The document discusses the CRISMA crisis management simulation approach which uses modeling and indicators to compare different crisis management strategies. It aims to support multi-organizational planning, evaluate investment options, improve cooperation, and provide more flexible training. The document outlines different types of indicators that can be used including situation, capacity, economic impact, and key performance indicators. It provides an example of using resource planning indicators for a simulated bus accident scenario.
A Holistic Approach Towards International Disaster Resilient Architecture by ...
ENGELBACH-Indicators to compare simulated crisis management strategies-ID1065-IDRC2014_b
1. Modelling crisis management for improved action and preparedness
Indicators to compare simulated
crisis management strategies
W. Engelbach, S. Frings, R. Molarius, C. Aubrecht,
M. Meriste, A. Perrels
Email: wolf.engelbach@iao.fraunhofer.de
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research,
technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 284552 "CRISMA“
2. 26.08.14 | 2
CRISMA crisis management simulation approach
A framework to build integrated modelling and simulation
systems
CRISMA facilitates simulation and modelling of
realistic crisis management scenarios;
possible response actions; and
the impacts of crisis, depending on crisis evolvement and
various crisis management actions.
CRISMA will support
multi-organisational short and long term strategic planning,
impact evaluation of e.g. investment options,
improving multi-organisational cooperation, and
more flexible training.
3. 26.08.14 | 3
Indicators in simulation scenario reflection
Indicators replace intuitive opinions with verifiable data
Indicators can be absolute values or ratios.
Indicators allow for complete crisis management scenarios
Comparison of complete scenarios (benchmarking)
Checking against target values (criteria)
Indicators allow for one scenario
Understanding over time (evolution)
Differentiation for regions (spatialisation)
4. 26.08.14 | 4
CRISMA Test cases
Pilot A : Northern winter storm with cross-border effects (Finland)
Pilot B : Coastal submersion – Charente-Maritime (France)
Pilot C : Accidental pollution – Ashod (Israel)
Pilot D : Geophysical hazards – L’Aquila (Italy)
Pilot E : Mass casualty incidents – Bavaria and Berlin (Germany)
6. 26.08.14 | 6
1. Situation indicators
Related to hazard, vulnerability and impact
Status of the world, e.g. meteorological parameters, or
demographical, structural and network characteristics
“intensity of hazard”, “number and features of elements at
risk”, and “damage per element type”
Supported decisions by these indicators
Mitigation options and resource investments in preparation
Resource allocation and evacuation during crisis
At a national level and in the context of electricity blackout:
“number of households without telecommunication
for more than two hours per district”.
7. 26.08.14 | 7
2. Capacity and resource planning indicators
Address real world objects and personnel deployed, e.g.
patient situation (numbers and status)
resource situation (vehicle, equipment, responder)
time until arrival of resources
treatment performance of resources
Key in simulated response phase of crisis management
E.g. in the context of forest fires, fire brigade resources
E.g. for evacuation, event-time-specific population distribution
8. 26.08.14 | 8
3. Economic impact indicators
Often valid for several hazards
Strategic-level indicators: economic implications of the state of
preparedness and resilience of an area
macro-economic impact multiplier
fiscal gap indicator
insurance coverage
Operational-level indicators: expected economic impacts of
hazards
facilitate early stage decision making in an unfolding crisis
e.g. power outage
9. 26.08.14 | 9
4. Key performance indicators (KPI)
KPI evaluate the efficiency of the crisis management.
(1) KPIs measure absolute results or relations
of the crisis management or mitigation activities
(2) KPI are valid in the scope of the whole scenario
(3) KPI really matter to the stakeholders
Examples
hours needed for evacuation
number of depleted resources
duration of road interruptions
11. 26.08.14 | 11
Scenario modifications
Decision alternatives “resource planning” for “bus accident”
Treatment strategies
Transportation strategies
Situation variables
time and date of incident, location
number and injury status of patients (red, yellow, green)
number and type of first responders, and available vehicles
Agent-based simulation for behaviour and decision representation
health or injury patterns for the patients
skill level and recreation demands of first responders
transport capacity and fuelling needs of vehicles
12. 26.08.14 | 12
Post-Hyogo contribution
CRISMA enables national authorities to provide assistance to local
authorities by offering relevant reference scenarios and indicators
Rigid and consistent management of disaster risk reduction
Systematic and regular crisis management simulations helps
to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels
CRISMA indicators support the implementation of a strong
institutional basis for awareness in crisis management
Identification, assessment and monitoring of disaster risks
within and between regions
Check the quantity and quality of resources available to
answer assumed crisis scenarios
Better decision base for awareness programs, pre-event planning,
communication to the public and investment priorities.
13. 26.08.14 | 13
Conclusions
Indicators provide a condensed view that enables decision makers
to quickly understand a situation as well as alternative scenarios
Common understanding of available and applicable indicators in
the scope of the CRISMA modelling and simulation approach
Currently these indicators are tested in CRISMA pilot studies with
many crisis managers that address specific decision situations