In my many years as a consultant, I have had the opportunity review quite a few emergency operations plans. One of the most common tasks I am asked to perform is to ensure that the EOP is conformant to the guidance in CPG 101 Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans . The one thing that I am never asked is whether I think the plan will work. Sadly, in many cases, my answer would be, “no.”
There are any number of reasons a plan will fail. In fact, one of my most popular presentations is devoted to this particular topic. Rather than cram everything into a single “top ten” post, I thought it might be more productive to write a series of posts on some of the key reasons that could lead to failure of your plan in a crisis.
Heading my list of potential problems is blind acceptance of the format guidance offered in CPG 101. This frequently produces what Dr. Erik Auf der Heide refers to as the “paper plan syndrome,” a situation where the mere existence of a plan is equated with preparedness. Sociologist Lee Clarke makes a similar point, noting that many plans are used as symbols to demonstrate that authorities are in control of a situation when just the opposite is true. The late Enrico Quarantelli put even stronger, “One of the greatest impediments to disaster preparedness is the tendency to believe that it can be accomplished merely by the completion of a written plan.”
In recent articles in my newsletter, both my colleague, Tim Riecker, and I stressed the need to make sure your plan is based on the needs and capabilities of your organization. One-size-fits-all planning almost guarantees that the resulting plan will not be aligned with those requirements. Slavishly following CPG 101 does not automatically guarantee success and can even be a barrier to it.
“But we’re required to follow CPG101!” I hear you say. My suggestion is that you re-read the guidance. “The goal of CPG 101 is to assist in making the planning process routine across all phases of emergency management and for all homeland security mission areas.” I’ve italicized the words “planning process” because this is what CPG 101 is really intended to do: improve your ability to develop effective plans and it does it well. The bulk of the document is devoted to this. A process that is collaborative and inclusive and that considers organizational needs and capabilities is ultimately more important than plan format. Establish the process and the plan will follow.
One final word on formats. Here’s the word from CPG 101, ”FEMA does not mandate a particular format for EOPs. In the final analysis, an EOP’s format is acceptable if users understand it, are comfortable with it, and can extract the information they need.” So, throw out the templates, stop copying the formats out of CPG 101, and think about what your plan should look like to be effective.
More to follow!
Like many others agree with your comments that one size fits all of FEMA is one of the ways that FEMA self sabotages. Another that I don't know if you have on your list of top ten is from when I did a contract with FEMA and the contract manager insisted that planning assumptions not be part of the document, that there is no such thing as capability gaps, and that the plan not be shared outside of FEMA for security reasons. In my opinion one does not have a plan if no one knows what it is.
Posted by: Parademic | 07/20/2021 at 03:58 PM
Great newsletter once again, Lucien. Thank you and peers for these contributions to the field, discipline, and profession of Emergency Management. I truly appreciate all the good work you are doing -- for all of us! Best, Heriberto Urby, Ph.D., J.D., Associate Professor, Western Illinois University -- Emergency Management Program
Posted by: Heriberto Urby | 08/13/2021 at 12:38 PM