ICT AND THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Mobile broadband and distributed computing, coupled with industry-wide
standardization efforts, can transform emergency response.
This paper explains how to use ICT architecture and consulting frameworks to create
truly mission-critical, multiagency platforms that enable effective communications and
information sharing. At the same time, factors such as affordability and ease of
implementation should lead agencies to embrace solutions based on open standards.
ericsson White paper 284 23-3288 Uen | April 2016
Response redefined
RESPONSE REDEFINED • INTRODUCTION 2
IntroductionAging populations, changing social norms, global terrorism, extreme weather, and natural and
man-made disasters are among the diverse situations that today’s public safety organizations
are required to manage.
At the same time, many national governments are looking to reduce budget deficits, while the
public has ever higher expectations with regard to security and safety. As a result, government
scrutiny of spending has increased, as have demands for higher productivity from organizations
that work with public safety.
Technology can and will play a key role in bringing about this improvement in efficiency and
productivity – but technology alone is not enough. Solutions with a diverse range of attributes
are required to satisfy the needs and alleviate the concerns of all stakeholders. These attributes
range from affordability to flexibility. The key to satisfying these different needs, and maximizing
the utility of each solution, is to understand and manage the flow of information.
This paper describes how an Enterprise Architecture-led approach can transform public safety
through the use of ICT. Recent advances in mobile broadband and distributed computing, coupled
with accelerating efforts in industry-wide standardization, make this transformation a more
realistic proposition than ever before.
RESPONSE REDEFINED • WHY INFORMATION FLOWS MATTER 3
Com
mun
icat
ion
and
info
rmat
ion
shar
ing
Ris
k as
sess
men
ts
Emer
genc
y pl
anni
ng
Com
mun
icat
ing
with
the
publ
ic
Com
mun
icat
ing
with
bus
ines
ses
and
volu
ntar
y or
gani
zatio
ns
Figure 1: Key elements of the emergency management legal framework.
Why information flows matterPublic safety organizations are challenged on all sides – to lower costs, improve response times,
reduce crime, improve outcomes for victims, and manage the impact of natural disasters and
extreme weather. Dealing with this range of events requires multiple skills and capabilities, often
from many different organizations, each with its own specialist capability. In addition, the time
that elapses from the moment an alert is raised to the response can be critical to the outcome.
For example, a study carried out by the Scottish Ambulance Service and the University of
Glasgow showed that reducing paramedic response times from 15 minutes to five doubled the
survival rate of heart attack patients [1].
Heart attacks are by no means a special case. In general, the faster the response time of
emergency services, the smaller the chance of damage occurring or life being lost.
However, when serious incidents occur, the response rarely involves only one public safety
organization [2]. In major emergencies, multiple groups and specialists tend to be required.
In many countries there is a legal framework that mandates what constitutes an emergency
and how the response should be managed. The definition of who should respond extends beyond
the traditional blue-light emergency services (the police, ambulance and fire services) and requires
utilities, transport, environment, commerce and trade unions to be involved, albeit on a secondary
basis. The roles and responsibilities of the state, public safety organizations and other responders
are incorporated into these legal frameworks to give responders the necessary emergency powers
to be able to respond effectively without undue bureaucracy [3]. Importantly, these laws explicitly
differentiate such powers from any military action or threats to national sovereignty.
The emergency management legal frameworks, as shown in Figure 1, require first and foremost
cooperation and information sharing between all the responsible agencies. Risk assessments
must also be made to evaluate where populations are most vulnerable, and where investments
and resources should be deployed to minimize the impact of an event. In addition, emergency
plans are made and rehearsed on a
regular basis to ensure responders
remain familiar with the tools and
processes at their disposal.
A critical part of this planning is the
establishment of a chain of command
to take responsibility not only for
communicating with responders, but
also with the public (many countries
already have or are considering
establishing national civil alerting
systems [4]), as well as business and
voluntary organizations. Scenarios can
range from terrorist attacks, severe
weather and industrial accidents, to the
outbreak of an infectious disease.
Fulfilling these obligations requires
organizations to have common
processes and systems, so information and instructions can be shared, and the organizations
can respond appropriately. If these systems break down, or are not in place at all, the consequences
can be tragic.
CASE 1: TASMANIA BUSHFIRES, 2012-2013
Bushfires are an important part of the ecosystem in southern Australia and particularly in Tasmania
[5]. However, high fuel loads, coupled with dry, warm and windy weather, meant the 2012-2013
RESPONSE REDEFINED • WHY INFORMATION FLOWS MATTER 4
bushfire season lasted for almost six months – unprecedented in the recorded history of Tasmania.
As the fires spread to populated areas, public mobile communications services and the internet
were compromised, as the fires disabled power and telephone lines. Some radio base station
sites used by the emergency services lost power, and the public lost communication services in
the same way when they were unable to recharge their mobile phones.
During the 2012-2013 bushfire season, more than 20,000 hectares of land were burned,
resulting in a cost of more than AUD 69 million (over USD 52 million).
Incompatibility between the police and fire service radio systems compounded the problem
of organizing an effective response. Following the official inquiry into the fires, 103 recommendations
were made, many of which related to planning and chains of command, specifically:
> that all agencies and the government support the transition to an integrated communications
technology for the police and emergency services.
As a result, significant steps have been taken since 2013 to improve the interworking between
the police and fire service’s radio systems.
CASE 2: HURRICANE SANDY, OCTOBER 2012
Hurricane Sandy was the second-largest Atlantic storm ever recorded. It made landfall on the
east coast of the US on October 29, 2012, and in the aftermath, 8.5 million people were without
power, thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed, and many areas were flooded. A total
of 162 fatalities were recorded in the US as a direct result of the storm.
In the US, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was well prepared for Hurricane
Sandy, and had been tracking the storm’s progress through weather reports since early October
2012. A large-scale response had been organized, and local and federal organizations mobilized.
Local communities were warned and were able to take steps to evacuate and protect their
property as best as they could. Sandy led to one of the largest deployments of emergency
personnel in history; FEMA also provided housing assistance to 174,000 survivors and over USD
800 million of emergency funding to clear debris and restore infrastructure.
Despite the successful response, the storm also presented FEMA with a challenge in terms
of how to coordinate operations between federal, state and community organizations, as well
as survivors [6].
FEMA issues mission assignments to direct federal partners to complete specified tasks in
response to an emergency. In the case of Sandy, the process proved to be complex and the
communications ambiguous. Support departments reported having received conflicting
messages, and there were delays in processing requests.
During the peak of the recovery process, 12 days after the storm struck, FEMA deployed more
than 7,000 personnel, including full-time staff, reservists and volunteers.
Despite the success of mobilizing so
many response workers, problems were
encountered in trying to deploy these
people effectively to perform the roles
they were trained for and capable of
doing. Keeping track of who was on duty
and the tasks they were assigned proved
difficult. Many had no access to FEMA’s
intranet, and in many areas, public
telecom networks were unavailable owing
to flooding and power outages.
The examples of Tasmania and
Hurricane Sandy illustrate the need for
effective communications and information
sharing across organizations – not only
among the regular emergency services,
but also among support workers and the
general public. Failure on the
communications front can lead to
confusion, wasted effort and lost time,
compromising actions to protect both
people and property.
Industry Highways
Transport
Telecoms UtilitiesPublic safety
Commerce
Figure 2: The diversity of organizations in emergency management.
RESPONSE REDEFINED • WHY INFORMATION FLOWS MATTER 5
Each responder needs to know what to do, and where and when to do it. The people in charge
must make quick decisions in a rapidly evolving situation about what information to share, and
with whom to share it. The simple answer may be to share everything, but that can be problematic.
As was seen in the case of Hurricane Sandy, too much information can be hard to assimilate
and can cause confusion. It is not necessary to share certain sensitive information outside the
public safety organization, and some may be confidential: medical records, for example.
Technology should be used to assist, rather than hindering, the process of distributing information.
Many public safety organizations use technology that limits the information they can disseminate
and share rapidly. Many IT systems have evolved from point solutions with incompatible databases,
operating systems and data formats, as was the case in 2013 with the respective radio systems
of the Tasmania Police and Tasmania Fire Service. Furthermore, many legacy systems are unable
to discriminate between “releasable” and confidential material, and lack the fine control required
to manage both sensitive and non-sensitive data. Vital information becomes difficult to extract
under time pressure, which leads to bad decision-making and poor outcomes for the victims [7].
And of course, in severe situations, the underlying infrastructure on which these systems rely
may be disrupted. Power and telephone lines may come down, and flooding can destroy vital
hubs. At worst, an over-reliance on non-mission-critical systems can and has caused a near
total breakdown of the emergency response effort [8], with disastrous consequences for people
and property.
RESPONSE REDEFINED • MAPPING OUT THE TRANSFORMATION JOURNEY 6
Mapping out the transformation journeyWith the advent of mission-critical wireless broadband systems, ultra-reliable distributed
computing systems and accelerating standardization efforts, the next step can now be taken
toward effectively managing emergencies of all sizes. But how should agencies make this
transformation journey happen?
The process of developing a truly effective ICT-based solution starts with the architecture – and
construction of the architecture needs to start with the mission the agency is required to perform.
For every responder agency, the mission must satisfy the following five key objectives:
> deliver successfully
> exceed citizens’ expectations
> use tax money wisely
> share services and information to collaborate effectively
> empower a highly effective workforce.
As shown in Figure 3, every mission rests on a
hierarchy of needs. A top-down approach is
therefore a useful way for an agency to plan its
transformation journey. At the same time, a
bottom-up approach can help the agency
evaluate the usefulness of new technologies
as they become available.
Agencies need to assess how ICT
can transform each stage of this
hierarchy. Starting with the mission,
the agency should determine how
it can be enabled by new
capabilities. The next question
is which systems can interact
to form these capabilities.
Systems in turn consist
of people, processes and
tools working together,
which makes the latter the
most fundamental layer when it comes to the mission’s needs. The unique ability of ICT to process,
distribute and store information makes it one of the key foundation tools on which an effective
emergency response mission can be built.
As an example, consider an organization with the mission of saving lives from fires. One of the
capabilities required is to coordinate the response of all other agencies involved in providing
support in an emergency. This capability is supported by a range of systems. Figure 4 shows, in
a simplified format, how this mapping works in practice.
Each of the systems on the right-hand side of Figure 4 could be implemented as a separate
system and still deliver the capability. However, ICT allows these systems to share resources
and be integrated in a way that increases their effectiveness. It is important to understand that
the integration of systems does not always fundamentally change the capability (although this
can happen); rather it allows the capability to be delivered more efficiently, faster and with fewer
mistakes.
Mission
Capabilities
Systems
People
Processes
Tools
Figure 3: The hierarchy of needs supporting a mission.
RESPONSE REDEFINED • MAPPING OUT THE TRANSFORMATION JOURNEY 7
For example, the address book and
directory can be shared with all other
systems such as telephony, e-mail and
social media systems. The logging
system can record who sent and
received which message. Taken a step
further, the directory can be integrated
with a resource management system,
so it is easy to see who is on duty. This
can be further enhanced by tagging the
status of a user with their location and
displaying this information on a map. If
the resource management system is
populated with skills and coupled with
machine-readable messages, it is
possible for the system to suggest to
those in command who is the best
person to respond in terms of time and
skills.
This kind of integration can have a
profound impact on the effectiveness
of the agency’s mission. For instance,
an ambulance team can not only
respond quickly, but can do so with the
right skills and equipment to treat the
patient more effectively. This capability
is essential for high-quality emergency
response [9].
Once the capabilities are established,
the flow of information through the
chain of command can be mapped to
gain an understanding of who needs to
be involved, where they are, and the
best way to communicate with them.
This information begins to guide the
solution toward the type of network
needed, whether it requires the users
to be fixed or mobile, and even what
sort of device is appropriate for
communication purposes.
A FICTITIOUS SCENARIO BASED ON THE TASMANIA CASE STUDY
A fire officer coordinating the response to a forest fire may
need to ask a local military commander for helicopter
support to rescue victims cut off by fire. The request could
be issued as an e-mail, and similarly, the response may be
a confirmation e-mail or phone call containing details of the
helicopter flight and radio frequencies, so the pilot may be
contacted. This simple example assumes an implicit level
of trust between all parties. Trust may also be enforced by
the ICT solution, if required.
The interaction can be mapped as shown in Figure 6,
which illustrates how the different systems interact to create
a capability – in this case, coordination of responders. This
diagram can also be redrawn to show the message flow in
time sequence, if necessary. An ICT solution can incorporate
timers and escalations that will trigger alarms if a response
is not received within a certain amount of time.
Save livesfrom fire
Coordinate otherresponders
Telephone
Mission Capabilities Systems
Social media
Meeting andbriefings
Address bookand directory
Logging andrecording system
Training system
Other capabilities
Other capabilities
Other missions
Figure 4: Mapping from mission to systems.
Save livesfrom fire
Coordinate otherresponders
Telephone
Add
ress
boo
k an
d di
rect
ory
Logg
ing
and
reco
rdin
g sy
stem
Map
ping
sys
tem
Mission Capabilities Systems
Social media
Meeting andbriefings
Training system
Other capabilities
Other capabilities
Other missions
Figure 5: A modified architecture showing shared support systems.
Pilot/Helicopter
Police department Airfield
Flight planRadio
Phone
Radio
Radio Video
E-mail: request
Air traffic control
Figure 6: A simplified information flow for a helicopter support request.
RESPONSE REDEFINED • MAPPING OUT THE TRANSFORMATION JOURNEY 8
In this example, the airfield and air traffic control contact points are probably fixed and can
use a screen and keyboard. The pilot probably needs to use a hands-free device, while the fire
department may require the flexibility to switch between fixed and mobile resources.
The examples in Figures 4, 5 and 6 show how systems can be mapped and organized through
the use of ICT to enhance capabilities. Once the people and groups that need to be involved are
identified and their preferred means of communicating documented, reasonable assumptions
can be made about the type of network and devices to use. However, the environment that the
solution operates in and the quality required also need to be taken into account.
RESPONSE REDEFINED • ACCELERATING THE TRANSFORMATION JOURNEY 9
Accelerating the transformation journeyOnce the architecture begins to take shape, other aspects of the design can begin to be
considered, so a complete picture of the solution can be formed. These considerations often
concern quality attributes that go beyond the required functionality and yet are critically important
to the overall effectiveness of the solution.
AFFORDABILITY
The first consideration is affordability. As discussed earlier, using taxpayers’ money wisely is a
key concern for public safety organizations. The key functional aspects of the solution will not
be the only factors impacting affordability. Non-functional and other quality aspects are just as
important.
The example in the previous section shows that a sizable catalog of messages and information
flows can emerge when analyzing a mission, and that any effective solution must support that
catalog. Developing a unique solution for each type of message is time-consuming and fraught
with technical risk, as well as costly and difficult to maintain.
Affordability is a key attribute of open standards. Open standards have created a diverse
ecosystem of suppliers and a competitive market for products, solutions and expertise. Open
standards are promoted by various bodies including 3GPP and the Internet Engineering Task
Force.
LTE and 4G technology standards are examples of open standards from 3GPP that are widely
supported and used by the global telecommunications industry. 3GPP is currently extending its
standards to include public safety and other mission-critical applications.
Some open standards are designed specifically for public safety. One example is Emergency
Data Exchange Language (EDXL). This suite of specifications allows organizations to exchange
emergency information in a secure and reliable manner without having to purchase identical
equipment. EDXL is built on XML, which is a generic data standard widely used across the
internet to support machine-to-machine communications.
EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Open standards have done much to simplify message processing and reduce risk during
implementation.
For example, if the ICT solution shown in Figure 5 supports open standards, the introduction
of new capabilities becomes much simpler. The mapping system showing where responders are
can also be used to show rising water levels or roads blocked by debris, as the underlying
message format is the same and can be read by a machine.
ADDITIONAL FACTORS
As a result of the impact of open standards on affordability and ease of implementation, public
safety agencies should always consider these standards as the first option, unless there is a
need for very high performance or security.
However, agencies also need to consider a range of additional factors in their ICT transformation,
including reliability and resilience, an effective workforce, flexibility, accessibility and ease of
procurement.
RESPONSE REDEFINED • ACCELERATING THE TRANSFORMATION JOURNEY 10
1) Reliability and resilience
The environment in which the systems have to operate must be taken into account. The attributes
of reliability and resilience are important. Harsh weather conditions will often disrupt electricity
supplies and other utilities, and geographic redundancy and fallback sites should be considered,
as should systems that fail gracefully, with decreasing levels of functionality rather than a sudden
blackout.
Natural and man-made disasters should not be the only considerations; systems should also
be resilient to cyber attacks and other malicious activity that can prevent an organization from
fulfilling its mission.
2) An effective workforce
The emergency context means that an effective workforce is required to be available, along with
robust business processes.
Training and test systems should be implemented. They should utilize real data and have real
interfaces. These systems should be isolated from the production system to allow the workforce
to rehearse and practice scenarios. Recording and playback systems allow events to be examined
to establish the lessons learned and identify the process improvements necessary.
3) Flexibility
Many agencies have day-to-day roles as well as emergency functions. This calls for the attributes
of flexibility and other aspects of usability.
Systems need to be flexible and adaptable for use in everyday situations in addition to
emergencies. They may be preconfigured with plans that can be invoked in the event of an
emergency. Putting a system in emergency mode may allow extra staff to be deployed or extra
permissions granted during the emergency, while maintaining its intrinsic operations as well as
its look and feel.
4) Accessibility
As far as possible, solutions should be commercially available and in widespread use.
Maintainability and extensibility should be considered as integral aspects of any architectural
requirements and technology choice. It may also be useful to allow volunteer responders to use
their own smartphones or laptops when required in order to access information that supports
the emergency effort.
5) Ease of procurement
To complete the journey, the architecture must be documented and used as the template to
guide the procurement phases. Choosing open standards and open source software represents
an effective procurement approach that public safety agencies should consider. Partnering with
volunteer organizations, industry and government can also help agencies speed up introduction
of ICT and realization of the benefits it offers.
RESPONSE REDEFINED • CONCLUSION 11
ConclusionEmergencies and natural disasters are inevitable. Cases have shown that effective planning and
emergency response efforts can lessen their impact on life and property. Effective communications
and information sharing are vital, with ICT providing a transformative tool.
It is now possible to create truly mission-critical, multiagency platforms that will enable the
most effective response to emergency events.
The maturity of ICT architecture and consulting frameworks allows the objectives of the agency
to be captured and linked to the underlying system solutions with far greater fidelity. This allows
leaders to see with greater clarity how their requirements are being met by ICT, and how each
part of the solution contributes value to the success of their mission.
Whatever the solution chosen, factors such as affordability and ease of implementation need
to be addressed. In most cases, these considerations should lead public safety agencies to
embrace solutions based on open standards as their primary option.
As leaders across public safety organizations review and update their strategic plans, lessons
will be learned from past emergencies. Processes and policies will be updated. Continuous
advances in mobile broadband, cloud computing, architecture and consulting will play a major
role in this strategic review process, and will enable additional ways of working and thinking
about emergencies and information sharing that were not possible before.
RESPONSE REDEFINED • GLOSSARY 12
EDXL Emergency Data Exchange Language
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
XML Extensible Markup Language
GLOSSARY
RESPONSE REDEFINED • REFERENCES 13
[1] British Medical Journal, Jill P Pell, Jane M Sirel, Andrew K Marsden, Ian Ford and Stuart M Cobbe, Effect
of reducing ambulance response times on deaths from out of hospital cardiac arrest: cohort study, June 2001,
available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7299/1385
[2] National Policing Improvement Agency, Guidance on Multi-Agency Interoperability, June 2009, available
at: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/acpo/Multi-agency-Interoperability-130609.pdf
[3] UK Government, Civil Contingencies Act 2004, accessed March 2016, available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/contents; Federal Emergency Management Agency, accessed
March 2016, available at: http://www.fema.gov
[4] Government of the Netherlands, Nationwide launch of emergency alert system NL-Alert, November 2012,
available at:
https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2012/11/08/nationwide-launch-of-emergency-alert-system-nl-alert
[5] Tasmanian Government, 2013 Tasmanian Bushfires Inquiry Report, October 2013, available at:
http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/osem/2013_tasmanian_bushfires_inquiry_report/2013_tasmanian_
bushfires_inquiry_report
[6] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hurricane Sandy FEMA After-Action Report, July 2013, available
at: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1923-25045-7442/sandy_fema_aar.pdf
[7] London Assembly, 7 July Review Committee, Volume 4: follow-up report, August 2007, available at:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/archives/assembly-reports-7july-
follow-up-report.pdf
[8] United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Emergency Preparedness – Staffing and Communications,
March 2015, available at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-dashboard/emerg-preparedness.html
[9] Emergency Medicine Journal, B Stoykova, R Dowie, P Bastow, K V Rowsell, R P F Gregory, Ambulance
emergency services for patients with coronary heart disease in Lancashire: achieving standards and improving
performance, 2004, available at: http://emj.bmj.com/content/21/1/99.full.pdf+html
references
© 2016 Ericsson AB – All rights reserved