We know that the purpose of most exercises in emergency management (ref HSEEP) and related fields is to validate plans. That concept, though, is built on a fragile premise: that the plans are good.
Over the years, the more plans I see from various jurisdictions, the more disappointed I am practically to the extent of losing near-total faith in our profession’s ability to develop quality plans. Most emergency plans out there are crap. Garbage. Not worth the effort that has been put into them. Typically, they don’t have enough detail. Not that they need to have procedure-level detail (but those procedures should be found somewhere), but they are often written so high level that they are merely conceptual or policy-esque.
The premise that exercises are intended to validate plans would indicate a belief that the plans themselves serve as quality standards of practice for the organization(s) they are built for. The sad truth is that they are not. So, what are our exercises proving?
Gaps in exercise evaluation are a significant hurdle which are often based upon poor evaluation practices, poor AAR writing, and/or the assumption of quality plans. I find many AARs to be very superficial. They provide observations and recommendations, but no analysis. Without analysis we have no context for the observation and no examination of root cause or other contributing factors. Absent this analysis, the AARs aren’t able to truly identify what needs to be addressed. So, with the superficial, come the obvious statements and recommendations that communication needs to be improved, more ICS training is needed, etc.
What I don’t see enough of are observations, ANALYSIS, and recommendations that indicate:
- Plans need to be drastically improved (updated and/or developed)
- Responders need to actually be trained in their roles to support implementation of the plans (ICS does NOT teach us how to implement plans… in fact ICS training largely ignores the importance of existing plans)
What of the AARs that are better and actually do recommend improved plans? This leads us to the next potential point of failure: implementation of corrective actions. I see so many organizations are simply bad at this. They seem content to exercise over and over again (typically at the expense of taxpayer dollars) and come up with the same results. They largely aren’t fixing anything, or perhaps just the proverbial low-hanging fruit (i.e. more ICS training), but they aren’t tackling the harder-to-do, yet more impactful development of quality plans.
We need to stop assuming our plans are good. Exercising bad plans has little value to us and is typically more wasteful than beneficial.
Just like the potential causes identified above, there are numerous issues to be addressed. First of all, we need to recognize that not every emergency manager has the acumen for writing plans. The development of emergency plans is a hybrid of art and science. It includes hard and soft skillsets such as technical writing, systems thinking, organization, research, collaboration, and creativity. We have standards for developing plans, such as CPG101, which overall is a good standard (though it could be improved to help people use it). We have some training available in how to develop emergency plans, but there are some issues.
- The G-235 Emergency Planning course (now IS-235) was a great course, but the big push 15-20 years ago to put so many classroom courses online to make them more accessible and to save costs largely resulted in decreased learning outcomes.
- The classroom training in emergency planning has largely been replaced by the E103 Planning: Emergency Operations course, which is part of the Emergency Management Basic Academy. This is a pretty good course but being part of the Basic Academy (which is a great concept) also limits access to some people as the general practice is (understandably) to give registration preference to those who are taking the entire academy. Sure, the entire academy makes for more well-rounded EMs, but if someone wants to focus on emergency planning, some of the other courses, while complimentary, constitute a larger investment of time and possibly money.
- Finally, FEMA has the Planning Practitioner Program, which is a more intensive experience and certainly provides some improved learning outcomes, but with the expectation of a huge percentage of emergency managers (and those in related professions) to be proficient in emergency planning, this program simply isn’t available enough. (Note re training: yes, there are an abundance of other planning-related courses out there… I just highlighted these as examples).
I’ll also say that simply taking some classes does not make you a proficient emergency planner. Because there is art and science to it, it can’t simply be taught. It needs to be learned and experienced. Practice and mentorship are key – which is something else most EMs don’t have access to or even seek out. Training is not the only solution.
So, while this article started out with identifying the fallacy often seen in our exercise practices, I end up, once again, pointing out what I think is the biggest gap in the entirety of emergency management – bad plans. Plans are the foundation of our practice, yet we can’t seem to get it right. We are too dismissive of the necessity and process of plan development and upkeep. We are too accepting of inadequate plans that are not implementation ready. We don’t do enough to build personnel capability in plan development. So many of those who are writing plans, be they civil servants, consultants, or others, are simply bad at it. And while some have potential that is underdeveloped, others simply don’t have the acumen for it.
And the worst part about it all… we, as a practice and professional culture, are accepting it!
Many of my posts through the years have ended with a similar statement… we are treating emergency management like a game of beer league hockey. We aren’t taking it seriously enough. We need to do better and demand better. So what are you doing to support improved emergency planning practices?
© 2024 Timothy Riecker, CEDP
The Contrarian Emergency Manager 
Hi Chris – thanks for the feedback. Your image didn’t come through on the typo… but I’ll be sure to check it out later. I appreciate the encouragement to keep writing! Unfortunately I find less and less time for it these past couple of years as work commitments have kept me hopping (though that’s not a bad thing). I also sometimes feel as if I’m writing into a void… while I do get some good feedback and comments on posts (especially via LinkedIn), I don’t see any change in the things I provide commentary on which people seem to support. Bureaucracy takes time, though.
Thanks again.
Tim
Hi Tim.
I forwarded the image on to your personal email. Hopefully it comes through. Please delete the above comment if you can. I have an actual reply to this post that I’ll put up once the mess above is cleaned up.
Apologies!
Speaking to not seeing any change and talking into a void. I completely understand. FWIW, I heard about you through other EM practitioners who speak highly of you, and of your posts. I’ve used them personally as well as examples and as training points for up and coming EMs.
Operational commitments and time limitations notwithstanding, please do keep up the writing whenever you can, and while there’s still interest.
One of the best things about your posts is they’re often quite timeless. Providing best-practices and tidbits of wisdom that transcend the particular topic at hand.
As to change – while bureaucracy does take time, I have found that one of the largest limiters currently appears to be a lack of standards to point to. A good amount of what we do is personality driven because each person interprets “resilient” “ready” “prepared” and other such concepts through their own lens.
We need to standardize. And we need to do it before we “professionalize”. We can’t wait until 2040, or even 2030.
Hi again Chris,
No worries about the previous comment. I deleted that and took care of they typo you referenced. Thank you!
I also appreciate that people spread the word about my writing. Sometimes, to be honest, it’s more for me than for any measure of engagement… I sometimes feel I just need to get thoughts out there. Though I certainly appreciate when people engage and reference my thoughts.
TR
Tim. Great post as always.
Here’s what I actually meant to as my reply…
I completely agree that most plans are ineffective and represent a significant opportunity cost.
I would like to offer for consideration an alternate approach to the concept of exercises. Our focus should be on providing opportunities to **complete** training. In fact the very concept of “training” and “exercises” being separate should be reconsidered.
In the military, merely being briefed on marksmanship components doesn’t make you a trained marksman. Similarly, theoretical knowledge of jumping from an airplane doesn’t equate to jump certification. Your insight, “simply taking classes does not make you a proficient emergency planner,” resonates, highlighting the need for practice in acquiring complex skills.
Exercises are the indispensable other half of training, solidifying classroom learning through practical application. Without regular exercises, emergency managers and their teams are no more effective than poorly written plans they loosely follow.
To connect exercises and bad plans, if we acknowledge most plans are subpar and responses must adapt to dynamic on-the-ground reality, exercises become fundamental for success. The effectiveness of the response relies on the capabilities of those involved and their ability to interoperate.
That is, if our plans our terrible, the only thing preventing a disaster from becoming a catastrophe is the skill of the people in the response.
You bring up some great points. I really appreciate the view on exercises as an extension of training. Going to your later point about connecting exercises and planning, I feel that training is often that connection. We should be training to our plans and standards of performance, then exercising those as practical application and validation.
While I agree that much of our success through time in emergencies and disasters is owed to people rather than plans. Plans should still be providing a standard of performance. While they can’t be relied upon as a script, they should still provide enough guidance to inform our actions and decisions.
Thanks again for writing!
TR
“Plans should still be providing a standard of performance. While they can’t be relied upon as a script, they should still provide enough guidance to inform our actions and decisions.”
I completely agree.
During EM training & the orientation of non-EM colleagues, there should also be more time spent explaining the purpose of, and importance behind, not only plans themselves but the planning process.
Almost nobody mentions that one of the key aspects of planning is the creation of answers to questions that inevitably arise during response that require far more time and resources to find the answers to than is ever available.
During the creation of an evacuation plan for a community, for instance, it’s possible to use proven formulas and principles in combination with local demographics knowledge to identify ideal ingress & egress routes, as well as the probable time it would take to evacuate the community safely.
All of this takes a fair amount of time and access to experts. Neither of those things is usually available when it comes time to evacuate.
You are absolutely right… there are questions that take a lot of time to answer on blue sky days – which is certainly time we don’t have during a response. Our plans should definitely address those.
Tim,
Good afternoon from San Diego.
“Lessons learned are worthess, lessons applied are invaluable”
Ted
Hello Ted!
And thank you.