Tools of Resilience Using Information Technology to Enhance

Tools of Resilience Using Information Technology to Enhance Campus Security and Emergency Management Art Botterell, Community Warning System Manager, Office of the Sheriff, Contra Costa County, California

A Shifting Landscape. . . We long for “win-win” formulations. . .

A Shifting Landscape. . . But frequently it's more like a balancing act. . .

The Balancing Act Efficiency Resilience

Security Interests Pe ty er p ro rs on P Process

Security and Resilience

More than a Feeling Security is both: “Freedom from risk or danger. . . ” and “Freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear. . . ” Are they equivalent? Interchangeable? Security is never an absolute. . . expectation management is part of the challenge.

Resilience “The ability to recover quickly from illness, change, or misfortune. . . ” Return to normal, or to a “new normal. ” Continuity through transitions. Technology can be a force-multiplier. . . but it can't provide resilience to people or organizations that lack it.

Challenge of the Long View Low-frequency, high-impact events. Long intervals make events appear unique. Reactive incident management encourages rushed, and frequently vendor-driven, designs. . . but what's the alternative? Plan strategically, act occasionally.

“Large Trends” Technology: Intelligence moving toward the edge of the network Change continues to accelerate Connectivity is the default, info-sharing is the norm Discovery utilities (e. g. , search) defines fields of connectivity

“Large Trends” Threats: Systemic vulnerabilities due to increased economic and logistic coupling driven by nearterm efficiencies (“normal accidents”) “Lone wolf” bad actors, activated through electronic connectivity Growing visibility of events, hazards, vulnerabilities

“Large Trends” Population: A Net Generation from birth Accumulating effects of future shock on personal and group behaviors: Demands for “mass personalization, ” various forms of rejectionism and self-chosen identity. Increasing technical connection leads to new “communication problems. ”

“Communications” Technology

“Communications” Procedure Technology

“Communications” Human Factors Procedure Technology

“Communications” Organization Human Factors Procedure Technology

“Communications” Problems (Perceived) Organization Human Factors Procedure Technology

“Communications” Problems (Perceived) Organization Human Factors Procedure Technology Change

Technical Monoculture Considered Harmful Uniformity is a Tempting Strategy Shortcut to Interoperability Efficiency (that tradeoff again!) Hazards of Monoculture Eggs in a single basket Loss of flexibility Brittle failure modes Opportunity costs

Cultivating Rich Technology Standardize Interfaces, not Products Preserve Competition across Time Future-Proof Design / Design for Change “Skill-Set Half-Life” - Keeping up as an operating expense instead of an investment (value proposition!)

An Interoperability Standard Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) (OASIS / ITU x 1303) Single interface to multiple public alerting systems GIS-based targeting

An Interoperability Standard Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) (OASIS / ITU x 1303) Single interface to multiple public alerting systems GIS-based targeting Templated message format Maximize reach, consistency, provide corroboration

E Pluribus. . . Warning System Warning System

Unum! Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) Warning System Warning System

Once We Have Sensors. . .

Situational Awareness A shared and realistic understanding: Level I – Recognition of objects, events and conditions. Level II – Recognition of relationships among objects, events and conditions. Level III – Projection of future locations, occurrences and trends. (after Endsley)

ng tin Al mi or er Inf g Alerting and Public Communication Reassuring

Botterell's Laws of Emergency Management 1. Stress makes you stupid. 2. The problem is at the input. 3. No matter who you train in advance, somebody else will show up. 4. Expectation is reality. 5. The worst case is the easiest.