1 / 31

Stanford University Department Operations Center Evacuation Exercise Debrief

Stanford University Department Operations Center Evacuation Exercise Debrief. October 22, 2010. Evacuation Exercise. Debrief Overview My stuff Exercise objectives Review of the sequence of events AlertSU mass notification performance AlertSU Outdoor Warning System Your Stuff

phong
Télécharger la présentation

Stanford University Department Operations Center Evacuation Exercise Debrief

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stanford UniversityDepartment Operations Center Evacuation Exercise Debrief October 22, 2010

  2. Evacuation Exercise • Debrief Overview • My stuff • Exercise objectives • Review of the sequence of events • AlertSUmass notification performance • AlertSU Outdoor Warning System • Your Stuff • EAP coordination • Accounting for staff • Accounting for students • Additional exercise projects • Aerial photography, photo mapping, Twitter

  3. Evacuation Exercise • Exercise Objectives • To educate the campus community about earthquake response procedures • To practice building evacuation processes and Emergency Assembly Point coordination • To practice staff and student accountability procedures • To educate the student community about emergency procedures • To encourage units to improve local emergency response plans and procedures • To determine a baseline for the campus emergency data collection process

  4. Sequence of Events

  5. AlertSU Mass Notification • AlertSU to staff/faculty initiated at 9:50 • AlertSU SMS to students at 10:05 • AlertSU interactive survey to students at 10:15 • AlertSU to Cabinet at 10:20 • Monitoring of Impact to IT systems • ITS systems (voice, email) • Cell systems

  6. AlertSU Call Metrics for Staff/Faculty call (9:50) Total number of phones attempted 30,051 representing 17,181 contacts Single pass call for this exercise Throttling affects the following prefixes 497, 498, 723, 725, 721 Overall success rate 78.65% or 23,635 phones Overall time taken: 30 minutes (limited by throttle rate)

  7. AlertSU Lessons Learned • Revisit call throttling rates • Educate community about rate of delivery issues • Educate community about “community” response concepts • Short Code issues

  8. AlertSU System Student Check-in process (9:15) • Students asked to respond to an interactive survey question • Press 1 if you were in your residence hall when the drill started • Press 2 in you were in class when the drill started • Press 3 if you were elsewhere on campus when the drill started • Press 4 if you were off campus when the drill started

  9. Student Interactive Survey Results

  10. AlertSU Lessons Learned • Can be used to account for students • Phone call system is inefficient • Better if it were SMS based • Used Public Safety number as the caller ID for the Interactive Survey (switch to 725-5555)

  11. AlertSU Outdoor Warning System (OWS) • Outdoor Warning System • Can’t be heard indoors! • Not designed to be • Voice instructions could not be heard • One siren did not activate for the all-clear • One siren activated for up to 3 minutes for the all clear

  12. AlertSU OWS • Lessons Learned • Need more frequent testing • Need to monitor each installation during testing

  13. EAP Coordination • Were people able to effectively collect information about their population at the EAP?   If not, what would improve the process? • Were there any EAPs that were overly crowded? If so, where did we have crowding issues? • How would you know if a group or area did not report in to your DOC? How would you account for them? • Building vs Departmental response

  14. Accounting for Staff • Faculty and staff accounted through Emergency Assembly Points and Department Operations Centers • 30 minutes to collect as much information as possible • Checklists at EAP • Deliver information to DOC • DOC compiled information and reported to EOC

  15. Faculty/Staff Accounting Fac/Staff maximum = 9,283 Fac/Staff accounted for = 6,023 ~65% Note: 645 staff took 4+ hrs of vacation on Oct. 7

  16. Accounting for Students • Used three techniques for collecting student information • Counted at residence halls • AlertSU interactive survey • Counted at campus EAPs • Students may be in many different locations • Residence hall, class, on campus, off campus

  17. Student Accounting

  18. General Accounting Lessons Learned • Departments need to keep checklists up to date • Process could be facilitated electronically but needs to be independent offline • Need a better process for collecting information from classroom areas

  19. DOC Experience • School of Medicine • Athletics

  20. Issue Tracking • 14 of 24 DOCs reported stats on planted issues • 153 issues planted • 120 returned • At least 4 changed substantially during the reporting process • One generated an actual response

  21. Additional Exercise Projects • Partnered with Carnegie Mellon Disaster Management Initiative in Santa Clara • Aerial video of campus • Geocam mapping of field photography • Twitter monitoring

  22. Exercise Action Items • Permanent classroom emergency instructions poster • Improve accounting procedures for students • Improve accounting procedures for staff • Develop more frequent testing protocol for OWS • Develop a sense of community response vs individual response • Building response vs departmental response

  23. Open Discussion

More Related