Communicators’ Corner

Managing information flow in Incident Command

At the beginning of a response, hard facts can be scarce or hard to find. As communicators, our approach to this ‘information desert’ often entails gathering every bit of information we can, regardless of its importance or relevance, to have something, anything to share.

Drinking from the firehose

As the response unfolds within Incident Command (IC), more and more information becomes available, to the point where it can easily overwhelm us in both its pace and quantity. Every physical responder is either reporting incident developments (inbound incident information) or acting against information provided (outbound incident actions).

IC members are requesting and receiving additional information from response partners and resources. After the requested information is gathered, its sorted and analyzed to determine response status and needs. Then the analyzed information is shared across the response. Each Section provides summaries of incident status and their recommendations for specific response actions. This process culminates in coordinated response plans and tactics being implemented by IC and activated across the response. IC does this to ensure the best possible response actions, conducted by the best possible responders, for the best possible outcome.

As IC settles into this rhythm of response, communicators now have to sort through a massive amount of rapidly developing, quickly changing information. Congratulations! From now until demobilization, we’re drinking from a firehose.

How do communicators decide which information is important?

Now there’s too much information, so we have to choose what is most important. How?

First, focus! Remember that in a response, the Joint Information Center (JIC) represents the public. Our role is to provide the affected public with information about the response that meets their information needs. To do this effectively, we need to know which information is, or will be, important to them. Try the following three-pronged approach to determine which information is needed for effective communication content:

1) Stakeholder perceptions: What are affected stakeholders concerned about, and what developments will alarm them?

• Any incident developments or response activity that touches them. Perceived risk is a powerful motivation for increased concern and scrutiny. Any actions that directly impact the public, such as smoke, fire, road closures, odors, etc. require rapid and comprehensive sharing. If the stakeholders perceive risk, they will have three questions: “What has happened?”, “What is being done about it?”, and “Why are we doing what we are doing?”

• Response actions they can see: This one is simple: If they see it, we need to say it.
  
• Key issues as defined by stakeholders. Identified stakeholder concerns (from effective inquiry management, media briefings, elected official or community briefings).
  
• External information or misinformation. In a response external information sources spring up, often attempting to impact or interfere with the response by sharing information that reflects their bias, instead of being factual and supportive of response actions and priorities.
  
  In the ‘good old days’ communication strategy suggested out-waiting these alt-news sources, but in todays media environment, misinformation will both persevere and grow in impact and reach. The good news about today’s media is that everyone in the world can quickly access information about what’s going on; the bad news is that the information may not be accurate. Accuracy comes from the JIC, and our source is the firehose. Scoop into the firehose to find information that answers stakeholder concerns.

2) Key issues as defined by communicators: We need to use an incident assessment process to apply a communicator’s sensitivity on both incident impact and response activities.

• This assessment of incident impact and key issues will provide us with a list of what information we need. Once we know what will be important, we can go to the firehose to find the information that meets these needs. Do you need an incident assessment tool to help with this? Contact me about it.

3) Critical Incident Requirements (CIR): In a response, IC will create a list of critical information that all responders must immediately share with IC. It typically includes items such as spill landfall, responder injuries, closures or access restrictions, shelter-in-place, etc.,

• If it’s important to IC, it will likely be important to stakeholders. Use the IC CIR to determine content needs to immediately address each identified contingency. Be prepared!
  
• JIC Critical Information Requirements (CIR): The JIC must provide IC with a list of critical information required to keep the public on the response’s side. As IC prepared a list of response developments that would make their job harder, so the JIC needs to create and share a similar list of what would make the JIC’s job harder. Share this list with IC and make sure you receive immediate notification of any occurrence. Your list will typically reflect much of IC’s own list but will include stakeholder-centric concerns as well. Incident Command needs to listen to the PIO! Communicators’ sensitivities are critical to ensure ongoing public support of response activities.
  
  • As an example, while IC is concerned that response plans include the likelihood of a spill coming to land, the JIC needs to identify the actual landfall of the spill as a CIR. Communicators must know if people are getting oil on their beach or boats!

Why do this?

If the public doesn’t understand the response, they won’t trust the response. Communicators need to be certain we’re enhancing public understanding of Incident Command’s mission to provide the best possible response actions, conducted by the best possible responders, for the best possible outcome.

The list above allows us to focus on what is most important for public awareness, understanding and acceptance of response actions. Instead of gathering every bit of information we can find, responders can focus on information that will help stakeholders, enhance public understanding and bolster the reputation of the response.

Remember, while an information firehose may deliver too much information at too much force, diverting some of its power to meet a more focused need will result in a more effective information flow for a communicator, and for concerned stakeholders.

Interested in more information?  Contact me! The crisis communication services I provide have a common goal: To improve your capability to effectively communicate to important stakeholders before, during and after an incident or issue. I work with clients to identify their greatest crisis communication needs and provide services to address them. You can enhance your response communication capability with cost-effective, systematic steps to enhance your planning, preparation and performance.

Modern cars are incredibly capable of evasive driving. On-board stability systems prevent us from losing control, and modern tires and suspensions provide our vehicles far more agility than ever before. And yet with all this design and technology available, studies show that the average American driver will drive straight into a collision instead of using even half of their automobile’s evasive capability.

Why? Three reasons:

• First, a minuscule percentage of American drivers have been trained in any form of evasive driving. The only evasive training offered in most driver education courses is the admonition to not lock up your tires when braking! This admonition continues even today, when all new cars have anti lock braking technology – incidentally developed to overcome our tendency to ‘lock ’em up’!
  
• Second, nobody practices evasive driving. Even if exposed to it, the exposure is in a specialized training program, on a dedicated location with artificial barriers and scenarios. Nobody practices evasive driving on public roads! Even when some hot-shoe tries it, they usually end up in a ditch, around a tree or in someone’s living room. Their escapade then ends up on local TV news, further cementing a societal aversion to practice.
• Finally, we don’t think we need it. Despite the fact that more than 90% of crashes involve human error, three-quarters (73 percent) of US drivers consider themselves better-than-average drivers. Why worry about getting better at what we do when we’re already so good at it!

So, we don’t even think about our capability to response. We never learn new skills and we don’t practice the ones we have. Any minimal skills we’ve been exposed to atrophy from disuse. And we keep driving straight into collisions, in blissful ignorance of our own inability.

What does this have to do with crisis communication?

Think of an incident as a collision between your reputation and public outrage. Are you ready to respond? Do you have the core skills to avoid reputational ruin? Have you practiced your immediate response actions? Do you know how to ‘steer around’ the pitfalls of response public information?

Most likely not. Here’s what will probably happen to you in an incident:

• An incident occurs and you’re not even notified
  This is your reputational ‘should have seen it coming‘ moment. You can’t avoid what you don’t see.
• You’re notified but you don’t know the extent of the damage
  This is your reputational ‘should have called the police‘ mistake, when the damage to your vehicle (or reputation) is much greater than you thought, but you discovered it too late.
• You don’t have messaging ready to use
  This is your ‘license and registration please‘ moment, the reputational equivalent of not having your license, registration and insurance card with you. You’d be OK if only you’d had the information the police (or your public) need.
• You can’t get draft content approved and out to stakeholders
  This is your ‘waiting for a tow truck‘ moment (or hour, or longer) when everyone else moves along and you’re sitting in a damaged car in the dark, waiting for ‘Jiffy Towing’ to show up… hours later.
• You report the accident too late, and lose the ‘coverage sprint’
  The other driver reports damage and injuries before you do and settlement actions swing in their favor. This is your ‘should have spoken sooner‘ moments when you realize that public opinion is solidifying….against you.

So how do you avoid these moments?

• “Should have seen it coming”
  Be sure you’re notified immediately, and that you have access to the same response information that is being shared in required notifications.
• “Should have called the police!”
  Be ready to assess incident severity from a reputational viewpoint. Use incident and issue assessment forms to quickly identify severity of the incident and potency of related issues.
• “Sorry, I don’t have my license and registration”
  Have draft and pre-approved content ready for modification and use.
• “Waiting for a tow truck”
  Streamline approval processes so you can keep up with your public, and ensure you have rapid dissemination capability so they actually get it.
• “Should have spoken sooner”
  All of the above: Quickly determine what you must say. Have your statement templates and key messages ready for use. Streamline your approval process and get information out to your key stakeholders.

Don’t let lack of preparation or assumption of competency jeopardize your communication capability. Be ready to avoid reputation damage and the associated expense and disruption.

Start fast! Be prepared! For more information, read my ‘Gaining Traction‘ blog.

I welcome your Questions or Comments