discovering communication protocols for inter-agency ...

discovering communication Protocols for inter-agency collaBoration for emergency resPonse Bharath m. Palavalli

[email protected] next Generation Infrastructure laboratory, cSTeP

Harsha krishna


onkar Hoysala


eswaran subrahmanian


aBSTRacT emergencies and disasters require multiple agencies to collaborate at different levels in order to respond effectively. This involves a thorough understanding of the collaborating agencies’ standard operating procedures and ensuring that protocols are followed for inter-agency communication. The paper-based game described below allows us to explore the complexity of collaboration among different agencies, while mitigating a hypothetical disaster situation simulated with necessary conditions. We then present future modifications to the game and insights from trial runs.

1. InTRodUcTIon Simulation and modeling methods have been used successfully to provide a better understanding of technical problems. When these methods

268

PUBlIc domaIn are combined with the “plasticity” that gaming provides (Mayer, 2009) we are able to enhance the analysis of policies. Gaming has been used to explore, plan, test and train military strategies and operations. “Wargaming” as it has been referred to in published literature (Weiner, 1959 and Jones, 1995) has provided an ideal test bed for gaming methods as an exploration space. Gaming methods allow for exploring the solution space with the different stakeholders via a visual medium. The non-confrontational, yet realistic environs of gaming present scenarios that provide for multiple ideas to co-exist and to understand possible effects of policies (Shubik, 1975). The efficiency of response of the concerned agencies during a disaster is directly related to how good the communication is amongst them. It is essential that these agencies understand each other and thus, follow a protocol of communication and adhere to it throughout the course of disaster response (Lee and Rao, 2007). This prevents loss of critical information and allows for an effective situational awareness to be maintained. However, this is an ideal situation. Expert training for the agencies are usually separate and thus require periodic joint exercises and training (Perry and Lindell, 2003). This allows different agencies to evolve collaborative tactics and expertise for disaster response. This also adds an additional responsibility on these organizations to keep themselves informed about changes among them. The Indian nodal agency for disaster response, the National Disaster Response Authority (NDMA), has set up an institution structure consisting of personnel from the armed forces, civil defense forces, police, medical teams and administrative personnel. Such institutional structures have been proposed as a vehicle to address collaboration problems during disasters (Gopalakrishnan and Okada, 2007). Due to the diverse backgrounds of these people, communication among them has been misunderstood or simply lost. These agencies have differing protocols and operating procedures. They interact only in case of a disaster and thus, there are many instances where miscommunications between two or more agencies, or miscommunications within agencies itself, have proved a bottleneck in disaster response (Smith, 2000). There have been instances, such as the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008, where the communication was handled so badly that the response was described as “chaotic” and the breaches of basic information security protocols provided the terrorist with vital information (Rabasa, 2009). Games provide an exploratory mechanism to help understand the communication protocol among such diverse agencies taking various constraints into account. We outline a paper-based game to study the communication between agencies for disaster response in a district in India. The game tries to explore and understand the dynamics of collaboration among these agencies by demonstrating existing procedures and/or dis-

discovering communication Protocols for inter-agency... covering non-existent protocols when there is a disaster. We also study how such an agency would react when protocols are non-existent and thus, explore methods of using this game to evolve such protocols for agencies. The second section describes the current institutional structure for disaster management in India. It provides an overview of the structure of agencies at the district level for disaster response; the administrative structure and an incident command system all of which are emulated in the game. The third section describes the game, followed by conclusions and future work.

2. InSTITUTIonal STRUcTURe 2.1 disaster response in India

The National Disaster Response Authority (NDMA) in India is the nodal agency for disaster response management in India (National Disaster Management Authority, 2010). It is headed by the Prime Minister and is responsible, among other things, for laying down disaster management policies, and guidelines to be followed by state authorities. It also requires that each state has its own State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA), which lays down standard operating procedures (SOP) for disaster management across the state. Furthermore, each district in a state has a District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA), headed by the district collector (DC), which is responsible for co-originating disaster management activities in the district and laying down SOPs for disaster management in the district, etc. National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) State Disaster Management Agency (SDMA) District Disaster Management Agency (DDMA) District Collector Police Chief Medical Command System Fire and Rescue Chief Civil Defense Forces Figure 1. Institutional Structure for Disaster Response in India

269

270

PUBlIc domaIn The agencies at the district level are usually the first to respond, regardless of the scale of the disaster. The scale determines whether the agencies from the state or other districts need to be involved. Thus, a clear and accurate situational awareness is required to assess the scale of the disaster. The personnel at the district level consists of people from the local police, fire and medical teams including people from volunteer organizations, each of them having their own training, protocol and operating procedures. The respective agencies can then act according to their own training and procedures.

2.2 challenges in developing inter-agency protocols The institutions involved have started to broadly shift from a reactive to a pro-active stance (National Disaster Management Authority, 2010). There are many challenges in developing such protocols and making sure they are effective. The number of agencies involved is large; for instance, in case of a fire, the fire department, police department, medical staff, DDMA, District Collector and Civil Defence forces, to name a few, are involved. Furthermore, each agency for example, at the district level itself brings with it a different level of expertise. The problem is further complicated on the border areas as even language used for normal communication is different for different agencies. Different regions face different risks depending on their geographical location and geological features. Developing the protocols or SOPs at different levels and making them context aware (social, geological, geographical) will be difficult (Sagun, Bouchlaghem and Anumba, 2009). Some district and local authorities may lack assets or expertise required to create these protocols while the authorities at higher levels may not be aware of local knowledge for developing protocols at the ground level (Thomalla and Schmuck, 1999). With the introduction of a new institutional structure the old protocols have to be reviewed and re-aligned with the new structure.

3. The commUnIcaTIon PRoTocol Game This game has been designed to explore and understand the flow of information within and across the agencies at the time of a disaster. The game emulates a small portion of the current institutional structure. The portion consists of institutions which are 1. Frequently involved in all disasters, including small scale disasters 2. Called first and hence are closest to the ground or location of the disasters. 3. Required to co-operate more frequently with other institutions. 4. Have some training and operating procedures already in place. 5. Operate in areas with high population density. For this game we use the instructional structure at the district level limited to urban areas.

discovering communication Protocols for inter-agency... The players play the roles of the police department, the fire department, medical services and the message dispatch center, the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) and the District Collector (DC) in the game. The game begins with a call to the message dispatch center from a bystander at a scene of a hypothetical incident. The hypothetical incident needs to be large enough to involve most of the basic agencies but small enough to stay within the capability of the DDMA. The game simulates a limited capability communication network where each player has to be prudent in his communication to avoid confusion and effectively manage the situation. Failure to follow protocols, insufficient or inaccurate communication may cause spurious messages to appear in the communication network which may lead to a less optimal response to disaster. The following questions guided our research: ttHow do players compensate for not knowing what protocol to follow? ttDoes adherence to a strict protocol increase the robustness of the communication network thereby improving the response? ttWhat are the key properties/parameters of such a protocol if such a protocol is required? The game was designed using the iterative game design process (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004), with multiple play tests. The current version of the game was played with different groups of people. Multiple sessions were run with people from the lab, and one session was run at the Administrative Training Institute, Mysore, with people from the armed forces and administrative personnel. The next section discusses the result from this session of the game.

3.1 Game description The game has been designed to be played with nine roles, each representing an agency involved in disaster management, as proposed by the NDMA. Thus, the game emulates the institutional set-up for disaster response at the district level. The game is strictly silent in nature; no player is allowed to talk directly to other players. All communications are written in the format given to the players. The requirements and procedure to conduct the game is described below.

1.1.1. number of players The game consists of nine roles representing the various agencies. All nine roles are based on the Incident Command System mandated by the NDMA (National Disaster Management Authority, 2010). Hence, a minimum of nine players are required and extra players can be composed into teams assigned with one of the nine roles. The various roles in the game are as follows:

271

272

PUBlIc domaIn 1. Message Dispatch Center (MDC): The agency responsible for relaying messages it receives from general public to the concerned authorities. 2. District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA): The nodal agency for disaster management in a district, the DDMA has a list of all the players and has the authority to deploy trained forces. 3. District Collector (DC): The chief of the DDMA and the administrative head of the district, the DC has the authority to deploy a certain number of cranes, bulldozers and engineers. 4. Police Department incident Commander (Police iC): The police officer responsible for coordinating all the security and crowd management activities at the incident zone through the control room. The Police IC deploys platoons of police officers when requested. 5. Police Department Commanding Officer (Police CO): The police officer responsible for all the security and crowd management activities at the incident zone and reports to the Police IC. The Police CO can request platoons of police officers wherever necessary. 6. Medical Department incident Commander (Medical iC): The medical personnel responsible for coordinating all the medical activities at the incident zone through the control room. The Medical IC deploys ambulances to the scene of the disaster and also maintains a list of hospitals and the number of free beds. 7. Medical Department Commanding Officer (Medical CO): The medical personnel responsible for coordinating all the medical and first aid activities at the incident zone and reports to the Medical IC. The Medical CO can request for ambulances whenever necessary. 8. Fire department incident Commander (Fire iC): The fire officer responsible for coordinating all the fire service related activities at the incident zone through the control room. The Fire IC deploys fire trucks to the scene of the incident on request from the Fire CO. 9. Fire department Commanding Officer (Fire CO): The fire officer responsible for coordinating all activities of his department at the incident zone and reports to the Fire IC. The Fire CO can request for fire trucks from the Fire IC whenever necessary.

1.1.2. number of facilitators The game requires a minimum of six facilitators; one main facilitator who handles the flow of the game and one facilitator to play the role of the Press. The other four facilitators perform message passing and observe the game play.

1.1.3. Game artifacts 1. Role descriptions for each player. 2. Activity log sheets (multiple sheets as per the number of players).

discovering communication Protocols for inter-agency... 3. Feedback sheets for each player. 4. List of assets present in the game with all players, maintained by the main facilitator. 5. Message forms for communication. 6. A large clock that is visible to all players and facilitators so that everyone has the same measurements of time. 7. Writing aids for facilitators and players.

1.1.4. Procedure to conduct the game Briefing session (20 Minutes): The players are given a handout of their role descriptions along with a set of blank message forms and activities log sheets. The players are given time to go through their role descriptions. Further explanation is provided, explicitly for the role of a typical ‘incident commander’ and ‘commanding officer’. The game is designed to be a silent and all communication happens through message passing in written format. The various elements of the messaging system is explained with the aid of an example message. Players fill out the message form and pass it to one of the facilitators for delivery. The role description of the players has a list of people they can contact. The whole list of players is not provided to the players and they need to evolve this on their own if they require. Some players have assets at their disposal. A description of how to deploy an asset is given with an example. The players simply pass the asset object along with a message to the nearest facilitator. The main facilitator passes the asset to the target after introducing a delay. Note that the acknowledgement of the deployment has to be sent by the receiver if he deems it necessary. The facilitators do not provide this information. During this time the assisting facilitators make private note of each player’s. This note is used by them to route the messages among players. This information is private to the facilitators. The main facilitator keeps track of the list of assets that are available and deployed. Gaming session (20–25 Minutes) After the briefing session the game is started by sending out the first message. The game begins when the Message Dispatch Center receives a call from the scene of the incident by bystanders (or as per the chosen scenario). The “Press and External Messaging” facilitator sends messages to the players depending on the situation in the game and the assets deployed by the players. The main facilitator decides when to end the game depending on the situation: For instance, if it seems obvious that no communication protocol has evolved, the main facilitator can decide to send a message saying “Situation out of control. Nothing can be done” and can end the game.

273

274

PUBlIc domaIn Debriefing session (30 Minutes) The debriefing session is about half an hour. Each player fills out the feedback form and hands in the activity log and all messages received. After collecting all the documents each player explains his/her experience during the game and suggests changes to the game and game play. The main facilitator can ask each of the players to talk about their version of the flow of events. Then he gives a report of the scenario as it happened and the assets deployed.

4. conclUSIonS and fUTURe WoRk Communication protocols among concerned agencies are essential for effective disaster response, and the non-existence of such protocols can lead to badly managed responses to disasters. In this paper we describe how the game can be used to explore the complexity of collaboration between these agencies in such a situation. Based on the experience and roles of the individuals playing the game, the following results have been identified as critical. Differences in outcomes were observed when the adherence to the protocol was high and when there was a lack of knowledge about the protocol. Lack of adherence to these protocols was also observed in sessions where the players did not have prior training. However, there was a high adherence to protocol when the players were immune from external social influences. The game highlights the ability of well defined protocols to retain their integrity even when incomplete or spurious information was introduced into the system. Some of the future modifications to the game include simulating message delays and message drops and adding scenarios wherein the players will need to manage multiple disasters. A better messaging system itself is being thought of, based on suggestions from players in the debriefing session. The logging format is being modified for future versions of the game to provide a simpler mechanism for the players.

5. acknoWledGemenT The authors were part of Next Generation Infrastructures Laboratory (NGIL) at CSTEP while this work was carried out. The work presented here was supported by the Jamshetji Tata Trust and the Defense Research and Development Organization, India. The authors would like to acknowledge the collaboration with Dr. Aruna Ramesh (Professor at MS Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore) and Dr. Dharmaraju (Faculty

discovering communication Protocols for inter-agency... – Disaster Management at Administrative Training Institute, Mysore). The authors would like to thank Drs. Dipti Deodhare, Robin King, Jai Asundi for their support. The authors would like to acknowledge contributions made by Niket Narang, Jayanth R and other members of the NGIL for developing the game.

RefeRenceS Angel Rabasa R. D. (2009) The Lessons of Mumbai. Occasional Paper series. Gopalakrishnan C., Okada N. (2007) Designing new institutions for implementing integrated disaster risk management: key elements and future directions. Disasters, Vol. 31, pp. 353–372. JinKyu L., H. Raghav Rao (2007) Exploring the causes and effects of inter-agency information sharing systems adoption in the anti/counter-terrorism and disaster management domains. In: Proceedings of the 8th annual international conference on Digital government research: bridging disciplines \& domains (dg.o ‘07). Digital Government Society of North America, pp. 155–163. Jones K. (1995) Simulations: A Handbook for Teachers and Trainers. Routledge. Mayer I.S. (2009) The Gaming of Policy and the Politics of Gaming: A Review. Simulation and Gaming. National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India (2010). Incident Response System. In: National Disaster Management Guidelines. Perry R.W., Lindell M.K. (2003) Preparedness for Emergency Response: Guidelines for the Emergency Planning Process. Disasters, Vol. 27, pp. 336– 350. Sagun A., Bouchlaghem D., Anumba C.J. (2009) A scenario-based study on information flow and collaboration patterns in disaster management. Disasters, Vol. 33, pp. 214–238. Salen K., Zimmerman E. (2004) Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press. Shubik M. (1975) The Uses and Methods of Gaming. New York. Elsevier Scientific Publishing, Thomalla F., Schmuck, H. (2004) We All Knew that a Cyclone Was Coming’: Disaster Preparedness and the Cyclone of 1999 in Orissa, India. Disasters, Vol. 28, pp.373–387. Wally Smith, J.D. (2000) A case study of co-ordinative decision making in disaster management. A case study of co-ordinative decision making in disaster management. Weiner M.G. (1959) War Gaming Methodology. Reasearch Memoranda RM – 2413. RAND.

275

276

PUBlIc domaIn