Crisis situations involve two important information flows: First responders and other professionals must be able to communicate with each other, and officials must keep the public informed about what is going on.

Crises – September 11, the Virginia Tech shootings, Hurricane Katrina and others – put the focus on the difficulty professionals have in using invariably fragile systems to communicate with each other. The other priority– keeping people informed – has gotten considerably less attention. It is an important and challenging issue nonetheless.

The topic is being addressed, albeit slowly, at a number of levels. The terrible tragedies of the past decade form the backdrop; the current dynamic is that the types of devices and platforms that can be used as ways to reach people are growing. Years ago, emergency messages were broadcast on television and radio. Today, that approach, which seems almost quaint, is expanding to traditional phones, VoIP, cell and smartphones and a variety of services, including voice, SMS and IM. Even social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter can play a role.

The bridge between these devices and platforms at the local, federal and commercial level is shaky. This may not be a bad thing, however: The very lack of coordination could lead to the emergence of parallel platforms that, at the end of the day, make it more likely that at least one message gets through.

Slow on the Federal Level

At the federal level, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), are working on a system designed to extend public alerts beyond broadcast to SMS and eventually to other devices and communications formats. Simultaneously, state and local authorities and private institutions such as enterprises and universities are looking more closely at what they can do to keep people informed.

The bad news is that progress is slow. This is especially true at the federal level, where the pace of developments has been criticized. FEMA did not respond to two requests for an interview other than to send a one-page document defining the Commercial Mobile Alert Service on which it and DHS are working.

“It is not really defined very well,” says Geary Sikich, the principal for enterprise risk and crisis management consultancy Logical Management Systems. “I have not seen very much out there and available in terms of material that would be helpful. It seems to be something of an initiative that does not have a lot of legs, let’s put it that way.”

As with any government program, the FEMA-led system, which is an extension of the Emergency Alert System (EAS), is complex and acronym-heavy. The program is called The Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS), one of several under the umbrella of the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). FEMA and DHS are working on interface specifications with the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) and the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), according to FEMA. The bureau says that “C” interface specifications – the way in which different governmental agencies will communicate with each other on the alert system -- are on track to be ready in October. When they are set, a 28-month clock starts for carriers to install the appropriate equipment.

The protocol is key. For instance, if the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) wants to alert residents that tornados are possible, it has to be able to communicate that information through the system that FEMA will oversee. The criticism, at least from one quarter, is that the long development cycle is unnecessary because a perfectly good protocol already exists for this. Jeff Ream, the vice president of Product Development for RGA International, a company that offers the Cellular Mass Alert System, says that the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) is viable for the task and is what will end up being used.

He sounds frustrated when discussing the CMAS program. “Fifteen months later, where are we with IPAWS? All we [will have in October] is the language,” he says. “If you are a citizen of the U.S., you are still years away from getting a text message from the [federal] government alerting you to something.”

All of these efforts generally rely on use of public airways and the cooperation of various telecommunications providers. Cooperation from wired and wireless phone companies, cable companies and ISPs is necessary in addition to broadcasters.

Ream suggests that carriers will not jump at the chance to participate. For one thing, these activities are not revenue producing. They also raise potential liability issues. Lawsuits could occur if a wireless carrier contracts to deliver emergency messages to a group of subscribers and one or more of the messages don’t get through and injuries or deaths ensue. For that reason, the carriers tend to do just what is mandated by the government and offer the same type of best-effort contracts that normally are given to subscribers, Ream says.

Locals – But Not Yokels

The pokey response by the federal government can be interpreted as a blessing in disguise because it has fueled efforts at the state, local and private levels. In general, these at least have the potential of being more effective. A local effort can be more flexible and granular. In addition to basic alerting -- such things as Amber alerts, fuel spills and threatening weather – local systems can more easily be configured to deal with important non-emergencies such as road closures and school closings. Private services can provide specific information to members of the company or organization employing the service, such as where to report if the worker’s normal office is shut down.

There is activity at this level. Connecticut recently signed a deal with vendor Everbridge for statewide use of its Aware emergency notification system. The system will link all municipalities, counties, cities and towns in the Nutmeg State, according to the company. The system will use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) capabilities to identify residents affected by emergency situations and cycle through mobile phones, landlines, smartphones and other devices in order to alert them.

Marc Ladin, the vice president of Global Marketing for Everbridge, thinks that running parallel federal and local emergency systems is a good idea. “The federal effort is very narrow,” he says. “What’s happening at the state and local level is that people are not waiting for the feds and, secondly, they want to have localized control over how people are alerted.” A third benefit is that it is prudent to err on the side of too many alerts.

There are multiple emergency notification systems, and they are best utilized if they are aware of each other. Lieutenant J. Paul Vance, the Commanding Officer for Public Information for the Connecticut State Police, says that all hardwired phones automatically are in the system, even if they are served by other emergency notification vendors. He says that there is no problem coordinating different private entities. It is still too early to see how this and other local systems will interact with a federal system, since it still is quite a long time before it is operational.

People stand a better chance of being alerted to emergencies – and some things that are important but fall short of being true emergencies – as time goes on. Indeed, a federal system may end up as a backup for an existing local, state or commercial system by the time it sends its first alert.