Lessons on Interoperability: The Shootings at Columbine

National Capital Special Operations Symposium Ottawa, Ontario November 14-15, 2012

Presentation Outline  Case Study: Columbine  Lessons, Problems, and Barriers  Improving Interoperability and Response Outcomes

Columbine High School  Approximately 2,000 students       120 Teachers 20 Staff Personnel 75 Classrooms 25 Exterior Doors Gymnasium, Cafeteria, Library and Auditorium 250,000 square feet

Explosives “Walk in, set bombs at 11:09 for 11:17. Leave….”

Small Arms and Knives

Improvised Explosive Devices   46 EXPLODED DEVICES  Outside 2    Library Class/Hall Cafeteria 26 14 4 30 UNEXPLODED DEVICES     Outside Library Class/Halls Cafeteria 13 5 6 6

Initial Operations: Fire/EMS  Triage/Transport  Transported 26  Triaged over 160  Staging Resources  Fire Strike Team  Command and Control  Communications

Fire/EMS Organization STAGING EMS SECONDARY EMS FIRE/EMS COMMAND PIO SAFETY OPERATIONS LIASON LOGISTICS AIDE MEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS YUKON/CALEY DIVISION TRIAGE TRIAGE TRANSPORTATION TREATMENT EAST DIVISION TRIAGE TREATMENT WEST DIVISION TRIAGE TREATMENT TASK FORCE FIRE STAGING FIRE

Initial Operations: Law Enforcement  SWAT  Find shooters  Protect students  Transport wounded  Secure perimeter  Check evacuees for weapons  Reunite parents and students

Law Enforcement Organization LAW ENFORCEMENT Tactical Operations Initial SWAT Teams 1-4 Secondary SWAT Teams 5-9 SWAT Staging Evacuation CHS Control Interviewing Parent Control Scene Control Inner Perimeter Outer Perimeter Staging Areas Investigations Crime Scene Coroner Search Tactical Snipers Transport Parent Control Victim Assistance Intelligence Parent Control Victim Assistance

Jefferson County Schools  Help get students out of building  Account for students  Move students to another location  Reunite students & parents  Mental health service  Victim advocates  Brief families and media

Communications Problems  Controlling ground-space  Incompatible communications  Channel congestion  System overload

Command and Control Problems    Weak coordination Low situational awareness Paramedics under fire

Impact  Slows down the response  Creates inefficient use of resources  Reduces operational effectiveness  Endangers first responders

Unified Command: Strategic Objectives  Secure perimeter  Locate/eliminate shooters  Reach/move wounded  Triage, treatment, transport

Joint Operations: Total Response FIRE 6 Departments 166 Personnel EMS 7 Agencies 80 Personnel LAW ENFORCEMENT 28 Agencies Over 900 Personnel

Incident Dynamics  Improvised Explosive Devices  Small Arms Fire  Multiple Casualties  First Responders Taking Fire  Structure Fire  Crime Scene

Incident Details  188 Shots Fired by Harris and Klebold  141 Shots Fired by Law Enforcement  89 Improvised Explosive Devices  15 Killed  160+ Triaged  24 Transported

Lessons Learned  Information  Situational Awareness  Communications   Redundancy Multi-channel/system operations  Command and Control  Resource Management  Joint Operations  Multiple jurisdictions and disciplines

Common Problems  Planning  Independent Planning  Jurisdictional/Organizational Boundaries  Organizing  Not Coordinated or Integrated  Separate Structure/Process  Communications   Incompatible Systems Congestion/Overload  Loss of Infrastructure

Operational Outcome Factors  Inter-Organizational Planning  Response Structure  Decision Making Process  Communications Systems

Planning Options  No Planning  Not important, not enough time  Position Based Planning  This person, in this position, does this function  Threat Based Planning  If/Then  Jurisdiction Based Planning  Separate Structure/Process  Capabilities Based Planning  Objectives/Priorities/Resources  Joint Regional Planning  Integrated and Coordinated Structure/Process

Response Planning Threat Scenario Impact Damage Operations Simple/Complex C3 Requirements

Organizational Structure  Separate  Coordinated  Integrated

Separate Structure D A IC O P L IC O P L C IC O P L IC O P L B IC O P L E

Coordinated Structure IC O P L IC O P L IC O P L

Integrated Structure

Unified/Joint Command Operations Planning Logistics Fin/Admin

Operational Decision Making Cycle Assessment Sense Making Decision Making Planning Execution Action

Social Context of Decision Making  Local view of operations  Local actions effect others  Available time effects success of operations  Common intent to achieve coordinated action  Develop common ground before incident  Consistent exchange and interaction builds social relations

Results of Improved Social Relations       Improves acquisition and interpretation of information Reduces decision time and improves quality of decisions Reduces uncertainty regarding roles, responsibilities and abilities Reduces goal conflict Improves coordination Improves ability to adapt

Communications Systems    Effective coordination depends on efficient communication Development of systems based on typical incidents    High frequency events Simple Low information demands System not capable of dealing with catastrophic incidents  Low frequency events   Complex High information demands

Frequency and Complexity High Frequency Low Simple Single: Jurisdiction Discipline Level of Government Complexity Complex Multiple: Jurisdictions Disciplines Levels of Government Information Exchange Amount and Rate

Barriers to Integrated Operations  Denial/Avoidance  Financial  Limited Resources  Competing Priorities  Technical   Obsolete Equipment Incompatible Systems  Cultural   

Competition Territorialism Self-Sufficiency

Operational Effect    Separate Structure Separate Process Separate Systems         Delayed information Inaccurate information Incomplete information Different levels of awareness Unclear reporting relationship Conflicting decision strategies Inefficient resource use Increased risk to personnel

Improving Response Effectiveness  Technology  People

Inter-Organizational Approach   Technological  Independent organizations that need to talk to each other   Communications systems are the primary concern Operational practices do not need to change Operational  Inter-dependant organizations that need to work together   Operational systems are the primary concern Operational practices must change

Definition of Interoperability  Technical Interoperability: the condition achieved among communications systems when information can be exchanged directly and satisfactorily between users  Operational Interoperability: ability of agencies to accept services from other agencies and to use those services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together

Common Sense Definition The degree to which organizations or individuals are able to operate together to achieve common goals.

Developing Technological Solutions     Focus  Communications systems, equipment Purpose  Establish a link – voice/data Problems  Ignores importance of operational practices  Does not recognize complexity of large scale incidents Impact  High dollar cost, low impact on effectiveness

Developing Operational Solutions  Focus  Regionalized Operational Networks  Purpose  Integration, Collaboration, Coordination  Problems  Difficult to change organizational culture  Denial, competition, territorialism, self sufficiency  Impact  Low dollar cost, high impact on effectiveness

Separate vs. Integrated Operations

Unity of Effect Conflicted Effects Cancel Out Positive Synergy Positive Effects Build on One Another Negative Synergy Negative Effects Build on One Another Maximum Negative Impact 0 Maximum Positive Impact

A New Framework  Old Framework   Interpretation: Interoperability is a technical problem Approach: More money, better technology  New Framework   Interpretation: Interoperability is a people problem Approach: Change the way we work together, use technologies to support operational networks

Operational Networks     Relationships formed in order to work together to pursue shared goals, address common concerns, and attain mutually beneficial ends.

Organizations exchange information and undertake joint activities but retain their individual autonomy Organizations rely on trust and embedded social relationships to provide effective services and reduce costs Problems are typically resolved through discussion, and rules and norms of reciprocity ensure cooperation

Initiating Operational Networks  Small groups of leaders  Accept interdependence  Acknowledge shared latent risk  Motivated to improve capacity and performance  Approach: change working relationships  Goal: small wins, build network gradually

Developing Operational Networks  Determine which organizations should be included in the Ops Net  Understand the nature of current relationships

Relationships  Number of links  Type of interactions  Level of interactions  Strength of relationships  Willingness to commit to collective action  Power and decision making  Accountability

Interactions  Breadth  Depth  Frequency  Level  Strength/Trust  Content/Issues

Operations  Incident Structure  ICS/NIMS  Integrated  Decision Process  Assessment  Planning  Action

Operational Performance  Organizational Integration  Decision Coordination  Quality of Information  Shared Awareness and Understanding  Resource Coordination

Outcomes  Lives Lost/Saved  Property Damage  Social, Political, Economic Impact  Time to Recovery

Evaluating OP NET Interactions

 Breadth  Depth  Frequency  Level  Strength/Trust  Content/Issues Fire A

Fire B Law EMS

X X X Fire B Law X X X

Evaluating OP NET Operations

 Incident Structure  ICS/NIMS  Integrated  Decision Process  Assessment  Planning  Action Fire A

Fire B Law EMS

X X X Fire B Law X X X

Evaluating OP NET Performance

     Organizational Integration Decision Coordination Quality of Information Shared Awareness and Understanding Resource Coordination Fire A

Fire B Law EMS

X X X Fire B Law X X X

Evaluating OP NET Outcomes

    Lives Lost/Saved Property Damage Social, Political, Economic Impact Time to Recovery

Incident A Incident B Incident C

Preventing C3 Breakdown  Operational  Break down cultural barriers  Develop a joint operations mentality  Establish regional C3 practices  Integrated structure and process  Regional planning and leadership

Preventing C3 Breakdown  Technical  Multiple channel/system operations  Regional communications  Leverage existing equipment, infrastructure  Back-up communications systems  Offload logistical communications to secondary channels or systems  Use currently available, affordable solutions

Improving Response Outcomes  Bring your operational network together  Map out how the Ops Net functions    Who included How work together – Structure/Process How exchange information – Communications  Evaluate current performance against criteria  Develop goals for future performance  Plan changes operational and technical approach to achieve goals

Improving Operational Performance

People Organizational Structure Decision Process Communications Technology Performance

“Even if you are on the right track, you will get run over if you just sit there.”  Will Rogers

William L. Pessemier, PhD

Firefighter Safety Research Institute [email protected]

303-419-0599