In a recent webinar, the chief engineer for FEMA's Integrated Public Alerts and Warnings System (IPAWS) took questions from emergency management practitioners about the IPAWS program. The questions asked Mark Lucero were interesting. But, what was perhaps more interesting were the questions Lucero asked the practitioners. Some examples:
- Should warning authority be limited by geography? (Most of the webinar participants said "yes".)
- Should warning authority be limited by severity? (Most said "no".)
- Should warning authority be limited by method of dissemination? Examples given were Emergency Alert System, National Weather Service, and Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS). (Most said "no limits.)
- Should the message originator have the option of choosing the method of dissemination? (Most said "yes".)
- Should university officials have direct access to IPAWS? (This one was pretty evenly split between yeses and nos.)
- Should regional, multi-agency coordination agencies have direct access to IPAWS? (Most said "yes".)
- Should a state agency be required to submit state or local emergency alert plan as a condition of IPAWS participation? (Most said "yes".)
- Should agencies be required to submit an IPAWS Implementation Plan, Standard Operating Procedure, or Warning Annex? (Most said "yes".)
- Should third party systems be required to demonstrate Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) compliance? (Most said "yes".)
About fifty people voted during a webinar conducted by FEMA's Disaster Management Program. Lucero's presentation about IPAWS can be found here. A recording of the webinar can be found about half-way down the page of the Disaster Management Special Interest web page. The recording includes presentation slides and the on-line poll (including results).
The poll may not have included a large group, but it showed the types of questions IPAWS is asking as the national alerting program FEMA is modernizing and expanding matures. These questions emergency management practitioners and alert and warning industry should be pondering.
All the best,
Rick
Top
- Should warning authority be limited by geography? (Most of the webinar participants said "yes".)
- Should warning authority be limited by severity? (Most said "no".)
- Should warning authority be limited by method of dissemination? Examples given were Emergency Alert System, National Weather Service, and Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS). (Most said "no limits.)
- Should the message originator have the option of choosing the method of dissemination? (Most said "yes".)
- Should university officials have direct access to IPAWS? (This one was pretty evenly split between yeses and nos.)
- Should regional, multi-agency coordination agencies have direct access to IPAWS? (Most said "yes".)
- Should a state agency be required to submit state or local emergency alert plan as a condition of IPAWS participation? (Most said "yes".)
- Should agencies be required to submit an IPAWS Implementation Plan, Standard Operating Procedure, or Warning Annex? (Most said "yes".)
- Should third party systems be required to demonstrate Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) compliance? (Most said "yes".)
About fifty people voted during a webinar conducted by FEMA's Disaster Management Program. Lucero's presentation about IPAWS can be found here. A recording of the webinar can be found about half-way down the page of the Disaster Management Special Interest web page. The recording includes presentation slides and the on-line poll (including results).
The poll may not have included a large group, but it showed the types of questions IPAWS is asking as the national alerting program FEMA is modernizing and expanding matures. These questions emergency management practitioners and alert and warning industry should be pondering.
All the best,
Rick
