Rank706

Idea#602

This idea is active.
PPD-8 National Planning Frameworks »

Leverge Hazard Mitigation Risk Assessment

Thousands of mitigation plans have been created under 44 CFR. Meanwhile, with DHS planning risk assessments and BZPPS and Fusion Centers and now a THIRA we are about to come to a nexus on risk assessments in this country. One plan says we have a bridge it is terror target. Why becuase it is important to the community. The other says it is essential or critical faciliity. Both have same bridge in differenent database in mutiple plans with little if any connections. Update the CFR, make mitigation planning all hazards. Leverage a standard like EMAP 4.3, 4.4, 4.4. This intern will allow us to be more effective with taxpayer dollars.

Submitted by lmeyers 2 years ago

Vote Activity Show

Comments (2)

  1. Although it is essential to have more organization and coordination between plans, this posting was a great example of the shoddy (and supposedly trendy) writing that has too often been passed around on these matters. People really have to STOP (mis)using words just because they think the words sound "official" or impressive. They don't. I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO STOP (MIS)USING THE WORD "LEVERAGE" EVERY TIME THEY SPEAK OR WRITE. "Leverage" should NOT be considered to be a "fancy" way of saying "use." WHEN YOU MEAN TO SAY "USE" THEN JUST SAY "USE" INSTEAD OF CHOOSING TO MISUSE A SPECIFIC TERM LIKE "LEVERAGE" THAT IS QUICKLY LOSING ITS ACTUAL MEANING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    As with the Incident Management framework, it is very important to have agreed-upon terms that are as close as possible to PLAIN ENGLISH, not this kind of "trendy" jargon that really just amounts to a bunch of misguided technobabble in the end. Too many persons think they sound smart and sophisticated when they spout this jargon in ways that are confusing to lay readers, and therefore counterproductive. Say "use" when you mean "use." Don't abuse more technical terms when a simple, straightforward word will suffice.

    1 year ago
  2. While we can be certain that we’re all appreciative of the lesson in terminology, it might be best to say that as long as we understand the message it might be best to suggest the core improvement relevant to what was addressed. 44 CFR, BZPPS, Fusion Centers, and THIRA set a template. Certainly we are not about to come to a nexus on risk assessments in this country and one formula does not fit all since the Hazard-Analysis may not be equal between a jurisdiction in Wyoming to a jurisdiction in Indiana. The characterization lent to the posting was unnecessary to

    address the suggestion of the possible utilization of standard like EMAP 4.3, 4.4, 4.4. It might be best to engage

    personnel from capability disciplines to the subjects of Fusion Centers and THIRA that are more closely associated to those areas. While there may be some overlap there appears to be little contradiction in spite of the infrequent use of differing terminology that has the same meanings. Fault should not be found on any posting as to the quality of that posting. The stated concern or suggestion, as to the subject matter, should be addressed if the community is to derive any benefit. The critical facility is important to the community. Least we not be confused,

    We might be able to package this as Continuity of Government (COG) or Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP). Defining the common denominators, defining, the objectives, producing the plan, training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and taking action to correct and mitigate, might be the best alternative other than

    dwelling on synonyms or acronyms that are associated to such terminology.

    1 year ago