earthquakes lessons learned workshop report elite_earthquakes_lessons learned.pdf · earthquakes...

ELITE

Elicit to Learn Crucial Post-Crisis Lessons

DELIVERABLE D.2.2

Title Earthquakes Lessons Learned Workshop Report

Contract number : 312497

Project acronym : ELITE

Project title : Elicit to Learn Crucial Post-Crisis Lessons

Deliverable number : D2.2

Nature : Report

Dissemination level : PU

Report date : 05 August 2013

Author(s): van Santen, Rikus; Illing, Mareike

Partners contributed :

Contact : I.S.A.R. Germany Stiftung gemeinnützige UG (haftungsbeschränkt)

Kaiser-Friedrich-Straße 291

D-47167 Duisburg

Fon: +49 (0) 203 / 39 34 29 91

Fax: +49 (0) 203 / 39 34 29 92

[email protected]

The ELITE project was funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) –SEC

Coordinator: TECNUN

ELITE


Earthquakes Lessons Learned Workshop Report

Table of Content

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................4

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................5

II. ORGANIZATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WP2-ASSIGNMENTS: PLANNING OF WORKSHOP II “EARTHQUAKES” ..................................................................................................................................................................6

1. Invitation Process.................................................................................................................................6

2. Travel information and arrangement, registration .............................................................................6

3. Agenda-Setting ....................................................................................................................................7

4. Arrival, Transport and Accommodation ..............................................................................................7

III. WORKSHOP DOCUMENTARY – MEETING MINUTES AND PRESENTATIONS.........................................................8

1. Monday, 24 June 2013: Prior to the Workshop .................................................................................8

2. Tuesday, 25 June 2013: Workshop Day 1 .........................................................................................9

Introductiory Session ......................................................................................................................................9

Group Discussions: Part 1 (Identification of Characteristics and Criteria) .............................................. 10

Key Note Speaker: Edward Pearn, consultant to the UN and NATO ...................................................... 12

Presentations from End-Users: Luis Saenz de San Pedro Alba.............................................................. 14

Presentations from End-Users: Marco Mucciarelli .................................................................................... 14

Presentations from End-Users: Alessandro Rebez .................................................................................. 15

Presentations from End-Users: Gian Paolo Pollini ................................................................................... 15

Tonje Grunnan: Common Problems Related to Crisis Management of Earthquake Disasters ............. 16

Group Discussions: Part 2 (Identification of Problem Areas) ................................................................... 16

End of Day & Poster Presentation ............................................................................................................. 16

3. Wednesday, 26 June 2013: Workshop Day 2 ................................................................................ 17

ELITE



Key Note Speaker: Kjiell Larson, Swedish Civil Contingency Agency/MSB ........................................... 17

Group Discussions Part 3 (Identification of Problem Solutions) .............................................................. 17

Stewart Kowalski: Learning Processes within the CoP; Connecting the Dots ........................................ 18

Group Discussions Part 4 (Identification of Barriers for the Living Document) ....................................... 18

IV. LESSONS LEARNED AND HOT WASH-UP ...................................................................................................... 20

Lessons Learned ......................................................................................................................................... 20

Hot Wash-Up & Next Steps ........................................................................................................................ 20

ANNEX A. PARTICIPATING CONSORTIUM MEMBERS & LIST OF PARTICIPANTS COP.................................................. 22

ANNEX A.1. PARTICIPATING CONSORTIUM MEMBERS .............................................................................................. 22

ANNEX A.2. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE COP ...................................................................................................... 23

ANNEX B. WORKSHOP AGENDA............................................................................................................................... 24

ANNEX C. KEY NOTE SPEAKER: EDWARD PEARN ON “ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING – FOCUSING ON EARTHQUAKES” ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

ANNEX D: END-USER PRESENTATIONS ................................................................................................................... 27

ANNEX D. 1. LUIS SAENZ DE SAN PEDRO ALBA ....................................................................................................... 27

ANNEX D.2. MARCO MUCCIARELLI .......................................................................................................................... 30

ANNEX D.3. ALESSANDRO REBEZ ........................................................................................................................... 31

ANNEX D.4. GIAN PAOLO POLLINI ........................................................................................................................... 32

ANNEX E. EXEMPLARY NOTES ON GROUP FINDINGS GROUP DISCUSSIONS PART 2 ................................................ 33

ELITE



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The report at hand serves to summarize the lessons learned in the second workshop of the ELITE (Elicit to Learn Crucial

Post-Crisis Lessons) project. The workshop taking place from 24 to 27 June 2013 in Weeze, Germany, focused on

earthquakes and the further promoted the Community of Practice (CoP) of disaster relief agencies or civil protection

institutions. This report includes the workshop preparation processes, the participant registration, and minutes of all

workshop sessions. Moreover, excerpts from experts’ presentations are delivered herein as are findings of group

discussions. Naturally, this report contains a summary of lessons learned, especially with regards to the development of the

ELITE end product, the living document.

ELITE



I. INTRODUCTION

This report documents the preparation of the second workshop that discusses earthquakes. Workshop II “Earthquakes” took

place from 24 to 27 June 2013 in Weeze, Germany. Disaster relief experts participated alongside representatives of civil

protection agencies and research institutions. The report includes the invitation and registration process, the progress of the

actual workshop as well as a short summary and lessons learned review. The workshop progress is mirrored by a mixture of

minutes of the different workshop sessions and excerpts from presentations that were held during the two days.

First, read through the organization of the earthquake workshop that includes the preparation and registration procedures.

For a full insight into the means of communication and consortium cooperation, please review the lessons learned report

from workshop I “Forest Fires” as these means have not deviated much.

This report then illustrates the second workshop’s agenda followed by the workshop minutes. Throughout the minutes,

excerpts from presentations are included in order to best indicate the discussion points made and the progress made

towards the ELITE project’s end product.

Finally, the workshop minutes are preceded by a discussion of next steps and lessons learned for the overall project and the

upcoming workshops alike.

ELITE



II. ORGANIZATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WP2-ASSIGNMENTS: PLANNING OF WORKSHOP II “EARTHQUAKES”

1. Invitation Process

A similar invitation letter was used in order to inform potential participants about the upcoming workshop. The pool of participants contained contacts and suggestions of all consortium partners, renown experts from the disaster relief and civil protection fields, and participants of the first workshop. (For a full list of participants see Annex A)

As was done prior to the first workshop, a staggered principle of invitation was used. As a selection of participants were invited in a first round of whom not everyone could confirm their participation, a second round of invitations was sent out. A list of participants and participating consortium members is included in Annex A.

2. Travel information and arrangement, registration

Since the second workshop took place in Weeze, Germany, too, the same pamphlet of travel information was used as for the first workshop. The pamphlet is to to best inform the workshop participants about their whereabouts, journey to and from the workshop, overall information about their geographical destination and travel recommendations.

A short registration table (see table below) was added to the travel information and invitation letter in order to derive all the relevant travel information and travel ideas. The overall organization of travels was conducted successfully and on-time.

Full name (as it is on your passport) ___________________________

Full name of the organization you are representing ___________________________

Mobile phone number ___________________________

Preferred airport of departure ___________________________

The earliest date and time you would be available to travel ___________________________

The latest date and time you would need to be back on the preferred airport of departure

___________________________

Remarks ___________________________

Table 1. Registration table sent out to the participants with the invitation letter.

ELITE



3. Agenda-Setting

The initial agenda was planned via email and telephone conferences prior to the workshop. Nevertheless, last changes were made in full agreement of all consortium partners on Monday, 24 June 2013. Throughout the workshop, no significant adjustments had to be made concerning the workshop. Its objectives were clear and guided along in the agenda. See Annex B for the full schedule.

4. Arrival, Transport and Accommodation

The point of arrival for the workshop participants deviated from that in workshop I. The consortium members decided that the total duration of the workshop should last two full days instead of one and a half which required the experts to arrive on Monday and leave on Wednesday from the late afternoon onwards. This procedure allowed for longer discussions to be included in the agenda. Thus, the consortium members and almost all participants arrived on Monday, 24 June 2013. Those that were not able to arrive the night before the workshop still managed to be there for the starting session.

The accommodation and transport arrangements remained similar to those in the first workshop. Shuttle services by taxi and members from I.S.A.R. Germany were arranged for. Moreover, the same type of accommodation was available, too.

ELITE



III. WORKSHOP DOCUMENTARY – MEETING MINUTES AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Monday, 24 June 2013: Prior to the Workshop

The consortium partners met prior to the actual workshop II in order to discuss the agenda, decide on discussion groups, and talk through the presentations to be held by consortium members. Moreover, the registration process and invitation were discussed as well as last-minute cancellations by individual participants.

Another point of consideration was how to better introduce the consortium partners clarifying the role and responsibilities.

Further formal assignments and responsibilities from the project were discussed with all consortium partners.

Concerning the second workshop, the discussion groups were organized as followed:

Group 1 Group 2 Group3 Tonje Grunnan Stewart Kowalski Maren Maal José Maria Sarriegi Bénédicte Goujo Josune Hernantes ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jordi Masdeu Jordi Bosch Gian Paolo Pollini Bernhard Kaiser Marco Mucciarelli Maciej Garczyński Alessandro Rebez Edward Pearn Björn Robach Rudolph Parkes Thomas Nesensohn Piet Schneider Luis Sanchez de San Pedro Alba Ana Lopez Loiarte Kjell Larson Barbara Montanucci Maria Victoria Carazo Alcubilla Sabatino Piscitelli Claudia Coccetti Ana Laugé Riccardo Ricci Maria Rosaria Gallipolli Gert Lang Rikus van Santen

Rafal Wrobel Mareike Illing

Table 2. Division of discussion groups.

For the group leaders (marked above in Italics), it was decided to carry the responsibility to lead the discussion and enable the group to answer all assigned tasks and questions. The second person enlisted is the note taker (marked above in Italics) who carries not only the responsibility to document the discussion but also to keep track of time in each discussion round.

ELITE



2. Tuesday, 25 June 2013: Workshop Day 1

Introductiory Session

Once all the participants arrived, workshop II “Earthquakes” started out with a short round of introductions of the consortium partners and all participants. The consortium partners stood up front and faced the participants which allowed for a vis-à-vis conversation. Rikus van Santen welcomed the audience at Training Base Weeze in Weeze, Germany, and coordinated the introductions.

As a second step, José Maria Sarriegi, the project coordinator, held a presentation on the ELITE projects, its objectives and aims. Then, Josune Hernantes informed the participants about the idea of a ELITE living document as end product comparing it to a solution similar to Wikipedia. TECNUN, as represented by Josune Hernantes, was able to show a draft prototype in order to have the participants better imagine the end product. Generally, this introduction to what a living document is and to what the CoP is to bring forward better fostered the understanding of the overall ELITE project.

Moreover, Josune Hernantes introduced a type of “wish list” suggesting to consider the type of information, keywords, frame of information, the CoP would like to use in the living document. See the excerpt from the TECNUN presentation below. The illustration of questions was intended to guide through the entire workshop II.

Figure 1. Excerpt from the TECHNUN introductiory presentation, held by Josune Hernantes, displaying items the the end-users may define.

The introductiory session naturally resembled that of the first workshop on forest fires. The content remained the same except for the introduction of a draft living document in order for the participants to better grasp the idea.

Prior to the workshop, it was agreed that the experts need a greater chance to discuss relevant issues. The group discussions served as guidance through the workshop. Four different components for the end product were to be debated by the participants and consortium members: (1) Identification of characteristics and criteria that experts would be looking for in a living document, (2) Identification of problem areas in earthquake relief/civil protection, (3) Identification of problem

ELITE



solutions, and (4) Identification of barriers to the ELITE living document. For each component, one round of discussion is anchored in the agenda.

Group Discussions: Part 1 (Identification of Characteristics and Criteria)

The first group discussions followed immediately after the introductiory sessions and intended to identify criteria and characteristics that the CoP would use in a living document. As in any discussion round, the group leaders were responsible to run through the questions. The following first provides a summary of the findings per group. Then, these findings are summed up in one brief explanation of findings.

Several questions were posed in order to identify the common criteria and characteristics: What kind of information would you want to see? How do you search for information? What kind of keywords would you use? Thus, the first assignment to the group included to brainstorm what kind of information the members of the CoP would want to be able to find on the living document.

Findings Group 1

-Several networks coexist on a local, regional, national, and international level.

[Example: The Italian national system works quite efficiently.]

-The opportunity to participate in common projects.

-The living document should not only contain information but a way to find particular persons and individuals

from the branch.

Classification Criteria:

-Level of confidentiality

-Content: data technology, planning, communication means

-Use of automatic translation/visual language

Findings Group 2

ELITE



Figure 2. Excerpts from the discussion findings of group 2 (summary).

Findings Group 2

ELITE



Figure 3. Excerpts from the discussion findings of group 3 (summary).

Summary of All Findings

The group discussions on search criteria and characteristics for the living document, that is on the information the CoP would like to be able to rely on from the ELITE document, brought forward a variety of diverse findings. However, the summaries from above suggest that an overlap of needs and wishes exists. Terms such as maps, information on social media, earthquake characteristics, building types and sizes each indicate a common interest.

One problem that was discussed is that the information that is already available in a CoP is often largely restricted so that it cannot be circulated among a greater community. The level of confidentiality, thus, becomes a problem in the distribution of the desired information.

Moreover, the groups each picked up on the trustworthiness of information. Who delivers the information? Is it credible and secure? These questions need to be concerned. One group suggested to include political and scientific documents. Here, too, confidentiality and credibility levels need to be checked.

Another aspect that was debated across the groups was that particular networks of knowledge exchange already exist. The VO and GDACS are repeatedly brought into the discussions. Thus, the added value needs to be a different one. This is supported by the finding that in a disaster scenario one often cannot operate using the internet. The recent earthquake in Tuscany in mid-June 2013 showed that the telecommunication services are overcrowded to begin with. A general understanding is reached that claims for the usage of a different system in (European) civil protection mechanisms.

Moreover, it was stated that all kinds of information need to be distributed along local representatives, too. Make it available for all levels of authorities.

Generally, all participants agreed that the living document – or any comparable product – needs to give the opportunity to network among experts. Here, most participants saw a great potential in the CoP but also in the living document to be developed as it differentiates from existing networks.

Key Note Speaker: Edward Pearn, consultant to the UN and NATO

“Organisational Learning – Focusing on Earthquakes”

Edward Pearn started out with a little mindtrick and quiz. It suggested the different levels of learning. From here, the discussion on learning processes was started. According to the key note speaker, learning occurs by different means, through interviews, debriefing, experience, etc. However, learning is also a matter of wording. Often semantics are argued about rather than the actual content of the words.

ELITE



Three components brought forward by Edward Pearn are “conceive”, “act”, and “reflect”. Together, these three components make up learning. Nevertheless, there are implications to knowledge management, hence, to learning processes, too.

1. Create the ideal organisation & environment. 2. Identify how & why something hast to be learned. 3. Learning must be useful for its audience.

These implications remain unsolved for the ELITE consortium for the time being; nevertheless are they identified as core implications to be solved by the means of the workshops and meetings of the CoP.

Question posed: Why don’t we learn from our mistakes?

This question leads to motivation theory and the concept of loop-learning.

Single-Loop Double-Loop Triple-Loop

With explicit practices, policies and norms of behavior

Reflection on the appropriateness of underlying practices

Organisational self-examination

“Mistakes & error” “Did I understand the problem & did I do it right?”

“Root & branch”-examination

Further, Edward Pearn brought forward the antagonism of being either a professional or a practitioner. The identification of yourself is mandatory in order to distinguish how to best learn for yourself. However, the degree of professionalism or practitioning may deviate in different environments; it often is a way of thinking and living. The following summarizes the antagonism:

Professionalism Practitioners

“thinking” “groundwork”

Dissemination & reproduction of tacit knowledge

Distribution/sharing of factual practical skills/knowledge

Nevertheless, successful learning relies upon a set of rules. The labelling of things may restrict information to particular audiences, whereas the lack of a label may attract a more diversified audience. However, this approach requires the usage of a language that everyone understands and types of information that everyone can handle. In addition, idiosyncrasies in information sharing and dealing with its dissemination need to be respected.

Edward Pearn further explained organizational learning by applying an example from Hurricane Katharina and NASA’s space shuttle accident. Within this framework, the key note speaker provokes the question whether or not organizational learning is sometimes restricted by politics, etc.

ELITE



Presentations from End-Users: Luis Saenz de San Pedro Alba

“The Spanish Model of Civil Protection”

Luis Saenz de San Pedro Alba is a representative of the Spanish Ministry of Interior and the General Directorate of Civil Protection. His presentation followed a three-fold approach. Starting out with a general insight into the (1) Spanish civil protection mechanisms, Saenz then illustrates the (2) Lorca earthquake as well as a (3) European exercise “Richter” on earthquake relief.

The first part of Saenz’s presentation included a detailed illustration of the many spheres involved in civil protection, legally, politically and operationally. The legal spheres rank from EU legislation to legal arrangements on a city or communal level. The same accounts for the different actors involved in civil protection, ranging from national armed forces, via regional police and fire brigades to the very individual preparedness of people living in affected areas.

In the second part of Saenz’s presentation, a general overview is given on the effects and consequences of the Lorca earthquake in 2011. Death tolls, information on internally displaced persons, the scope of destruction, and the relief forces involved is given in an illustrative manner.

The last section describes the participation of Spanish civil protection agencies in the 2012 Richter exercise that was organized by the European Union and involved USAR teams, TAST forces, civil protection agencies, and fire brigades. The exercise intended to deepen the interoperability of civil protection forces across the EU as earthquakes such as the Lorca one cross borders and effect people alongside country lines.

For a full review of the presentation, please contact the ELITE project coordinator. In Annex D.1., find certain excerpts from the presentation by Luis Saenz de San Pedro Alba.

Presentations from End-Users: Marco Mucciarelli

“Emergency preparedness activities performed during an evolving seismic swarm: the experience of the Pollino sequence (Southern Italy, 2010-201?)”

Marco Mucciarelli is the Director of the Seismological Research Centre in the National Institute of Oceanography and Experimental Geophysics (OGS). In his presentation, he gave an insight on emergency preparedness procedures during the Pollino sequences, a sequence of seismic activity in the Basilicata and Calabria regions, Italy. This sequence frightened the Italian population, awaking the memories of the L’Aquila earthquake. As earthquakes cannot be predicted, the civil protection authorities from different levels took on a variety of emergency preparedness plans, teaching the population how to cope with the sequence and how to prepare for large-scale disasters.

Moreover, Marco Mucciarelli gave some general impressions from Italy that relate to earthquake scenarios.

For a full review of the presentation, please contact the ELITE project coordinator. In Annex D.2., find certain excerpts from the presentation by Marco Mucciarelli.

ELITE



Presentations from End-Users: Alessandro Rebez

“Civil Protection Municipal Emergency Plans: earthquake emergency procedures in the frame of the regional plan of emergencies in Friuli Venezia Giulia”

Alessandro Rebez works at the Italian National Institute of Oceanography and Experimental Geophysics. In his presentation, Rebez indicates how the municipality in Fiuli Venezia Giulia handles earthquake-related emergency situations. Striking features is the magnitude threshold, according to which it is distinguished whether an earthquake becomes an emergency. In the region, the threshold is set to a 5.5 magnitude on the Richter scale. Moreover, the municipality uses a coding system in order to implement and apply emergency procedures.

For a full review of the presentation, please contact the ELITE project coordinator. In Annex D.3., find certain excerpts from the presentation by Alessandro Rebez.

Presentations from End-Users: Gian Paolo Pollini

“Progetto ASSESS”

Gian Paolo Pollini is a representative of the Province of Terni, Italy. In his presentation, he shows how emergency procedures are structured in the Province of Perugia. Striking in the presentation is the risk analysis conducted. Soil and site hazards are illustrated and compared against one another. From this point, geological risk modelling as well as the implementation of emergency plans are conducted.

As a second part of his presentation, Gian Paolo Pollini taught the audience about a cartoon video about what to do in an earthquake scenario.

For a full review of the presentation, please contact the ELITE project coordinator. In Annex D.4., find certain excerpts from the presentation by Gian Paolo Pollini.

ELITE



Tonje Grunnan: Common Problems Related to Crisis Management of Earthquake Disasters

Tonje Grunnan introduces the next items to be argued about in discussion round two. Using a presentation slide, she poses the question of what are the most common problems in crisis management – and especially, in the different phases of a crisis.

Group Discussions: Part 2 (Identification of Problem Areas)

Findings Group 1 Findings Group 2 Findings Group 3

Knowledge Planning & management Information exchange

Communication Organizational issues Information management

Training experience People issues Knowledge

Risk assessment Coordination Political environment

Prioritization Training & education Learning procedures

Safety Communication Logistics

Equipment/logistics Logistics Forgotten issues

Bureaucracy Knowledge management

Technical issues

An example of detailed notes from the group discussions is enlisted in Annex E.

Summary Findings

In principle, the procedures of the three groups were similar. In brainstorming sessions, the participants collected and discussed the identified problem areas in detail. It is striking that two groups (Groups 1 and 3) went along the different crisis phases, whereas one group (Group 2) collected problem areas across crisis phases, claiming that most problem areas have multiple dimensions and can be applied to the different phases.

As far as the findings are concerned, there is a great overlap of problem areas. In general, the problem areas can be divided into communication, logistics (equipment), knowledge/training/education/learning processes, and organizational issues.

End of Day & Poster Presentation

As lessons learned from the first workshop, the agenda included a session where all participants were able to introduce their agencies, organization or institution. Thus, immediately following the dinner of day one, the consortium partners invited the everyone to illustrate and introduce their posters. While this report does not include the individual information on the participating organizations or institutions, it is noteworthy that this session allowed the Community of Practice to exchange practices, experiences, and procedures in a very informal and comfortable manner where language barriers could be overcome. The networking opportunity for the CoP was quite extensive.

ELITE



3. Wednesday, 26 June 2013: Workshop Day 2

Key Note Speaker: Kjiell Larson, Swedish Civil Contingency Agency/MSB

“How to capture lessons learned from UN INSARAG missions and use them in new missions”

Kjiell Larson is a representative of the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency and MSB. Full of experience in the INSARAG branch, he introduces the topic by explaining UN OCHA, INSARAG, UNDAC, and the Virtual OSOCC. Hereby, he emphasizes the networking opporunities and learning effects in the international earthquake relief community. By the means of UN meetings, experience and best practices are exchanged. However, there is a flaw in the system as it is UN OCHA inviting its participants. This reveals one great weakness of the system: National actors often do not and cannot find the audience to report and exchange information.

At this point, Kjiell Larson emphasizes, too, that INSARAG is the prototype of a CoP that exchanges information. He explains this by illustrating the agencies history. It incorporates best and worst practices from the Armenian earthquake and every mission ever since. Thus, the small CoP evolving around INSARAG functions quite well. However, one problem is that UN OCHA does not have the resources to bring forward the learning experiences to a greater audience. UN OCHA uses three tools within its community to exchange information: consultants, meetings, and normal evaluation, but it lacks those that carry out the learning process, analyses of all three components, etc. Hence, the learning process often remains within fragmented parts of the CoP.

Group Discussions Part 3 (Identification of Problem Solutions)

Findings

The following slides show the group discussion findings. The figures 1, 2, and 3 behind each bulletin point indicate whether the problem/problem solution remains in crisis phases 1 (preparedness/pre-crisis), 2 (response/crisis), and 3 (de-briefing/post-crisis).

ELITE



Figure 4. Summary of Findings, Group Discussions Part 3

Stewart Kowalski: Learning Processes within the CoP; Connecting the Dots

Consortium partner Stewart Kowalski explains a mental model, that is a socio-technical model that has once been developed for management training. He poses the question of why we use a model in the first place. An illustration of naïve mental models follows the discussion. Then, an abstract model composing cultures, structures, procedures, and machines is introduced. Herein, cultures and structures make up the social system whereas the procdures and machines compose the technical system. Within the discussions, the model is supposed to be used to allocate the different problem areas.

Group Discussions Part 4 (Identification of Barriers for the Living Document)

In this section, the last round of group discussions is summarized only. The individual groups identified most of the barriers as they went along the two workshop days. Nevertheless, the last discussions resulted in a useful list of barriers and gave the opportunity to relate the barriers to the problems and characteristics as mentioned before. Read across the identified barriers for the living document:

• There are many language barriers, different terminology, etc. which hinder adoption (culture). • The living document is not a machinery for actual/current crisis situations. • In order for the document to be a living one, we need a group of experts to implement it and keep it up and running. • The living document is not part of an organisational quality process. • The living document may be hurdled by political processes (confidentiality).

ELITE



• The CoP may hinder itself by a false pride in culture and structure. • The living document raises security concerns, e. g. for documents that are ranked confidential. • Most technical problems are solvable. • In the long term, how will be the living document kept alive? (I.e. after project closing) • In order for USAR teams to use the living document, the quality needs to be extraordinarily high as the internet is

full of sources and the USAR community already has a large network. • The structure must not be complicated and complex, but short and easily recognizable. • There are different understandings of what a community is, how it works, how one can benefit from it

(culture/norms). • Not only multimedia usage, but incorporate it as well. • People do not want to change, they feel comfortable and refuse changes (culture). • Learning processes may be different from organization to organization. • The structure of the living document is still not clearly defined.

ELITE



IV. LESSONS LEARNED AND HOT WASH-UP

Lessons Learned

Overall, workshop II “Earthquakes” was fruitful with regards to the ELITE end product. The identification of criteria and characteristics to search for in the living document, the problem areas and solutions thereto as well as the identification of barriers gave the consortium members a better insight into what the ELITE living document should look like, and how it would be used by a Community of Practice.

From the perspective of the CoP, the feedback was generally good. The idea to develop a new tool and create such a wide network was appreciated and welcomed by most experts. Most participants were eager to follow up on the ELITE project and keep involved – which is why an informal invitation to workshop III “Floods” was already articulated in the closing session.

Further, the identification tasks in the group discussion illustrated the need to keep the structure of the living document relatively simple. While there is a wide selection of problem areas, for instance, one can easily narrow these down to communication, training, information management, and logistic issues. While this may render the classification comparatively easy, it is important to include all variables that connect to these problm areas. Taking the example of information management, one may not classify knowledge aspect as matters of information management right away. The group discussion showed that many terms are used for one and the same subject matter. Again, this connects to the the language barriers identified in both workshops as a main barrier to using the living document.

Certain aspects that were brought forward as problematic in the first workshop were subjected to discussion again. Security concerns and confidentiality levels are considered a huge problem for a living document and the wider Community of Practice as the quality and content of such documents is seen as highly valuable. Most participants claim that the most relevant information cannot be circulated publically.

Another point that sticks out is the similarity to the UN system, the Virtual OSOCC and GDACS. It is urgent that the ELITE living document does not become a doubled version of the international system. The network around it is quite strong and functioning well. Thus, the ELITE document needs to carry an added value even for those CoP members that are anchored within the UN system already.

Hot Wash-Up & Next Steps

Workshop II benefited from a selection of very talk active experts that were eager to share their opinion and experience. Thus, the practice of going from a very practical starting point to a rather theoretical abstract functioned surprisingly well. As the experts were eager to further develop the project whose concept they could easily grasp from the visual and prototype, they remained concentrated, creative, and helpful for the more abstract considerations about technology and conceptualization.

The results from the problem and solutions discussion rounds can be taken up in the next workshop now. Generally, the consortium partners agreed that the agenda should be structured similarly to this of this second workshop.

Moreover, the time frame of the second workshop worked much better than that of the first. Thus, the consortium intends to invite the participants to the third workshop the evening in advance again.

As far as the CoP is concerned, the second workshop proved that it is important to give the participants the room, time, and space to present themselves, their organizations and best practices. While the third workshop can neither include

ELITE



presentations of all participants, a step that needs to be considered in the agenda-setting for workshop III is to give the participants the floor – also in a poster session or in some other way.

Overall, workshop II “Earthquakes” further defined and articulated the overall objectives of the ELITE project and the end product, the living document. The workshop, therefore, was a success that promoted ideas for both the content and general conceptualization of the living document.

ELITE



ANNEX A. PARTICIPATING CONSORTIUM MEMBERS & LIST OF PARTICIPANTS COP

ANNEX A.1. PARTICIPATING CONSORTIUM MEMBERS

Consortium Members

Gallipoli, Maria Rosaria Istituto di Metodologie per l'analisi ambientale, Department of Earth and Environment of the National Research Council

Goujon, Bénédicte Thales Research & Technology

Grunnan, Tonje Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt (FFI)

Hernantes, Josune TECNUN Departamento de Organización Industrial

Kowalski, Stewart University College Gjøvik

Lang, Gert Forschungsinstitut des Roten Kreuzes

Laugé, Ana TECNUN

Maal, Maren Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt (FFI)

Neuruhrer, Maria Forschungsinstitut des Roten Kreuzes

Piscitelli, Sabatino Istituto di Metodologie per l'analisi ambientale, Department of Earth and Environment of the National Research Council

Ricci, Riccardo ANCI Umbria

Sarriegi, José Maria TECNUN

Wrobel, Rafal SGSP - Polish Main School of Fire Service

ELITE



ANNEX A.2. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE COP

Participants

Batlle Masdeu, Jordi Bombers de la Generalitat de Catalunya

Bosch, Jordi Bombers de la Generalitat de Catalunya

Carazo Alcubilla, Maria Victoria

Servicio Prevención Riesgos Laborales, Departamento de Educación Gobierno Vasco Garczyński, Maciej Polish State Fire Service

Kaiser, Bernhard Austrian Federal Ministry of Defense and Sports

Klaassens, Siske Veiligheidsregio Groningen

Larson, Kjiell MSB

López Loiarte, Ana Directorate of Emergency and Meteorology services, Basque Government Montanucci, Barbara Province of Perugia, Italy

Mucciarelli, Marco National Institute of Oceanography and Geophysics

Nesensohn, Thomas SARUV

Parkes, Rudolph UK ISAR

Pearn, Edward Consultant with UN and NATO

Pollini, Gian Paolo Province of Terni, Italy

Rebez, Alessandro National Institute of Oceanography and Geophysics

Robach, Björn I.S.A.R. Germany

Saenz de San Pedro Alba, Luis

General Directorate of Civil Protection, Ministerio del Interior, Gobierno de España Schneider, Piet Police Academy of the Netherlands

Schuurman, Paul Police Academy of the Netherlands

ELITE



ANNEX B. WORKSHOP AGENDA

Agenda for: ELITE Workshop on Earthquake disasters, Weeze, 24th -27th June, 2013

Monday, June 24

19:00 Welcoming dinner, hosted by the ELITE consortium

20:15 Guided walk through Training Base Weeze, Rikus van Santen, ISAR Germany

Tuesday, June 25 (The problems)

What are the best means of sharing lessons learned from natural crises?

Breakfast

09:00 Welcome, Rikus van Santen , ISAR Germany introduction of the consortium

09.05 Introduction of the participants

09:15 Welcoming remarks - Aim and objectives of ELITE, José M. Sarriegi, TECNUN, ELITE project coordinator

09:30 What is a Community of Practise? Josune Hernantes, Tecnun

09:45 What is the “living” document and how can this tool benefit your organization? - Presentation of current prototype and classification criteria, Josune Hernantes, TECNUN and Bénédicte Goujon, Thales

Group discussions: Identify relevant classification criteria

11.15 Summary by the Group leaders: Josune, Sarri and Bénédicte

11:30 Coffee break

11:45 Key note speaker: Lessons learned from crises:

Edward G. Pearn, UN & NATO consultant: “Organisational learning from natural disasters – focusing on earthquakes”

Q&A

12:30 Lunch

13:30 Presentations from end-users

ELITE



Luiz Saenz, Spanish Civil Protection Agency Marco Mucciarelli, University of Basilicata/Seismological Research Centre, Italy: "Scientific support to civil protection for seismic risk mitigation" Alessandro Rebez Gian Paolo Pollini

Moderator: Stewart Kowalski, GUC

14:45 Coffee break

15:00 Common problems related to crisis management of earthquake disasters, Tonje Grunnan, FFI

Group discussions: Identify problem areas

16.45 Summary by Group leaders: Tonje, Maren and Stewart

17:00 End of day/ Hand-out of the questionnaire on learning styles

18:30 Dinner

19:30 Poster presentations

Social gathering in the bar

Wednesday, June 26 (The solutions)

Learning from crises – how can we make best practices?

Breakfast

09:00 Key note speaker: Learning processes within a crisis management organization

Kjell T. Larsson, Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency: “How to capture lessons learned from UN INSARAG missions and use them in new missions”

Q&A

10:00 Solutions to problem areas in crisis management of earthquake disasters, Tonje Grunnan, FFI

Group discussions: Find solutions to problem areas

(with coffee break)


12:30 Lunch

ELITE



13:30 Learning processes within Community of Practises; Connecting the dots – a socio-technical framework, Stewart Kowalski, GUC

Group discussions: Identify the hinders to learning in your organization


15:00 To summarize: What’s next - opinions from CoP on ELITE, José M. Sarriegi, Tecnun

15:30 Closing statement

(Shuttle bus to airport for experts)

ELITE



ANNEX C. KEY NOTE SPEAKER: EDWARD PEARN ON “ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING – FOCUSING ON EARTHQUAKES”

Excerpts from the presentation:

Figure 5. Excerpts from Edward Pearn's presentation, Loop Learning 2013.

ANNEX D: END-USER PRESENTATIONS

ANNEX D. 1. LUIS SAENZ DE SAN PEDRO ALBA

“The Spanish Model of Civil Protection”

ELITE



For a full review of the presentation, please contact the ELITE project coordinator. Find here selected excerpts from the presentation by Luis Saenz de San Pedro Alba.

ELITE



Figure 6. Excerpts from Luis Saenz's presentation, The Spanish Civil Protection Model 2013.

ELITE



ANNEX D.2. MARCO MUCCIARELLI

“Emergency preparedness activities performed during an evolving seismic swarm: the experience of the Pollino sequence (Southern Italy, 2010-201?)”

For a full review of the presentation, please contact the ELITE project coordinator. Find here selected excerpts from the presentation by Marco Mucciarelli.

Figure 7. Excerpts from Marco Mucciarelli's presentation, Emergency Preparedness Activities 2013.

ELITE



ANNEX D.3. ALESSANDRO REBEZ

“Civil protection municipal emergencies plans: earthquake emergency procedures in the frame of the regional plan of emergencies in Friuli Venezia Giulia”

For a full review of the presentation, please contact the ELITE project coordinator. Find here selected excerpts from the presentation by Alessandro Rebez.

Figure 8. Excerpts frpm Alessandro Rebez's presentation, Civil Protection Municipal Emergency Plans 2013.

ELITE



ANNEX D.4. GIAN PAOLO POLLINI

“Progetto ASSESS”

For a full review of the presentation, please contact the ELITE project coordinator. Find here selected excerpts from the presentation by Gian Paolo Pollini.

Figure 9. Excerpts from Gian Paolo Pollini, Progetto ASSESS 2013.

ELITE



ANNEX E. EXEMPLARY NOTES ON GROUP FINDINGS GROUP DISCUSSIONS PART 2

earthquakes lessons learned workshop report elite_earthquakes_lessons learned.pdf · earthquakes...

Documents