveys were issued to employees (one before intervention and one afterwards) and Managers were interviewed to illicit responses and opinions on aspects of employee engagement and BCM practices. A focus group consisting of front-line employees was also convened to discuss findings in an open forum.

MEASURING EXISTING LEVELS OF ENGAGEMENT

The responses to the surveys, interviews and focus group identified an engagement shortfall and a poor level of BCM and risk knowledge and awareness. This may be related to what both managers and non-managers referred to as a willingness to engage with other, more attractive, areas of business activity but this view is summed up by one manager who stated that BCM 'mightn't be sexy enough' for most employees.

General BCM awareness and competency prior to intervention was poor amongst most employees. Managers were aware of their duties with regard to performing annual BCM reviews but, by not engaging with front-line employees on BCM and by meeting only minimum satisfactory requirements for planning and preparedness, managers have isolated front-line employees from the corporate BCM machinery. Managers themselves had become detached from corporate BCM strategy and BCM had become an annual box-ticking exercise. Of the sample population, none of the managers had received meaningful BCM training and, instead, appeared willing to defer to corporate expertise, and centralised decision-making.

Most employees believed a BCM event was likely to be both local and related to IT. In fact, aside from Health and Safety Management (HSM), employees drew strongest correlation between BCM and IT losses. As previously noted, research conducted by Garrett (2012) indicates that this correlation may be misplaced. In addition, there was poor general awareness of the organisation's strategic risks and no forum for reporting BC risks upwards. Broader risk groups were not given consideration and there was no awareness of reputational or financial risks. This is particularly interesting considering the organisation has been making concerted efforts to promote both cost-saving and brand awareness.

It is also clear from the research that front-line employees are not fully exploited as resources in BCM. Managers made it clear that they viewed non-managers as having little responsibility for BCM beyond occasionally responding to queries from those who do. Before intervention, front-line employees had little or no awareness of BCM and felt this was a management concern. There was no formal forum for the reporting of risks or threats to key processes and very few employees had reported a risk or resolved a risk in collaboration with a manager. In effect, the organisational culture has arrived at a point where front-line employees are not encouraged to engage with business risk and a paternalistic approach by managers has become the cultural norm.


34


However, the training and awareness session delivered as part of the initial ‘risk ticket’ circulation served to improve general BCM understanding. Following intervention, the quality of the new reported risks was high and added value to current ‘Business’ BCM practices, supporting the view that engaged employees are more productive. However, this improved awareness led to an unexpectedly firmer belief that managers should be responsible for managing risks. When asked, following intervention, who they now felt had responsibility for managing BC risk, a greater number of respondents now felt it was a management concern (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Who do you think should be responsible for dealing with risks that threaten to interrupt day-to-day business?

There was a significant improvement in the number of employees who were aware how to report a business risk (Figure 4). The respondents who disagreed had not attended the training session.

Figure 5: I know how to report a business risk that I have become aware of.


35


While, employees felt they better understood how to report a risk and did so through the risk ticket, under observation, they preferred to peer-review the risks prior to submission and management collaboration remained elusive.

Employees felt they were better prepared to respond to interruptions following training and three quarters said they felt more engaged with BCM and risk management. All said they would report risks into the future with non-managers advocating the introduction of BCM or RM as an agenda item at Team Meetings. While understanding it’s importance, front-line employees appeared to want little or no responsibility for BCM and were willing to deliver their BCM observations to managers for action. Managers were clear that they alone should be responsible for BCM and did not want to elicit input from front-line employees on a day-to-day basis as they believed it would be difficult to manage. They appeared sceptical about the quality and quantity of potential risks raised. Neither showed any significant desire to collaborate to manage BCM risks or threats.

DISCUSSION

The available literature advocates collaboration between managers and employees but presents scant guidance on how to achieve this engagement in a practical setting. This is echoed in practice where little consideration is given to the inclusion of front-line employees as BCM resources. The paternalistic approach evident amongst managers is, in effect, supported by non-managers through their own non-engagement. By their own admission, these employees are happy for managers to control BCM activities as they do not view it as something which affects them directly. Employees, to some extent therefore, have become the authors of their own disengagement. The net result is that BCM is 'not on the agenda' at operational or front-line levels.

By applying Garrett's (2012) findings and the current findings, it may be reasonably surmised that managers are carrying the burden of BCM responsibility. With resources stretched during current recessionary times, requiring managers and non-managers alike to do more, the question arises to what extent can managers reasonably focus on BCM? Assuming the answer is ‘not enough', it may be argued that BC can be more effectively managed if responsibility is devolved across the entire organisation and at all levels. This is what ISO 22301 recommends and it is supported by the current research. But this approach alone will not achieve embeddedness if the training and awareness that ISO 22301 recommends is not provided throughout the organisation.

Improving understanding of the relevance of BCM has delivered improved engagement. The research shows that a simple ninety minute training and awareness session produced levels of understanding which, when coupled with a simple reporting tool (the risk ticket), yielded improvements in BCM reporting. This process achieves results but it must be regularly re-enforced with regular risk conversations or collaboration between managers and front-line employees (either on an ad hoc or formal basis) if it is to be sustained. Furthermore, this regular collaboration would allow on-going BIAs to be completed at times when new objectives or processes are introduced or existing ones changed or discontinued. BIAs may then cease to be annual snapshots but will have become dynamic and relevant to the current activities of the business line.


36


There are no Business Continuity Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) assigned to the sample population and this appears to be the case generally within the ‘Business’. Two of the interviewed managers were in favour of their introduction, one was in favour if it was relevant and one was not in favour of introducing further KPIs. However, front-line employees were in favour of making BCM an agenda item at team meetings. Both approaches show that employees are generally in favour of putting BCM on the agenda but not necessarily on a day-to-day basis, rather on a periodic basis and related to general business reporting.

THE CASE FOR CHANGE

Because the ‘Business’ has apparently not had to react to a recent significant continuity event and has, therefore, no cultural memory of major interruptions, the current culture has become one of complacency. There is evidence that BCM is given a much greater degree of attention in other areas of the ‘Organisation’ which are more directly involved in physically riskier operations. In fact, senior managers outside the sample group have confirmed that continuity events have occurred throughout the ‘Organisation’ but, because they are not widely publicised, there is no awareness at lower organisational levels in the ‘Business’.

This is in stark contrast to Health and Safety management (HSM) which is widely discussed and has become a corner stone of organisational culture. Interview and focus group responses frequently referenced HSM as a counterpoint to BCM and perhaps the organisation should take the lessons of HSM and apply them to BCM. Employees currently feel the ‘heat’ of HSM more keenly and for good reason. The frequency of HSM events and the proximity of immediate personal danger in other, physically riskier, business lines have made this a widely-communicated priority throughout all parts of the organisation. Yet, the same cultural transfer has not occurred with BCM. The ‘Business’ may feel less vulnerable to interruption than other physically riskier business lines in the ‘Organisation’ but this view is misguided. An interruption to customer invoicing or financial trading is no less challenging for the ‘Business’ than an interruption to commercial production for other areas of the ‘Organisation’ and the impact on the broad spectrum of the organisation's stakeholders may have serious consequences.

In contrast with HSM, BCM is not high on the agenda at the front-line. Lack of significant continuity events (for example, no-one remembers attending the ‘Organisations’ Hot-Site other than for exercises) seems to have led to a high level of organisational efficacy in relation to BCM within the ‘Business’. Wilsford and Brown (2010) (citing Pierson (2004)) note that organisations' current activities may be bound by past experience and refer to this as 'path dependency' (Wilsford and Brown 2010 p.228). There is a strong sense of path dependency evident in the ‘business’ with managers and non-managers feeling they are capable of dealing with whatever might come their way. However, Elliott, Swartz and Herbane (2010) point out that this may, in fact, make the organisation crisis-prone rather than crisis-ready.


37


RECOMMENDATIONS

The research attempted to implement the three drivers of employee engagement described by Gruman and Saks (2011) in a BCM setting. This was successfully achieved and the research findings show an improvement in employee engagement with BCM. However, the improvements have not been sustained beyond the research parameters. It is important, therefore, that all three drivers are used to ensure continued improvements. In order for BCM to become effectively embedded in the subject organisation, the current psychological contract needs to change. Front-line employees need to be trusted with, and accept, BCM responsibilities. These responsibilities need to be apportioned in a reasonable and relevant manner to avoid a 'noise' of poor quality reporting and encourage shared or collaborative ownership of BCM. Managers may begin to consider front-line employees as both a responsibility and a resource while front-line employees may be encouraged to collaborate more closely with managers to resolve BCM issues 'at the lowest level commensurate with skill' (Davies and Walters 1998 p.399).

It was recommended, therefore, that all employees undertake periodic training in rudimentary BCM and that a simple reporting tool such as the ‘risk ticket’ be introduced. Alone, this has been shown to achieve improvements but it is a process that needs management guidance to be effective. The ‘risk ticket’ has also been shown to encourage collaboration and provide a forum for management feedback and appraisal. Employees should also be invited to partake in annual Hot-Site exercises and to contribute to periodic Crisis Management and Emergency Management drills and exercises.

It was recommended that a BCM KPI be considered which requires line-managers to report upwards at greater-than-annual intervals. This would provide clear ownership of BCM within the organisation. Quarterly line-management reports on the status of BCM and key processes or objectives should be considered. These may be derived from reports at monthly team meetings where BCM is introduced as a standing agenda item. This would also allow the downward communication of high-level strategic risks and continuity issues.

It was also recommended, that business lines appoint BCM subject matter experts to support managers, in terms of BCP development and updates, risks management and general BCM technical expertise. Similar to the current practice with HSM, appropriate employees may be given specific training in BCM to fulfil these part-time roles. This would delegate some of the burden of management responsibility for BCM while helping to ensure BCM succession planning in spite of management or front-line employee rotations. In addition, making these roles voluntary may create a motivated cohort of front-line BCM advocates throughout the organisation who understand the importance of BCM and may drive engagement further amongst their colleagues. Providing space for BCM activity within existing roles may represent a cost-effective way of reducing the perceived burden of investing in BCM capacity which shows ‘little evidence of tangible reward’ (Elliott, Swartz and Herbane 2010 p.18).

Finally, it was recommended that the organization adopts a standardised BCM methodology (e.g BS 22301) and seek independent verification or certification. This would lead to clear delineation of roles and responsibilities and routinise BCM practices at all


38


organisational levels. This researcher cautioned, however, against the introduction of a complex or time consuming methodology. Current HSM practices are often viewed as over-bearing and a common response amongst employees was that BCM processes must be straightforward and relevant to encourage their engagement.

A summary of the proposed recommendations listed above is below in Table 2 which also indicates who should be responsible for implementing the recommendations and how they relate to the Gruman and Saks (2009) drivers of employee engagement.

Table 2: Summary of recommendations

Summary recommendation Responsible Related Driver

1 Introduce periodic training in rudimentary BCM. All employees 2 2 Introduce a simple reporting tool such as the Risk Ticket. All employees 2 3 Introduce a BCM KPI-Quarterly line-management BCM reports Managers 1 3 4 Introduce BCM as a standing agenda item at Team Meetings. Managers 1 2 3 5 Appoint part-time BCM subject matter experts to support

managers. Managers 1 2

6 Adopt a standardised BCM methodology. Managers 1 2 3 7 Employees to participate in annual exercises such as Hot-site

tests. All employees 1 2

Driver 1: Performance Agreement -Goal setting and a review and agreement of the psychological contract Driver 2: Engagement Facilitation-Job design, coaching and social support, leadership, and training Driver 3: Performance & Engagement Appraisal & Feedback -The appraisal and evaluation of employee performance

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTION OF FUTURE RESEARCH

As described earlier the research has shown disengagement between front-line employees and BCM. This disengagement is a symptom of an organisational culture which takes a top-down approach to managing continuity. Applying drivers of engagement can improve the quality of the risk conversation and achieve greater employee engagement. A number of modest changes can be recommended for future research.

Firstly, the chosen sample population would benefit from a comparison with a business unit whose employees are performing similar tasks but who would suffer greater impacts in the case of an interruption. This would show if the proximity of risk is a driver of employee engagement. It may also be useful to gather more data on the reasons why managers and front-line employees felt unable to collaborate to produce risk tickets. It remains unclear whether other factors are at play (such as resistance to change) and it was surprising to note that, despite formal training in BCM, more employees became


39


convinced that BCM was a management concern rather than one for all employees. This was an unexpected result which warrants further study.

As described previously, there is little practical guidance in the literature for BCM practitioners on how they might develop a culture of BCM embeddedness. The research set out to determine to what extent front-line employees were engaged with BCM and if HR concepts of employee engagement could be utilised to make improvements. The research shows that, yes, drivers of employee engagement can be used to improve front-line employee commitment to BCM and that the introduction of simple reporting tools alongside rudimentary training and awareness will improve front-line employee engagement. However, more needs to be done to sustain and grow engagement levels.

BCM practitioners struggle constantly with having to make the case for BCM. It is a discipline which appears to have become somewhat ghettoised within the subject organisation and a burden for management. Improving engagement amongst managers and front-line employees by opening up the risk conversation may be a step towards BCM embeddedness but it will remain unattainable unless a willingness to accept cultural change is engendered. The challenge now, is for organisations to understand that front-line employees have much to offer. The literature makes it obvious that all employees should be consulted when determining BC strategy but perfunctory or poor-quality 'consultation' with front-line employees means the organisation misses out on useful data. The natural culmination of BCM embeddedness is that it becomes recognised across all hierarchical levels as being a business-as-usual activity. It is not something which is box-ticking or part of a painful annual task-list for managers. Rather, it is understood, meaningful, effective and, above all, a core organisational competency. The myriad benefits of effective BCM can then be realised ensuring a stable and fully resilient organisation.

REFERENCES

Bell, J. 2010 Doing Your Research Project 5th ed Berkshire: Open University Press

BSI 2006. Business continuity management-Part 1: Code of practice (BS 25999-1:2006) London: British Standards Institute

BSI 2012 Societal security-Business continuity management systems – Requirements (BS ISO 22301:2012) London: British Standards Institute

Daft, R.L. 2004 Organization Theory and Design 8th Ed Ohio, USA. Thompson-Southwestern

Davies, H. and Walters, M. 1998. Do all crises have to become disasters? Risk and risk mitigation Disaster Prevention and Management, 7(5) pp.396 - 400

Devargas, M. 1999. Survival is not compulsory: an introduction to business continuity planning. Computers and Security, 18(1), pp.35–46.


40


Elliott, D., Swartz, E. and Herbane, B. 2010. Business Continuity Management, A crisis management approach. 2nd ed. UK: Routledge.

Fink, S. 2002 Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable 2nd Ed. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse Inc.

Fox, A. 2010. Raising Engagement. HR Magazine, 55(5). pp.34-40

Gallagher, M. 2007. Business Continuity Management: Emerging Standards Accountancy Ireland, 39(3) pp.34-36.

Garrett, D.N. 2012 The Evolution of Business Continuity Management in large Irish enterprises between 2004 and 2009 Master of Business Studies. Dublin City University

Gibb, F. and Buchanan, S. 2006. A framework for business continuity management International Journal of Information Management, 26(2), pp.128–141.

Graham, J. and Kaye, D. 2006. A Risk Management Approach to Business Continuity Connecticut: Rothstein Asssociates Inc.

Gruman, J.A. and Saks, A. 2011. Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, Iss. 21. pp.123-136

Hinson, G. 2012. Technical Briefing: Business Continuity Management, EDPACS: The EDP Audit, Control, and Security Newsletter, 45(3) pp.14-25.

Kotheimer, C. and Coffin, B. 2003. How to Justify Business Continuity Management Risk Management, 50(5) pp. 30-34.

Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. 2008. The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Iss.1. pp.3–30.

Macey, W.H., Schneider, B.,Barbera, K.M. and Young, S.A. 2009. Employee Engagement. Tools for analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell

Mitroff, I.A. 2004. Crisis Leadership: Planning for the unthinkable. New York: John Wiley and Sons

Parsons, D. 2010. Organisational Resilience The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 25(2) pp.17-20

Pierson, P. 2004, Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis, University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Pollard, D. and Hotho, S. 2006 Crises, scenarios and the strategic management process Management Decision, 44(6) pp.721-736

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2009. Research methods for business students 5th Ed Essex: Pearson Education Limited


41


Smythe, J. 2007. Employee engagement - its real essence: ... and how it helped to transform a top-four UK bank. Human Resource Management International Digest, 15(7). pp.11-13

Tammineedi, R.L. 2010. Business Continuity Management: A Standards-Based Approach Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, Iss 19 pp.36–50.

Townsend, P. and Gebhardt, J. 2008. Employee engagement-completely. Human Resource Management International Digest, 16(3). pp. 22 - 24

Veil, S.R. 2011 Mindful learning in crisis management Journal of Business Communication, 48 (2) pp.116-147

Wilsford, D. and Brown, L.D. 2010, Path Dependency: a Dialogue Journal of health politics, policy and law, 35(4), pp. 681-688

Wollard, K.K. 2011. Quiet Desperation: Another Perspective on Employee Engagement. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4) pp.526-537

Dave Begg is a Business Continuity and Emergency management expert, Change Practitioner and Project Manager employed in the Energy Industry. He has over 20 years’ experience in the Irish construction industry. He graduated with honours with a Masters in Emergency Management from DCU Business School in 2013. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The author wishes to thank his employer and colleagues for their support and assistance before and during the research. Thanks are due to Dr. Caroline McMullan and Dr. Arijit Bhattacharya for their guidance and support.


42

Current Practice in Postgraduate Emergency Management Education: McMullan & Brown

CURRENT PRACTICE IN POSTGRADUATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT EDUCATION

Caroline McMullan, PhD, MPhil, BA(hons)

Dublin City University, Business School Dublin 9 Ireland

[email protected]

Gavin D. Brown, MSc, BSc(hons) Dublin City University, Business School

Dublin 9 Ireland

[email protected] ABSTRACT There has been much discussion regarding what should be included on the curriculum of emergency management programmes (Alexander 2003; Thomas and Milti 2003). While there is no doubt that the discipline of emergency management covers a wide variety of topics, this research indicates that a set of core modules may be identified across the postgraduate programmes analysed. This research involved three key phases. Initially a literature review was used to establish the core content recommended by academics, standards, and professional bodies. This generated a list of 34 topics. Next a sample of ten universities offering a relevant postgraduate programme was identified. These universities were drawn from five English speaking countries: UK; USA; Australia; New Zealand; and Ireland. The syllabus for each programme was compared against the 34 topics identified from the literature. Finally, graduates from the Irish programme were asked to determine the relevance of the modules which they had studied. Since all were emergency management practitioners, it was felt they were well placed to make such a judgement. Results revealed that the five most prevalent modules included in the programmes were: Thesis; Principles of Emergency Management; Risk Management; Planning and Preparedness; and Research Methods. The Irish graduates also reflected the importance of these modules. However, they included Business Continuity Management as one of the five most relevant modules – with Research Methods being considered of less importance.


45




INTRODUCTION The Framework for Major Emergency Management (2006), hereafter referred to as the Framework, went live across Ireland in 2007 and represented a seminal moment in the development of emergency management in the country. The Framework (2006) was designed to ensure an effective response by the principal emergency response agencies (PRAs) and was not intended to be a national framework. It was conceived, developed and launched by a well-informed, dedicated and enthusiastic team of people and was founded on international good practice in emergency management. It is a logical, comprehensive and impressive document with a set of supporting guides and protocols. It is important, however, to recognise that it is a policy document rather than a legally binding framework. Academics working in the area of emergency management were aware that this development in policy was more likely to make a difference if advances in emergency management education could take place in tandem. At that time there were no emergency management programmes1 offered in Irish universities. The need for such a programme was evident and the development of the structure and content of the programme was undertaken by DCU Business School. During the development phase input was sought from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Emergency Planning Society (EPS) Irish Branch – which drew representatives from the health service, An Garda Síochána (police service), the fire service, along with local authorities, voluntary organisations and industry. It soon became evident, in a very practical way, that the combined effort of practitioners and scholars would afford a relatively new academic area such as emergency management the opportunity to grow and develop. All stakeholders recognised that the education of individuals for specialist roles (Alexander 2003; Neal 2005; Phillips 2005; Cwiak 2011) and a focus on research in the discipline2 (Rotanz 2007; Cwiak 2011; Comfort, Waugh and Cigler 2012) were central to embedding a new approach to major emergency management across the nation. Following the graduation of the fifth cohort of students from the MSc in Emergency Management at DCU Business School, it was considered opportune to complete some research into the relevance of the programme. Furthermore, in a similar way to Navarro (2008) and Waddock and Lozano (2012), who explored the core curriculum of Management/Administration programmes, this research sought to explore the most common modules taught within a range of emergency management programmes from five English-speaking countries: UK; USA; Australia; New Zealand; and Ireland. Although based on a review of the curriculum within just ten universities, and a survey of 77 graduates working in emergency management, this research will shed some light on the relevance of emergency management education in Ireland and should be of interest to those


46


seeking to refine, review or create an emergency management programme in other countries. It may also guide those wishing to further their own professional development in the realm of emergency management. LITERATURE REVIEW There is agreement that the field of emergency management is interdisciplinary, involves multiple actors (Price and Vojinovic 2008), and utilises a generally accepted paradigm. However, less agreement surrounds the terminology employed - major emergencies, disasters, crises to name but a few. This paper will treat all of these terms as being synonymous to each other – an approach adopted by other scholars such as Alexander (2000) and Buckle (2005). Phillips (2005) observes that this variation in emergency management terminology has carried through to educational programmes, where terms like emergency management, disaster management and crisis management may be used to explain similar programmes and modules3 within different centres of learning. The emergency management paradigm is core to the discipline and this methodology and its concepts are woven though most emergency management education programmes. The paradigm is generally accepted to consist of four main components or phases: mitigation; preparedness; response; and recovery (Godschalk 1991; Alexander 2002; Coppola 2011). These phases have, for the most part, been accepted and transferred across cultures (Morrissey 2004 cited in Phillips 2007). However, the paradigm has not remained unchanged; for example, in Ireland, the Framework (2006) alters this process to a five stage cycle which commences with Hazard Analysis and then continues through the other four components noted above. In New Zealand adaptation has also occurred in the wording of the paradigm; with the use of the 4Rs – reduction; readiness; response; recovery (Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002; Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management 2008). The disconnect between education and practice has long been debated. Critics such as Waddock and Lazano (2013) suggest:

“We face a world in which management education is by many assessments in crisis for too narrowly and analytically orienting future managers who will need to lead in a complex, socially and ecologically fraught world, where simple answers just do not work.” (p.265)

Similarly, Cwiak (2008) proposed that ‘emergency management higher education appears to be at its tipping point’ (p.27). Such criticism has not gone unheeded and many universities have shifted work practices, often moving away from a traditional form of scholarship to a more applied focus. University staff frequently


47


link and work with professional bodies and industry with a view to increasing the impact of knowledge creation. Jessop (2008) supports this shift, suggesting it represents the universities responding to market trends, where the products of the university (its knowledge creation) can be commercialised. This focus on the knowledge economy should help ensure that sufficient attention is placed on the relevance of the programmes provided (George 2006). Banerjee and Morley (2013) state:

“with increasing value put on knowledge as a key driver of productivity, universities all over the world face new expectations and pressures from governments, employers, and workers to provide skill sets that can develop knowledge workers.” (p.174)

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME DESIGN Education programmes encompassing emergency management are a vital step in supporting practitioners to meet the ever evolving requirements of the discipline (Neal 2000). It can be difficult to define precisely the scope of work undertaken by an emergency manager. Likewise, it can also be challenging to delineate the most relevant academic modules to cover within an emergency management programme. The discipline of emergency management can encompass theory drawn from many fields, including engineering, the social sciences, health related studies, environmental science/management (Waugh 2000), business, education, and public administration (Thomas and Milti 2003). The multidisciplinary nature of emergency management means that deciding on the academic school, department or faculty within which an emergency management programme ought to be positioned can pose a dilemma. Neal (2000) and Rozdilsky et al (2011) suggest the choice is of significance as this ‘defines how facult[ies] approach teaching, research and service’ (p.2). Within the USA, political science/public administration departments are a popular location for such programmes (Neal 2000). Although, programmes are also found within departments of business and science. However, it is fair to say that the curriculum and structure of a programme deserve even more consideration than its connection to a particular faculty. Phillips (2005) observes a general lack of consensus regarding the emergency management curriculum across universities within the USA. But this discipline is not the first to face such problems. Programmes in public administration and human ecology have ‘experienced similar problems related to legitimacy, curriculum development, appropriate name, and academic accreditation’ (Neal 2005 p.74).


48


Manock (2001) observes that just as emergency management practice has evolved from being response focused to being more prevention and mitigation oriented, so too have emergency management education programmes. Comfort et al (2012) emphasise that such changes have also been evident in the research emanating from academic and research institutions. It is clear that the development of a comprehensive emergency management curriculum is a challenging task confronting colleges and universities. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that ‘there is no single overarching disaster theory’ (Thomas and Milti 2003; p.8). Nevertheless, there is an obvious benefit to establishing a common set of emergency management standards and course curriculum guidelines across this wide interdisciplinary field. Alexander (2003) observes a need for a minimum standard in emergency management that would subsequently establish a baseline for training and educational courses. Oyola-Yemaiel and Wilson (2005) suggest that certification through education/training is important, and that a set of standards would allow for a common baseline to emerge. Likewise, Lixin et al (2011) document some key issues for emergency management education in China, and point to the fact that there is no agreement on a standardised curriculum; thus, universities may focus on their preferred facets of an emergency management curriculum and neglect to cover others. Further options do exist; Falkiner (2005) suggests that rather than developing specialist emergency management programmes, key emergency management modules may be placed within more general programmes. This would facilitate the spreading of relevant knowledge to a wider audience, though its depth would be limited. Clement (2011) proposes that the important decisions which must be made when designing academic programmes include setting ‘Foundational Goals, Core/Breadth Courses, Model Curriculum, and Teaching/Pedagogy’ (p.4). Depending on the audience, undergraduate or postgraduate, the curriculum of a programme will also differ, with a postgraduate programme often addressing the analysis of data, general management, economics and other management related topics (Waugh and Sadiq 2011). Phillips (2007) recommends a research methods module should be incorporated within emergency management programmes. This view is supported by Brown (2004 cited in Phillips 2005) who notes, research methods, programme evaluation techniques and risk assessments are all vital proficiencies for graduates. Moreover, mitigation and recovery are considered to be of growing importance to the emergency management professional (McEntire 2009) and therefore require representation in emergency programmes. To add further complexity, Rozdilsky et al (2011) suggest that given the multiple settings in which graduates could find themselves; emergency management programmes must be designed to accommodate contextual diversity.


49


EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME STANDARDS Coles (2014) discusses whether emergency management is a profession. She suggests that in order to define emergency management as a profession certain fundamental components are required. Such prerequisites include: education/qualification; regulation; a growing body of knowledge; and standards (Coles 2014; 2012). She puts forth a compelling argument that it is only after these components have been put in place that professional status can be achieved. Within the discipline of emergency management, a number of standards have begun to emerge from industry, government and academic sources. Prominent scholars such as Neal (2000), Alexander (2003), Thomas and Milti (2003), Kapucu (2011) and Rozdilsky et al (2011) have all provided recommendations as to potential curriculum and/or standards for the field of emergency management. Thomas and Milti (2003) for example, give an extensive list of possibilities for both undergraduate and postgraduate level programmes. Suggestions include: principles of emergency management; planning; economics; and human aspects. Professionally oriented sources such as the UK National Occupational Standards (NOS) for Civil Contingencies; Emergency Management Australia (EMA) (2004); FEMA (2008); Emergency Management Accreditation Programme (EMAP) (2010); the EPS (2011); the UK Cabinet Office (2013); and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) (2013) also provide insight into potential content. The work led by Coles within the EPS (2011) sets out a framework of the core competences required by practitioners in the field (see Figure One).


50


Figure One: Core Competences Framework (EPS 2011 p.4). Within the US, FEMA (2008) suggests that emergency management must be:

“comprehensive (take into all hazards into account); progressive (anticipate future disasters); risk-driven, integrated, collaborative, coordinated, flexible, and professional.”

In summary, Figure Two was created from the agglomeration of the sources discussed within this literature review. It represents an extensive grouping of important topics4 that an emergency management programme could include, though it should be recognised that it is neither feasible nor advisable to attempt to include all of these within one programme. Instead, depending on the programme’s learning outcomes, a suitable academic pathway may be designed.


51


Figure Two: Literature Based Emergency Management Topics RESEARCH DESIGN In order to answer the initial research question: how relevant to practice were the modules covered in the MSc Emergency Management programme in DCU Business School, primary data was collected from all graduates of the programme (2009-2013). A web based questionnaire was devised and distributed via email using an online survey platform. The population included a total of 77 graduates (17 females and 60 males), 65 per cent work in the public sector, 28 per cent in the private sector, 4 per cent in semi state bodies and 3 per cent in the voluntary sector. None of those surveyed had completed an undergraduate qualification in emergency management, however, all had experience of working in an organisation where they had responsibility for some aspect of emergency, risk or health and safety management. An impressive 96 per cent response rate was accomplished. The questionnaire was kept concise (just five questions) in order to maximise the response rate and to achieve the aim of this research. Three of the questions were


52


ratings style questions; one using a five point Likert scale, and the other two being dichotomous. The five point Likert scale asked respondents to choose from a number of ‘value judgements’ and express an opinion on the statements given (Croasmun and Ostrom 2011; Göb et al 2007, p.604). To finish, two open-ended questions were included in order to allow graduates the opportunity to provide feedback on the programme and to put forth recommendations for the future. This concurrent mixed method research style was chosen to “broaden and strengthen” the research (Yin 2006). In essence, mixed method research uses both quantitative and qualitative styles of research within one research study (Parylo 2012; Saunders et al 2012). Bryman (2006) notes completeness is a popular reason for such a choice; as was the case in this research, where it allowed for ‘a more complete answer to [the] research question’ (Bryman 2012 p.637). The analysis of the questionnaire was then undertaken in two parts, in line with Yin’s (2006) suggestion that mixed methods will generally come with separate analytical methods. The numerical data that was collected via the rating style questions was statistically analysed. The data from the open ended questions were analysed by way of thematic analysis. The second strand of this research involved identifying the modules covered by ten emergency management programmes offered at universities across the world (a list of programmes was compiled following a comprehensive web search). Nine programmes were randomly drawn from five English speaking countries: UK; USA; Australia; New Zealand. The 10th, DCU’s programme, about which the primary data was collected, was purposely added to the data set. To ensure no bias, the random programmes were chosen by way of the Microsoft Excel© 2007 randomisation function “= RAND ( )”. As mentioned above, the qualitative data from both the primary and secondary sources was analysed using thematic analysis. The thematic analysis approach undertaken in this research involved a blended approach of two styles – that proposed by Attride-Stirling (2001) and Bryman (2012). The qualitative data was first extracted from its source and placed in a column in the matrix on an excel sheet, similar to that proposed by Bryman (2012). This data was then condensed into themes, which were listed in column two. From column two, repetition, similarities and differences within the data were all used to identify key themes (Ryan and Bernard 2003). In essence, the overall process employed here was to cut and sort the data (Ryan and Bernard 2003). Importantly, while the content was consolidated and reduced in size, the meaning was neither lost nor altered. The objective of this process was to identify the key themes that should be included in an emergency management postgraduate programme, i.e. the required modules of


53


study as identified by respondents and the most widely offered modules in the sampled emergency management programmes. RESEARCH FINDINGS The following section looks at the findings from this research, drawing from both the primary and secondary data. The syllabi from the ten postgraduate emergency management programmes were individually analysed against the 34 topics identified as important during the literature review and document analysis (as represented in Figure Two). The output from this is presented in Figure Three. Figure Three: Prevalence of Modules


54


Figure three shows that the five most popular modules are: Thesis; Principles of Emergency Management; Risk Management; Planning and Preparedness; and Research Methods. The completion of a thesis was the only element evident across all ten programmes. All bar one programme included modules on the fundamentals or principles of emergency management and risk management. Also popular was a module covering planning and preparedness which was included in eight of the ten programmes. A Research Methods module was offered on seven of the programmes and Policy Development, Law and Governance was present in six. Even within this small sample the lack of consensus regarding what constitutes an appropriate curriculum, as highlighted by Phillips (2005) and Neal (2005) is evident. Graduates were asked to rate the practical relevance of the modules which they had undertaken during their programme. Crucially, the respondents were asked not to base their decision on the quality of delivery, rather to focus on the relevance which the module had to their work in emergency management. The results are represented in Table 1 and the modules placed in order of perceived relevance/importance. Table One: Module Relevance

Irrelevant Not Important

Moderately Important Important Vital

Principles of Emergency Management 0% 0% 4.05% 22.97% 72.98%

Risk Management 0% 0% 6.76% 33.78% 59.46% Business Continuity Management 0% 0%

6.76% 33.78% 59.46%

Planning & Preparedness 0% 0% 6.76% 36.49% 56.75% Thesis 0% 0% 10.81% 31.08% 58.11% Interoperability / Cooperation and Coordination 1.35% 1.35% 16.22% 28.38% 52.70%

Policy Development, Law and Governance 0% 2.70% 12.16% 39.19% 45.95%

Current Practice 0% 1.37% 13.70% 50.68% 34.25% Crisis Communications 0% 2.82% 18.31% 38.03% 40.84% Research Methods 0% 2.74% 30.14% 38.36% 28.76% Human Aspects 0% 9.46% 31.08% 39.19% 20.27% Problem-solving / Decision Making 1.37% 9.59% 31.51% 41.10% 16.43%

CBRNE/ HazMat 5.48% 21.92% 35.62% 30.14% 6.84% By combining the percentage rating of both the “important” and “vital” categories, eight of the 13 modules scored 80 per cent or above: Principles of Emergency


55


Management; Risk Management; Business Continuity Management; Planning and Preparedness; Thesis; Policy Development, Law and Government; Current Practice; and Interoperability, Cooperation and Coordination. Closely following the above, was Crisis Communications, which scored 78.87 percent. A comparison of the top five rated modules found in Table One and the top five found in Figure Three, reveals that four of the five modules appear in both. The only difference being that respondents ranked Business Continuity Management as the 3rd most vital module (see Table One), yet only one of the nine other universities included this as an individual module on their programme (see Figure Three). Research methods; Human Aspects; and Problem Solving/Decision Making, were rated as being moderately important by approximately 30 per cent of respondents. However, even these scored within the range of 57 to 67 per cent when scores for “important and vital” are combined. It is noteworthy that a Research Methods module is found within the top five most common modules, with seven out of the ten universities including it in their programme, yet it is considered less important by the Irish graduates. CBRNE/HazMat was considered important/vital by just 36.98 per cent of the respondents; with 27.4 per cent cumulatively believing it was irrelevant/not important. Similarly, only two of the programmes analysed included a CBRNE/HazMat module. Following on from this initial question, respondents were asked if any of the modules could be removed from their programme without impacting on the quality and relevance of the qualification. The responses to this question are displayed in Table Two. Table Two: “Could a module be removed?”

Yes No Principles of Emergency Management 1.45% 98.55% Business Continuity Management 2.90% 97.10% Planning & Preparedness 2.90% 97.10% Policy Development, Law and Governance 5.80% 94.20% Crisis Communications 5.88% 94.12% Interoperability / Cooperation and Coordination 8.57% 91.43% Thesis 8.70% 91.30% Risk Management 10.14% 89.86% Current Practice 11.59% 88.41% Human Aspects 21.13% 78.87% Problem Structuring / Decision Making 21.74% 78.26% Research Methods 24.64% 75.36% CBRNE/ HazMat 55.56% 44.44%


56


Again, results show that the module CBRNE/HazMat was considered least relevant, with 55.56 per cent of respondents suggesting that removal of this module would not impact on the quality of their qualification. This aside, small shifts in other module rankings did occur; for example, while risk management was ranked second out of the 13 options in Table One, 10.14 per cent of respondents felt it could be removed. Again attention is drawn to the Research Methods module - 2.75 per cent of graduates classed it as either “not important” or “irrelevant” and 24.64 per cent of the respondents suggested it could be removed without affecting the programme. Next graduates were asked to consider the relative weighting given to each module within the programme. At present, all modules except the thesis are equally weighted. The thesis contributes 30 out of 90 credits to the award. They were asked to consider if the credits for each module could be reduced by half without impacting on the quality and relevance of the qualification. Their responses are represented within Table Three. Table Three: “Could credits be halved for each module?”

Yes No Principles of Emergency Management 7.46% 92.54% Thesis 7.58% 92.42% Business Continuity Management 8.82% 91.18% Risk Management 13.24% 86.76% Planning & Preparedness 13.24% 86.76% Interoperability / Cooperation and Coordination 27.94% 72.06% Crisis Communications 32.35% 67.65% Policy Development, Law and Governance 34.78% 65.22% Current Practice 35.71% 64.29% Research Methods 44.93% 55.07% Problem Structuring / Decision Making 49.25% 50.75% Human Aspects 52.86% 47.14% CBRNE/ HazMat 76.71% 23.29%

There was correlation between the modules judged to be most vital (see Table One) and those where graduates felt credit weightings should be maintained (though the order of these did shift). In spite of positive ratings in Table One, approximately 35 per cent of respondents felt that the credits for Policy Development, Law and Governance and Current Issues could be halved. Similarly, almost 45 per cent of respondents felt Research Methods could also be awarded reduced credits.


57


Finally, two open ended questions were used to allow respondents suggest modules that could be added to the postgraduate programme and to afford graduates the opportunity to provide additional feedback or comments. Although these were not compulsory questions, approximately 60 per cent of respondents provided additional contributions. A range of topics were identified for possible inclusion in the programme but none were particularly dominant in responses. There was some suggestion that inclusion of general topics such as: Leadership; Economics/Finance; General Management; Change Management; and Information Management may be useful. More specialist topics such as: Evaluation Methods; Logistics; Environment and Sustainability; and Emergency Management Technology were also proposed. Some of the suggested topics are offered as modules in other universities, for example Emergency Management Technology is offered in five out of the ten programmes. Environment and Sustainability and Logistics were each present within three of the other nine programmes. Aside from a few respondents who wished to reiterate their concerns regarding the lack of relevance of the CBRNE/Hazmat module, the remainder of the feedback was positive. Some respondents made more general recommendations:

“All students should get the opportunity to visit an emergency centre or exercise to get a common feel for the practicalities of incidents.” “I would like to see students exposed to workings of on-site coordination, local coordination and crisis management teams whether through a staged exercise scenario or through a simulated exercise …”

Others used the opportunity to provide feedback on the overall programme:

“A tough degree course but very interesting and most of [the] content [is] relevant in practice.” “The course over the two years was excellent and unique in its approach. It has created a unique group of experts in the subject matter and has prepared practitioners at all levels to deal with emergencies.” “The programme covered the key subjects of emergency management and stimulated research into new areas outside my profession.” “Fundamentally the content is well balanced and the use of presentations from users and access to the Emergency Planning Society is very beneficial.”


58


CONCLUSION There has been much discussion regarding the curriculum of emergency management programmes (Alexander 2003; Thomas and Milti 2003) and while there is no doubt that the discipline of emergency management covers a wide variety of topics, this research indicates that a set of core modules may be identified across the postgraduate programmes analysed. The five most popular were: Thesis; Principles of Emergency Management; Risk Management; Planning and Preparedness; and Research Methods. The primary data, for the most part, reflected the importance of these modules. However, there was one difference. The Irish graduates included Business Continuity Management in the five most relevant modules – with research methods falling outside of the top five. Some respondents went so far as to suggest that Research Methods could be removed from the programme or the credit weighting reduced. However, where a thesis forms part of a programme, academics tend to agree that a research methods module is required in order to provide the necessary underpinning knowledge. The Business Continuity Management module was highlighted as a relevant module by the graduates. The importance of this module did not appear to be reflected on the other programmes analysed - only one other programme included such a module. It is perhaps worthy of note that the majority of graduates (65%) were working in the public sector yet they could see clearly the value of this module, one often considered more relevant to the private sector. Therefore, no matter what the target audience, a Business Continuity Management module should be considered when designing an emergency management programme. This research has shown that while there may be no universally agreed emergency management curriculum, there is strong consensus as to the top five modules which should be included on university programmes. What also emerged is that outside of this core content, there are a large number of possibilities and combinations to choose from when putting together an emergency management curriculum. The additional content often reflects the academic faculty in which the programme resides but could also be influenced by factors such as the political context, staff resource levels, staff mix, the target audience for the programme and/or competition between local universities. It is this additional content which allows academics to carve out a niche or specialist market for their programmes. However, given the applied nature of emergency management education, it is clear that the current and future requirements of emergency managers should be a key driver of programme design worldwide.


59


This exploratory paper provides a baseline study from which more indepth research could be constructed. The study could be extended to include the design and relevance of undergraduate programmes. The scope of the research could be widened to include programmes beyond the English speaking regions covered in this paper. Finally, the assessment of module relevance could be explored by examining why graduate practitioners judged some aspects of their programme to be vital where other were considered less significant. END NOTES

1. Programme refers to the overall award – for example an MSc in Emergency Management.

2. The authors recognise there is debate as to whether emergency management constitutes an academic “discipline”. Given its infancy, the authors recognise that emergency management draws its theoretical framework from a range of more established areas of academia and use the term to mean the broad area of study.

3. Module refers to the individual units which combine to form the overall programme – for example Research Methods.

4. In this paper, “topic” refers to a particular issue, idea or subject which may be covered within a module. For example, data collection within a research methods module.

REFERENCES Alexander, D. (2000), ‘Scenario methodology for teaching principles of emergency management’, Disaster Prevention and Management, 9(2), pp. 89–97. Alexander, D. (2002), ‘From civil defence to civil protection and back again’, Disaster Prevention and Management, 11(3), pp. 209–213. Alexander, D. (2003), ‘Towards the development of standards in emergency management training and education’, Disaster Prevention and Management, 12(2), pp. 113–123. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001), ‘Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research’, Qualitative Research, 1(3), pp. 385–405. Banerjee, S. & Morley, C. (2013), ‘Professional Doctorates in Management : Toward a Practice-Based Approach to Doctoral Education’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2), pp. 173–193.


60


Bryman, A. (2006), ‘Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?’, Qualitative Research, 6(1), pp. 97–113. Bryman, A. (2012), Social research methods. 4th ed, New York: Oxford University Press. Buckle, P. (2005), Disaster: mandated definitions, local knowledge and complexity. In: Perry, R.W. and Quarantelli, E.L. (eds.) What is a disaster. New answers to old questions. USA: Xlibris, pp.173–200. Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002), Act number 33 of 2002, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0033/latest/DLM149789.html, accessed 4th October 2013. Clement, K.E. (2011), ‘The Essentials of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Graduate Education Programs: Design, Development, and Future’, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(2), pp. 1–10. Coles E. (2014), A Real Profession or Simply ‘professional’? Some Thoughts on the Status of Emergency Management in the UK, Emergency Management Review, 2(1), pp. 22–42. Coles E. (2012), Turning a Job Into a Profession? Competencies, Qualifications and Cultural Change in Emergecny Management. In: Boustras, G. and Boukas, N. (eds) Proceedings of the 1st Internaltional Conference in Safety and Crisis Management in the Construction, Tourism and SME Sectors. Florida, Brown Walker Press, pp. 212–226. Comfort, L.K., Waugh, W.L. & Cigler, B.A. (2012), ‘Emergency Management Research and Practice in Public Administration: Emergence, Evolution, Expansion, and Future Directions’, Public Administration Review, 72(4), pp. 539–548. Coppola, D.P. (2011), Introduction to international disaster management. 2nd Ed, USA: Butterworth – Heinemann, Elsevier. Croasmun, J.T. & Ostrom, L. (2011), ‘Using Likert-Type Scales in the Social Sciences’, Journal of Adult Education, 40(1), pp. 19–22. Cwiak, C. (2011), ‘Framing the Future: What Should Emergency Management Graduates Know?’, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(2), pp. 1–14.


61

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0033/latest/DLM149789.html


Cwiak, C. L. (2008), Emergency management Education: A Status Report. USA: FEMA. Emergency Management Accreditation Programme (2010), Emergency Management Standard by EMAP. USA: EMAP. Emergency Management Australia (2004), Emergency Management in Australia Concepts and Principles. Australia: EMA. Emergency Planning Society (2011), The Emergency Planning Society Core Competences Framework. UK:EPS. Falkiner, L. (2005), ‘Availability of Canadian Social Science Disaster Management Education’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 23(1), pp. 85–109. FEMA (2008), Emergency Management Definition, Vision, Mission, Principles. USA: FEMA. Framework for Major Emergency Management (2006). Dublin: Stationery Office. George, E. (2006), ‘Positioning Higher Education for the Knowledge Based Economy’, Higher Education, 52(4), pp. 589–610. Godschalk, D. R. (1991), Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Management. In: Drabek, T. E. and Hoetmer, G. (eds) Emergency Management: Principles and Practices for Local Government. Washington, ICMA, pp. 131–160. Göb, R., McCollin, C. and Ramalhoto, M.F., (2007) ‘Ordinal Methodology in the Analysis of Likert Scales’ Quality & Quantity, 41(5), pp.601–626. Jessop, B. (2008), A Cultural Political Economy of Competitiveness and its Implications for Higher Education. In: Jessop, B., Fairclough, N. and Wodak R. (eds) Education and the Knowledge-Based Economy in Europe. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp. 13–40. Kapucu, N. (2011), ‘Developing Competency-Based Emergency Management Degree Programs in Public Affairs and Administration’, Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(4), pp.501–521. Lixin, Y., Li, P., Zhou, J. and Lingling, G. (2011), ‘Higher Education of Emergency Management in China’, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(2), pp.1–9. Manock, I. (2001), ‘Tertiary emergency management education in Australia’, The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 16(4), pp. 4–6.


62


McEntire, D.A. (2009), ‘Revolutionary and evolutionary change in emergency management’, Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 4(1), pp. 69–85. Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management (2008), National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy 2007, New Zealand, Department of Internal Affairs. National Fire Protection Association (2013), NFPA 1600; Standard on Disaster/Emergency management and Business Continuity Programs. USA: NFPA. Navarro, P. (2008), ‘The MBA Core Curricula of Top-Ranked U.S. Business Schools: A Study in Failure?’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), pp. 108–123. Neal, D.M. (2000), ‘Developing Degree Programs in Disaster Management: Some Reflections and Observations’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 18(3), pp. 417–437. Neal, D.M. (2005), ‘Higher Education and the Profession of Disaster Management: A Brief Commentary on Past, Current and Future Directions’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 23(1), pp.73–76. Oyola-Yemaiel, A. & Wilson, J. (2005), ‘Three Essential Strategies for Emergency Management Professionalization in the U.S.’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 23(1), pp. 77–84. Parylo, O. (2012), ‘Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods: An analysis of research design in articles on principal professional development (1998–2008)’, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(3), pp. 297–313. Phillips, B. D. (2007), Research Applications in the Classsroom. In: Rodriguez, H., Quarantelli, E. L. and Dynes, R. R. (eds) Handbook of Disaster Research. New York, Springer, pp. 456–467. Phillips, B. (2005), ‘Disaster as a Discipline : The Status of Emergency Management Education in the U. S.’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 23(1), pp.111–140. Price, R.K. & Vojinovic, Z. (2008), ‘Urban flood disaster management’, Urban Water Journal, 5(3), pp. 259–276.


63


Rotanz, R. A. (2007), From Research to Praxis: The Relevance of Disaster Research for Emergency Management. In: Rodriguez, H., Quarantelli, E. L. and Dynes, R. R. (eds) Handbook of Disaster Research. New York, Springer, pp.468– 475. Rozdilsky, J. L., Bezold, M. P., Johnson, J. and Kelley, M. (2011), ‘Reflections on the Development of an Undergraduate Emergency Management Program: The Experiences of Western Illinois University’, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(2), pp. 1–21. Ryan, G.W. and Bernard, H.R. (2003), ‘Techniques to Identify Themes’, Field Methods, 15(1), pp.85–109. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012), Research methods for business students. 6th ed, England: Pearson Education Limited. Thomas, D. & Mileti, D. (2003), Designing Educational Opportunities for the Hazards Manager of the 21st Century. Workshop Report, Colorado. UK Cabinet Office (2013), Preparation and planning for emergencies: responsibilities of responder agencies and others, https://www.gov.uk/preparation-and-planning-for-emergencies-responsibilities-of-responder-agencies-and-others accessed 4th October 2013. UK National Occupational Standards for Civil Contingencies (no date). UK: Skills for Justice and Emergency Planning Society. Waddock, S. & Lozano, J.M. (2013), ‘Developing More Holistic Management Education: Lessons Learned From Two Programs’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2), pp. 265–284. Waugh, W. L. (2000), Living with Hazards, Dealing with Disasters: An Introduction to Emergency Management. USA: M.E. Sharpe. Waugh, W.L. and Sadiq, A., (2011), ‘Professional Education for Emergency Managers’, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(2), pp.1–7. Yin, R.K. (2006), ‘Mixed Methods Research: Are the Methods Genuinely Integrated or Merely Parallel?’, Research in the Schools, 13(1), pp.41–47.


64

https://www.gov.uk/preparation-and-planning-for-emergencies-responsibilities-of-responder-agencies-and-others

https://www.gov.uk/preparation-and-planning-for-emergencies-responsibilities-of-responder-agencies-and-others


Dr Caroline McMullan is the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning at DCU Business School, where she specialises in Emergency, Crisis and Business Continuity Management. Caroline’s teaching and research cover a broad spectrum of subjects including her key interest in building national, community and organisational resilience. Her PhD thesis explored how small to medium enterprises could implement effective Crisis Management. Dr McMullan is Programme Director of the MSc Emergency Management at DCU and Joint Chair of the MSc Humanitarian Logistics and Emergency Management. At a national level, Caroline has contributed to the development of emergency management policy and the national approach to risk management. Gavin D. Brown is a research officer at DCU Business School, where he specialises in the area of emergency management. Gavin was educated at DCU, where he completed an MSc in Emergency Management and an honours degree in Environmental Science and Health. Gavin engages in research related to emergency, risk and continuity management as well as community and organisational resilience.


65

Book Reviews: Leigh

Book Reviews

Cyber War Will Not Take Place Thomas Rid C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd, London 256 pages Mark Leigh Head of Risk, Crisis and Emergency Management, Emergency Planning College

This is a scholarly, but very accessible, book which is a very welcome addition to the emerging literature on the risk of cyber-attacks. This is so for a number of reasons, but most importantly because it addresses the overblown language and muddied concepts that seem to surround the debate, but without ever trivialising these phenomena or the risks they create for our security and well-being. For that reason if no other (the injection of a little rigour into the debate), it is recommended reading for civil protection and organisational resilience practitioners.

Thomas Rid is a scholar in the War Studies department of King’s College, London. So he is professionally interested in what can and cannot be legitimately called war or warfare. The book starts with a critical analysis of why cyber-attacks, no matter how concerted, damaging or malicious they are, cannot be considered warfare in their own right – according to any generally accepted concept or model of war. What we call war has to be directly violent, instrumental (in that violence is used to achieve a particular outcome) and politically motivated. It has to be all three – and cyber-attacks cannot be, despite the preference of many in the business for the trappings of military language and quasi-military neologisms. If cyber-attacks ever result in the sort of extreme violence, structural damage and human suffering we associate with war, then the effect will be indirect – through the cybernetic sabotage of critical systems leading to their catastrophic failure. So if it isn’t cyber “war”, what is it? Rid makes a very good case that cyber-attacks fit very well into the existing models of subversion, espionage and sabotage – all of which may of course be used as an adjunct to warfare or be employed on their own.

Is this just a purist’s delight in semantics? For this reviewer the answer is an emphatic no, for two reasons. First, it just makes more sense to see them in those frames, without the wrapping of an emotive metaphor. Secondly, it is important because the language of cyber security seems to be saddled with inappropriate terminology and not a little hyperbole. This often goes unchallenged. In fact, there is a marked tendency - particularly at the consulting end of the cyber

Emergency Management Review 2 (2) 2015 66

Book Reviews: Leigh

security business - to doom-mongering and scare tactics. Perhaps, like Cassandra, those responsible will be proved right in the end. But in the meantime, overblown rhetoric and dubious metaphors weaken their case and dilute their argument. Of course, Rid does not challenge the prevalence of the cyber threat and the need to meet it , but he does make the case very clearly that there is little evidence yet of its capacity to cause serious harm to people or society’s critical infrastructure, of the sort readily trotted out as the shape of things to come.

In summary, Rid’s arguments are that: cyber-attacks will always lack war’s capacity for direct violence; they operate in the domains of subversion, espionage and sabotage; and they have limited political or symbolic utility – compared with other means available to states and non-state actors. This does not mean they are unimportant. But it does mean they can be understood better and more clearly in this way. He concludes with two important points. The first is that the cyber debate is overly militarised intellectually and linguistically, and the second is that this leads to the overstating of cyber’s offensive capacity (its potential utility in the hands of malicious others) whereas, he argues, cyberspace actually favours the well-resourced and technically capable defence.

Rid’s argument needs to be considered and this book needs to be read – if we are to maintain objectivity and rigour when understanding and evaluating the cyber threat. At the moment this threat seems to be a “new black”, with its own priesthood, an esoteric language and a tendency to use a thin evidence base a little too selectively for comfort. What this reviewer was looking for – and found – in this book is the corrective lens that provides a balanced, informed and accurate (but non-technical) understanding of the phenomenon – of the sort that a generalist resilience manager can use. This is important because the civil protection and emergency management communities have no ready narrative to fall back on when cyber risk is debated. The field is too new and it has emerged relatively quickly, without obvious antecedents or much in the way of actual case history – at least at the levels of impact we are being led to expect. It is a bonus that the book is very well written and highly readable, using plain English throughout and a minimum of technical vocabulary.


Book Reviews: Brown


Qualitative Disaster Research (Understanding Qualitative Research) Brenda D. Phillips Oxford University Press, 2014, 191 pages Gavin D. Brown, MSc, BSc. (Hons)

Research Officer – Emergency, Risk and Continuity Management

DCU Business School

[email protected]

Understanding Qualitative Research, by Brenda D. Phillips, is one of very few books published on the topic of disaster research methods and is well placed to support the budding disaster researcher. But it is not its rarity that gives it by default a stamp of approval; rather it is Phillips approach, easy to read style and the accessible format which will win the reader over in the end. This is a book that can easily be read in a weekend, though understanding and learning its concepts and core ideas may take a little longer. Anyone interested in conducting disaster research will find themselves drawn into this book, and should find it a good starting point from which to design a disaster research study. This text will give its reader a baseline understanding of disaster research, which in turn should help contribute to maintaining good quality research outputs. In the books final paragraph, Phillips notes, “the scientific integrity and rigour of our work matters, because it contributes not only to the body of knowledge in our disciplines but also to policy and practice” (Phillips, 2014, p.168). In a way, this quote summarises the objective of this book. When it comes to research methods there is no shortage of general texts– with most books being capable of guiding scholars through the research process. What is lacking in these general texts, from a disaster research perspective, is the connection of the methods and techniques to the context of disaster research and the subsequent difficulties this research setting may bring. There are very few texts that approach this context and apply a disaster lens to research. Stallings (2002; 2007) notes that while the methods used within the social sciences and disaster management research are one and the same, it is the issues that the researcher will face and the context of the research that must be considered. It is evident that Phillips has reflected on this when compiling her text. Phillips adopts a fairly typical format and style to this text. She explains critical stages and processes of qualitative research in a step by step, chapter by chapter, format. To achieve this, Phillips sets out five chapters. Chapter One, the introduction, frames the book within the context of disaster management, and looks at the history of disaster research. Chapter Two, discusses the research design. It looks at ethical issues as well as the different constructs of the research design – such as longitudinal or “quick-response” research; sampling; and research methods (interviews, focus groups, observational research, etc). Chapter Three, “writing-up the methods section”, focuses on the analysis and write-up of data. Phillips (2014, p.97) notes “qualitative disaster analysis relies on standard


Book Reviews: Brown


techniques with rigorous approaches common to other social sciences”. This statement is very true, when it comes to data analysis context is less relevant – as most data analysis will be carried out post disaster and in the comfort of an office or home. Nevertheless, where possible, Phillips illustrates her work with examples that are most relevant to the disaster researchers of today. One example is her use of Quarantelli’s “C” model which looks at conditions, characteristics, consequences and chronology/career as a way to understand and analyse the disaster setting. Though it should be noted that Quarantelli (2002) himself remarks that this process “jokingly came to be known as the “C” model” (p.100). Nevertheless, it is a useful tool. Chapter Four moves on to present writing strategies, and gives a detailed and quite useful sample methodology section. The book concludes with Chapter Five, which discusses the evaluation of qualitative disaster research as well as advice on publishing research outputs. It would seem that this book is written as a guide to aid in the completion of disaster research, it does not contain every facet and aspect of research, nor is it going to replace the general research text that can be found on a researcher's desk, but it will compliment it. This book acts as a bridge what will allow its reader to link skilfully the detailed information that can be gleaned from a general research book to the finer points of disaster research. This is a valuable book that is carefully written by an author with an excellent reputation in the field. It provides a starting point for anyone interested in conducting disaster research. It will prove especially useful to college students, as it will help set their research in context and aid them in avoiding many pitfalls of disaster research. One small quibble with this book is that its chapter’s sub-headings are not reflected within the table of contents. This small addition would aid some readers in more efficiently navigating the text. Overall, “Qualitative Disaster Research” should be added to the library of every scholar in disaster management. It is the output of an experienced and well respected academic who has much guidance and advice to offer those less experienced members of the research community.

Book Reviews: Brown


REFERENCES Phillips, B.A. (2014) Qualitative Disaster Research (Understanding Qualitative Research. US: Oxford University Press. Quarantelli, E.L. (2002) The Disaster Research Center (DRC) Field Studies of Organized Behavior in the Crisis Time period of Disasters. In: Stallings R.A. (ed) Methods of Disaster Research. US, Xlibris, pp.94 – 126. Stallings R.A. (2002) Methods of Disaster Research: Unique or Not? In: Stallings R.A. (ed) Methods of Disaster Research. US, Xlibris, pp.21 – 44. Stallings R.A. (2007) Methodological Issues. In: Rodriguez, H., Quarantelli, E.L.

and Dynes, R.R. (eds) Handbook of Disaster Research. US, Springer, pp.55 – 82.

Book Reviews

Collective Conviction: The Story of Disaster Action Anne Eyre and Pam Dix Liverpool University Press: 284 pages Dr Lucy Easthope Dept. Forensic Science, University of Lincoln

As anyone who attends training with me knows, I am adamant that an essential item for every member of the emergency management community is ‘the shelf’. Upon the shelf should sit certain key texts, guidance documents, statutes – some no longer easy to find on the internet. These texts should set the tone and act as a reminder to the emergency manager of what we are fighting for, and why in ‘peace time’ we need the space and resource to prepare so that we can ready ‘in extremis’. There is a new text at the heart of my personal shelf and that’s the work Collective Conviction by the magnificent and humbling Pamela Dix and Anne Eyre of the charity Disaster Action.

Many of us are very familiar with Disaster Action and our worked is shaped and guided by our interactions with them. However those newer to the profession and students in the field sometimes need a reminder to visit www.disasteraction.org.uk. Now we can also direct them to this text.

Dr Anne Eyre sat down to develop the text and the archive of material over 7 years ago and the longitudinal endeavours and the tireless research that have fed into this book are obvious. For the first time this work pulls together the ‘collective convictions’ of the members and documents an incredible road of change that has seen our field transformed. Without DA (and the groups that came together under its umbrella such as the Safe Trains Action Group and the Marchioness Action Group) we would not have seen transformative justice and change in relation to safer transport and leisure, corporate manslaughter, the role of the Chief Coroner, the inclusion of bereaved families and survivors into responder command courses. Without these men and women, moments in our field, that changed everything forever like Lord Clarke’s inquiry into Victim Identification after Transportation Disasters may never have happened and indeed may not have seen such informed, considered and humbling testimony. Through this book we are reminded of this.

One of the many strengths of this book is that it mirrors one of the most profound strengths of Disaster Action as an organisation; somehow and with invisible but totally binding threads it ties together experiences from what at first view appear very different incidents or moments in time and draws from


http://www.disasteraction.org.uk/

Book Reviews

them potent and overwhelming similarities. These bounded narratives then become powerful catalysts for change. As an organisation it has also meant that members whose lives have been changed by tragedy feel, when they first find the organisation, that they have “come home”.

The second part of the book includes copies of the guidance and advice that has been a hallmark of Disaster Action’s involvement in our field. Guidance produced covers such areas as initial experiences of disasters, setting up assistance centres and discussion forums, experiences of the Disaster Victim Identification process and the return of personal effects.

This aspect adds an additional reason for this book to retain eternally its place at the heart of any emergency manager’s shelf – there is such a great utility to this guidance, provided so generously by DA members after their own experiences at the worst of times, that it would be remiss of any responder to not include it in their plans.

This book ensures that in an era of foggy corporate memories, competing resources and a digital age (where much of what went before is too easily lost and ‘archived’) there is a definitive, compelling account of the work of arguably the most profound advocacy movement in our field. Buy it now.


Call for Papers


Call for Papers

Emergency Management Review (EMR) is the new peer reviewed journal of the Emergency Planning Society. EMR is published by the Cabinet Office Emergency Planning College and is available to access online (at no cost to the reader) at http://www.epcollege.com/EMR EMR aims to facilitate an exchange of knowledge in all areas of emergency management and civil protection between the academic and practitioner communities. It provides an international forum where broadly defined ‘lessons’ can emerge from many different sources, including commissioned and academic research, field based good practice and experiential case studies.

EMR covers:

• Qualitative and quantitative empirical research articles • Practitioner perspectives, good practice and case studies • Theoretical and conceptual articles • Literature reviews • Articles on emergency management education and learning • Methodological advances

A key aim of EMR is to encourage academics and practitioners alike, including those new to the field, to publish their ‘works in progress’ and early results from research that can provide ‘actionable knowledge’ that has rigour and demonstrable relevance to practitioners thus contributing to the development of good practice and robust thinking in emergency management/civil protection. EMR would also welcome submissions from doctoral/research students who wish to publish early research findings Similarly, EMR is also seeking to encourage resilience practitioners to publish accounts of good practice, new and innovative ways of delivering effective emergency management and civil protection and case studies that are relevant, robust evidence based articles that can contribute to research in this area and to the developing profession. Those wishing to submit an article for review and publication in EMR should send extended abstracts of 500 – 1000 words or completed articles of 4000 – 5000 words to the Editor, Eve Coles via email at [email protected] or in Ireland, Deputy Editor Caroline McMullan at [email protected]


http://www.epcollege.com/EMR




2015: Volume 2, Issue 2 A Journal for the Emergency Management

Community

published by

The EPC The Hawkhills

York YO61 3EG

Tel: 01347 821406

ISSN: 2049-5927

Copyright © 2014

http://www.epcollege.com/EMR