Emergency communication system


An emergency communication system is any system that is organized for the primary purpose of supporting one-way and two-way communication of emergency information between both individuals and groups of individuals. These systems are commonly designed to convey information over multiple types of devices, from signal lights to text messaging to live, streaming video, forming a unified communication system intended to optimize communications during emergencies. Contrary to emergency notification systems, which generally deliver emergency information in one direction, emergency communication systems are typically capable of both initiating and receiving information between multiple parties. These systems are often made up of both input devices, sensors, and output/communication devices. Therefore, the origination of information can occur from a variety of sources and locations, from which the system will disseminate that information to one or more target audiences.

Emergency communication vs. notification

An emergency notification system refers to a collection of methods that facilitate the one-way dissemination or broadcast of messages to one or many groups of people with the details of an occurring or pending emergency situation. Mass automated dialing services such as Cell Broadcast, Reverse 911, as well as common siren systems that are used to alert for tornadoes, tsunamis, air-raid, and other such incidents, are examples of emergency notification systems.
Emergency communication systems often provide or integrate those same notification services but will also include two-way communication—typically to facilitate communications between emergency communications staff, affected people, and first responders. Another distinguishing attribute of the term "communication" may be that it implies the ability to provide detailed and meaningful information about an evolving emergency and actions that might be taken; whereas "notification" denotes a relatively more simplistic one-time conveyance of the existence and general nature of an emergency.

Alternate and related terms

Since there are a collection of related systems used in diverse settings in varying ways, there are numerous terms that are used interchangeably among the entities that use or have a need for emergency communication systems. In most instances, though, these are all used to refer to the same or substantially similar concepts. For example, use of the terms "emergency communications" and "disaster communications" definitively refer to the same concept, with the only potential difference lying in the connotation or emotional meaning.
Emergencies place demands on communication processes that are often significantly different from the demands of non-emergency circumstances. Emergencies often involve escalating and evolving events that demand high performance and flexibility from the systems that provide emergency communication services. Message prioritization, automation of communication, fast message delivery, communication audit trails, and other capabilities are often required by each unique emergency situation. Inadequate emergency communications capabilities can have consequences that are inconvenient at best and disastrous at worst.
Depending on the location, time, and nature of the emergency, a large variety of limitations could present themselves when it comes to communicating details of an emergency and any resultant actions that may need to be taken to protect life and property. For example, an audio public address system might be rendered ineffective if the emergency happens to be an explosive event which renders most or all of those affected deaf. Another common example might be the limitation of a fire alarm's siren component in a deaf school. Yet another example of a limitation could be the overloading of public services, resulting in the delay of vital SMS messages until they are too late, such as occurred during the Boston Marathon bombing.

Attributes

Timeliness and speed of delivery

Emergency systems require timely and quick dissemination in order to mitigate damage or loss of life. During the Virginia Tech massacre, about two hours had passed before the first communication was sent to staff and students. By that time, the gunman had already entered and secured a building in which he was shortly to begin his attack. It wasn't until about 20 minutes after the shootings began that a loudspeaker announcement was made for people to take cover.

Ease of use

During a crisis, the people who use an ECS need to quickly and easily launch their notifications and they need to be able to do so in a way that securely provides them with confidence and an intuitive, familiar and easy-to-use interface that can be accessed from any location. An emergency communication system that's designed for non-technical users will ensure successful administration and usage; and during some life-threatening emergency situations, campus administrators must be able to react quickly and trigger the alert system swiftly. Yet emergency alert is probably among the least used and least familiar processes. Ease-of-use therefore is critical to the effectiveness of an emergency communication system.
However, in order to support a robust and capable emergency communication ability, this ease of use should not preclude the use of a complex, technologically advanced system. A sufficiently advanced system is required to coordinate multiple components to act in concert, to initiate and propagate emergency communications in any manner of ways. A distinguishing factor is when such a system includes these advanced capabilities, while still being easy for the user to operate. This is important not only for effective emergency communication, but also for an organization to realize the most return on investment, as well as the user being familiar enough with its operation as to effectively operate it under stressful emergency situations, such as in an earthquake or tsunami.

Providing instructions

A clearly needed attribute of any modern emergency communication system is the ability to not only provide notification of an emergency, but to also provide clear and actionable instructions for how to respond to an emergency. In a study by the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies, it was revealed that regardless of the initial form of notification, a secondary form was necessary before action would be taken. This supports the important observation that providing clear and concise instructions may reduce dependency on such secondary verification; and thus, providing instructions may save lives in an urgent emergency situation.

Specific audiences or recipients

Emergencies often require delivery of different versions of the same communication at the same time. For example, in an armed hostage-taking incident, occupants of a building may need to receive instructions to lock and barricade the door until further notice, while first responders to the incident need to be aware of the lockdown instructions and be provided more specific details of the hostage-taking event to inform their actions.
Using the hostage-taking example, some of the more modern emergency communication systems state the ability to deliver a single message that provides full details to first responders, while filtering that same message to provide more limited instructions to different groups. For example, a specific message could be sent to people in a certain area, in a specific building, or even in a specific department. By using a single message that segregates information between types of users, fewer messages have to be created and sent, which can also save time.

Multiple communication paths/redundancy

There should be multiple means of delivering emergency information so that if one fails, others may get through. Also, according to the Partnership for Public Warning, research shows clearly that more than one channel of communication will be consulted by people at risk in order to confirm the need for action. The public expects to be contacted in a variety of ways. As evidenced by various historical and recent events, besides phone calls and emails, citizens also expect to be able to use and be reached via text messaging, and fax. In one exemplary incident, the 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, barricaded victims relied on sending text messages for help, in addition to traditional phone calls. In addition, the public may look to social media as another vehicle to receive messages and check in on updates.
Additionally, the Partnership for Public Warning states, "A single warning is frequently insufficient to move people to action, especially if it cannot be confirmed by direct observation. For most people the first warning received captures their attention and triggers a search for corroboration, but cannot be relied on to elicit the desired behavior. Scientific research supports the common-sense observation that people are disinclined to risk being fooled by a single alarm that might prove false or accidental. Effective warning requires the coordinated use of multiple channels of communication."