**edmg600# prof response week 4# form…**

Based on the information regarding the new emergency technology, do you still have the same opinion regarding the proposed system’s resilience. Why?  Do you believe such a system had value in the pre-event or preparedness phase?  

Write about 300 word…..

You did a great job assessing the readings and evaluating the proposed emergency management system offered by Zibuschka, Laufs & Roßnagel (2011).  I appreciate you sharing your experiences regarding the proposed and similar technology during disasters.

Zibuschka et al. maintained that their vision is of an emergency management system that utilizes ubiquitous components that can provide relevant information during all phases of the emergency lifecycle to save human lives.  They described the emergency management lifecycle in the following phases: (1)  a pre-event; (2) immediately before or after a disaster; (3) implementation of strategies to control or reduce the severity of the crisis/disaster; and (4) long-term recovery.  FEMA (2012) describe the phases or emergency management as (1) preparedness, (2) response, (3) mitigation, and (4) recovery.  One can make an convincing argument that the phases presented by Zibuschka et al.and FEMA are synonymous.  Zibuschka et al.argued that systems in 2011 did not offer support for the full emergency management life cycle, as they focused on response operations, and not preparedness, mitigation, or recovery.

Zibuschka et al. proposed system uses persuasive sensors to collect information and transmit to shareholders with ubiquitous monitor devices for decision-making before and after a disaster.  They visioned a system that offered reliability, cost efficiency, smooth service integration, multilateral user interaction  availability, and security.  Zibuschka et al. posited that, “disaster management systems should focus more on the pre-event and resolution phases, as infrastructure failures can knock out the system infrastructure for information integration” (p. 22).

You were asked to evaluate the system in terms of resiliency and ubiquitous. You presented mixed opinions regarding ubiquitous; however, the majority of you questioned the systems resiliency for different reasons including the ability of the sensors to withstand the disaster event, the resiliency of the communication mode from the sensor to the end users, or the resiliency of the end user device to received the information.  Zibuschka et al. stated that their system was designed on the principles of system effectiveness  reliability, cost efficiency, smooth service integration, multilateral user interaction, availability, and security. 

The article was written in 2011, and now in 2018, there are systems that uses similar technology and ideas. At the simplest level, residential fire alarms or security  systems use persuasive sensors, and if activated, they transmit information to stakeholders security company, fire, police, occupant, etc) and the stakeholder decides the response action. On the other hand, hurricanes and tsunami emergency management use similar technology for their warning systems, but more complex than the fire or security systems. 

The tsunami warning system is used to detect tsunamis in advance and issue warnings to prevent loss of life and damage.  It is made up of two equally important components: a network of sensors to detect tsunamis and a communications infrastructure to issue timely alarms to permit evacuation of the coastal areas.  This information is also transmitted to first responders.  Take a look at the DART II system diagram below:

The system consists of a surface buoy and a seafloor bottom pressure recording (BPR) package that detects pressure changes caused by tsunamis. The surface buoy receives transmitted information from the BPR via an acoustic link and then transmits data to a satellite, which retransmits the data to ground stations for immediate dissemination to NOAA’s Tsunami Warning Centers, NOAA’s National Data Buoy Center, and NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL).TheIridium commercial satellite phone network is used for communication between 31 of the buoys.  DART boast resiliency due to its use of iridium technology and redundancy with the buoys. 

Similar systems are also used to detect hurricanes.  See below:

Based on the information regarding the new emergency technology, do you still have the same opinion regarding the proposed system’s resilience. Why?  Do you believe such a system had value in the pre-event or preparedness phase? 

Again, great work, and I look forward to your follow-up posting.


Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology. (2016). Deep ocean tsunami detection buoys.  Retrieved from http://www.bom.gov.au/tsunami/about/detection_buoys.shtml

FEMA.  (2012).  Federal emergency management: A brief introduction.  Retrieved from https://training.fema.gov/hiedu/highref/federal%20em-a%20brief%20introduction-r42845%20-%20lindsay.pdf

Zibuschka, J., Laufs, U. & Roßnagel, H. (2011).Towards ubiquitous emergency management systems. Modiquitous 2011 Proceedings