A Systems Thinking Approach to Improving Emergency Communications

Statewide Interoperability Coordinator (SWIC) and Emergency Support Function 2 (Communications) Lead for the State of North Carolina Greg Hauser has a sign outside his office that states, “No Comms, No Battle.” This has become one of the mantras of SWICs across the country and has helped drive the effort to increase Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency (PACE) planning for emergency communications nationwide. By additionally applying systems thinking principles, agencies can enhance their PACE planning to better understand relationships, interactions, and complex interdependencies between systems that are making their PACE plans less resilient than they were aware. By applying a systems thinking approach to planning and considering where hidden dependencies may exist, organizations can  improve the resilience of emergency communications to keep responders in the “battle” longer.

What Is Systems Thinking?

The International Council of Systems Engineers defines systems thinking as “a perspective that sharpens the awareness of wholes and how the parts within those wholes interrelate.” It is a way of understanding a scenario as more than a group of isolated parts but rather as a system of interrelated parts. A system can be a singular item, such as a car or piece of software, or a more abstract concept, such as a department in an organization. Systems thinking is useful in understanding all the components, complex relationships, and interactions within a given system.

For example, when considering a car as a system from a manufacturing point of view, engineers engaged in systems thinking would attempt to gain an understanding of all of the parts and materials that make up the car, including the rubber for the tires and hoses, the glass for the windows, the different metals and fiberglass of the body and engine parts, and the components and software necessary for the electronics. The engineer might also evaluate the workforce and machinery needed for assembly, the external fueling systems and interfaces, and even how the car will be disposed of when it has reached the end of its useful life.

When evaluating complex organizations, systems thinkers might seek to understand many of the foundational pieces of information regarding an organization such as its mission, governance structure, position count, and revenue and expenditures.  However, to truly understand the organization as a system, the evaluator might also explore relationships between divisions within the organization, how and why policies are created, the regulatory environment the organization operates within, any dependencies on other organizations it has, and how the organization has come to occupy the physical space it operates within. Systems thinking is a way to understand context, dependencies, and relationships. A change in one component can influence other components that, on the surface, appear unrelated. It is only by seeking out how the system functions as a whole that relationships begin to manifest.

A systems thinking approach is useful for engineering and organizational change management projects because it can answer questions that lead to better designs, lower costs, greater efficiencies, increased levels of safety, and better outcomes for projects. In light of this, consider how systems thinking can benefit emergency communications and PACE planning.

“Staying in the Battle” Longer: Applying Systems Thinking to PACE Planning

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in partnership with the National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators, recently released a primer on PACE Plans entitled Leveraging the PACE Plan into the Emergency Communications Ecosystem, which outlines the basics of emergency communications PACE planning. Many agencies have quickly adopted the concept and begun identifying their primary, alternate, contingent, and emergency forms of communication for voice and data channels. While this is a great first step, using systems thinking can take PACE planning to the next level by also identifying shared infrastructure and support service dependencies that agencies may not be aware of.

For example, a law enforcement agency might note that primary, mission-critical voice communications will occur via radio on a specific talk group on the regional trunked radio system. By applying systems thinking principles and involving subject matter experts in their planning, PACE planners are likely to discover that their primary means of voice communications have dependencies, which may include

• electrical power;
• connectivity and backhaul, such as fiber or microwave;
• the physical infrastructure at each radio site, including towers and antennas;
• network components and system infrastructure, such as switches and cabling;
• security devices like firewalls and authentication management systems; and
• the need for GPS location services which provide synchronization and timing for the system.

Once planners identify these dependencies, they can work to develop targeted risk mitigation strategies. This can help responders remain in their primary communication mode longer and allow them to “stay in the battle” with familiar technology and equipment. It also prevents an early shift to alternate communication methods, which could compromise safety, efficiency, or both.

While it may not be feasible to mitigate risk to each dependency, systems thinking allows agencies to prioritize limited resources and build resilience in the most efficient ways possible. Additionally, systems thinking allows agencies to identify dependencies beyond their control and either accept the risk, develop relationships with owners of infrastructure they are dependent on in order to influence decisions to lower that risk, or assume ownership of the risk by transferring the dependency.

Making the PACE Plan Even Better

A PACE plan is a tool for building resilience. When one communication mode is disrupted, the plan identifies the next mode to use. A fundamental tenet of PACE planning is that each communication mode must operate independently and cannot rely on another form of communication already identified in the plan. Although planners generally understand this concept, applying a systems thinking approach to PACE planning takes this concept further and can help uncover previously unknown shared dependencies among the plan’s communication modes.

For example, an agency using radio as its primary voice communication method and cellular as an alternate might overlook that, in their local area, both methods share dependencies on fiber infrastructure or electrical power—especially at multi-tenant hilltop sites. A single downed fiber line or power outage could then render both primary and alternate communication methods unusable in a given area. By applying a systems thinking approach to PACE planning, planners could identify this dependency and work with system owners and operators to deploy different, diverse forms of backhaul connectivity or back-up power options to mitigate the risk. Alternatively, planners could also identify a different alternate form of communications within their PACE plan that does not have the same dependency.

PACE planning helps organizations fail gracefully, while systems thinking reduces the likelihood of failure altogether. Combining both approaches can help organizations build true resilience, regardless of the threat or hazard.

To learn more about strengthening interoperability and best practices related to emergency communications, PACE planning, and other topics; to access free resources, including planning guides; and to connect with the SWIC in your state, visit CISA’s National Council of SWICs page.