In Did social media tools let us down? Susan Scrupski mentions the recent Wired article reviewing the need for better emergency announcement systems, based on observations of what happened at Virginia Tech. I've also addressed the issue here.
Is it a problem that we have too many specialized communication platforms? If, for example, email is for "old people," as suggested in Jeremiah Owyang's post here, how wise it it to rely on it when so many of the people impacted in a campus type emergency situation are using other channels?
I went on Twitter during the unfolding situation at Virginia Tech (my daughter is a student there) and I saw no messages in the public stream. That's not a criticism of Twitter, by the way. Twitter is a new service for broadcasting short messages via a system that interconnects instant messaging, phone based text messaging, and web based messaging, but I would not call it a communication system since it does not provide true interactivity (yet).
How much interactivity do we need in a true emergency situation? That depends on what we need to accomplish. If what is needed is to get the word out about a threat, a broadcast system that crosses platforms is what's needed. That means The Authorities need to be able to plug into the communication "grid" and pump basic info out quickly and reliably. Perhaps such systems are under development.
But what about the social and interactive nature of disaster response? Pure top down systems are insufficient. People need to communicate with loved ones, friends, strangers, and temporarily formed groups. They need to know loved ones are OK and they need to know the facts about what is happening over an extended period of time.
At Virginia Tech we saw a disaster that was relatively contained in time. What if instead of a mass murderer with easily-obtained handguns there had been a biological agent used in a terrorist attack? The immediate response might have been localized in time but the after effects might stretch over a much longer time period during which we would find that social media and social networking might have to play a much larger role in communications among all interested parties, including the military, public health officials, investigators, clean up staff -- and those who are displaced.
In such a situation social networking and social media must be included in the mix of communication channels. Doing so effectively, though, will require planning. Here are some of the issues we would need to address when considering the role that social media and social networking can play in an extended response to such a disaster:
- We need to define the role of technology and what to do when it doesn't work. (For example, what if wireless communications are not working? What if people can't recharge their cell phones?)
- What should be the relationship between social networking and formal communications that are more oriented towards hierarchical "command and control"? (Will authorities be willing to participate in two way interactions that might become confrontational?)
- How should relationships be managed among affected population, recovery teams, and the "outside world"? (Forget about secrecy. )
- How should we address age differences in willingness to accept new technology among affected populations? (My children still don't know about Twitter and I'm old enough to be their father!)
- Should authorities monitor communications among affected populations during response and recovery?
These are just a few of the issues that we would need to consider if we seriously want to incorporate social media and social networking into disaster planning and recovery. Can you think of more? Please let me know and I will add them to the list.
--------------------
The following articles, also by Dennis D. McDonald, are related to the above:
link to original post