A brief history of ER

Ericsson Response (ER) was established in 1999 with the aim of providing communications technology support to international aid agencies working in disaster recovery and humanitarian crisis situations. Ericsson’s core expertise in the development and deployment of telecommunications systems, in both radio and fixed networks, was the bedrock on which the initiative was founded. A cohort of Ericsson Response Volunteers was assembled from the large and internationally diverse pool of Ericsson employees who were enthused by the concept and driven by a desire to ‘make a difference’. ER’s first director, Dag Nielsen, who held the post from 1999 to 2005, set about establishing strong links to UN aid agencies. Volunteers were trained and prepared for missions to deploy containerized GSM (Mobile Radio) Systems and the specially developed WIDER (Wireless Data Network) System into areas of natural disaster or humanitarian crisis where telecommunications infrastructure was disabled or lacking.

Some basic facts about ER today

ER today is a standby partner with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), and the UN’s World Food Program (UNWFP), operating on a par with other humanitarian governmental and non-governmental organizations (GOs and NGOs) such as RedR (Australia), the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), and the Danish Refugee Council (DRC). From an Ericsson corporate perspective, ER is an implemented and working example of strategic philanthropy. At the time of writing, Ericsson is the only commercial organization to have achieved this level of integration and successful inter-working with the UN agencies. ER has built up a track record of contributing to major humanitarian aid initiatives, including deployments during the aftermath of the Asian tsunamis in the Indonesian Province of Banda Aceh (2004–5) and more recently in response to the situation in earthquake-devastated areas of Haiti (2010).

ER operates through a basic concept of voluntary (and temporary) service by a pool of volunteers, internationally distributed, and with a ‘light’ headquarters function, taking care of internal and external communication, coordination, logistics, training, and equipment support. ER is today headed by a senior Ericsson manager, Rima Qureshi, who holds significant organizational responsibilities in the business dimension in addition to her ER role.

Ten years of learning

ER has been a learning organization at every stage of its development, as those involved have sought to make their contribution more effective and more relevant in complex, and sometimes confusing and cumbersome, international structures for the coordination of humanitarian response. In particular, the collective experience of volunteers in the field and of those involved in the coordination and management of the ER initiative has provided some key insights about information and communication needs and the associated technology requirements at the different stages of a mission. These insights, together with the experience of the Humanitarian Reform Initiative (2005), have provided a focus and an agenda for improvement efforts in the further evolution and refinement of response structures and activities.

Security prerequisites and self-sufficiency in communications

Common to all phases, and the number one priority, is security communications. The UN uses a formal set of definitions for levels of security risk. At each level there are clear requirements regarding the type of communication that must be available for all UN agencies. These requirements include radio (VHF/UHF) in the local area, all vehicles to be fitted with radios, and a radio room with satellite phone and/or basic data communications capability, for example satellite broadband (BGAN).

Today, satellite systems and private (i.e. closed user-group) radio networks are perceived to be the most reliable voice communication options. Public telecommunications systems tend to be problematic for the relief effort as emergencies routinely cause a significant increase in public communications, leading to congestion and an inconsistent service. Often, the public network suffers damage in the emergency event itself. For both these reasons it is best if the relief effort quickly becomes self-sufficient from a communications perspective.

The needs of first responders

First responders need accurate factual information about the current situation on the ground: the extent of the disaster; the number of people and geographical area affected; and the location, area of expertise, and capacity of other humanitarian organizations in the area.

In this context, voice communication capability in the immediate disaster area is the primary requirement. It needs to be rapid, frequent, and reliable to allow a valid situation analysis to be performed, immediate priorities for rescue and relief efforts to be defined, and new arrivals to be effectively integrated and deployed.

Another crucial consideration is that first responders on site need to quickly formulate and communicate their project plans and associated logistics so that these can be integrated into the all-important work of resourcing the operation, defining the mission’s objectives and what is required to achieve them. If this information is not correct at the beginning, the inevitable consequence is that there will be loss of life. Agencies and their response teams will almost always have their own routines and protocols for internal communication and organization and will sometimes bring infrastructure components of their own, satellite phones and VHF radio being the most common.

Inter-agency communication

Inter-agency communication on site, to HQ, and to the outside world is best addressed by system solutions. Specifically, rapid access to and usability of shared systems, such as Local and Wide Area Voice and Data Networks, are major determinants of first-response effectiveness in the vital early days of the emergency. While pervasive and good-quality voice communication remains the sine qua non of Phase 1 response, the availability of data communication facilities offers an infinitely richer set of options to the agencies on site. The capability to transmit and receive images and text, such as maps, photographs, measurements, and technical data of all kinds (medical, engineering, topographical, etc.), can help the effectiveness of relief efforts to grow exponentially during the early days of the response.

Challenges: system establishment and ongoing management

Speed of deployment is critical and it is vital to minimize time lost in the approval and supply chain for the emergency telecoms response. On the one hand the coordinating agency needs to be prompt and decisive in requesting support while the provider needs to be geared up for the most rapid logistical response. The traffic-carrying capacity of the voice and data systems deployed also needs to be adequately dimensioned to sustain the services which the agencies require in the immediate area and with respect to global connectivity. Thus, pre-emptive capacity management activities need to be bundled into the response ‘package’ so that systems do not become overloaded and ineffective as demands increase.

Challenges: user competence

Two issues which can inhibit and dilute the positive impact of communications technology in the Phase 1 response, however, are compatibility between systems and the technical competence of users. This is particularly so in the area of data communications, where systems can rarely be deployed on a ‘plug and play’ basis and users often need a basic level of know-how to be able to troubleshoot the simpler, more common problems in connecting to and using a Wireless Data Network. Setting up shared data services is not easily achieved.

Where access to expert support is limited, agencies find themselves unable to benefit from the available infrastructure and are likely to fall back on ‘old reliables’, leaving the more advanced and functionally rich solutions unused. In this context the establishment of user support and help desk functions by the response providers can be of real and immediate benefit. One pivotal shift in the mindset, which has yet to be fully achieved, is the move from a reliance on paper-based communication to fully embracing electronic and paperless ways of working.

Challenges: interoperability

Inter-system compatibility is a further issue. Here we face one of the core technological dilemmas, in that the very diversity of systems and solutions that is such a driver of creativity and innovation in the commercial sphere becomes a handicap and inhibitor of effective wide-scale deployment in the more focused context of emergency response. De facto standards are helpful in this regard, in areas like database structures (e.g. SQL compatibility) and computer operating systems (e.g. Windows, Linux), but probably the most powerful emerging lingua franca of the telecommunications world for the second decade of the new millennium is IP, the Internet Protocol.

Focus on coordination

This matter of standardization is not limited in its operation and effect merely to the matter of technical specifications of equipment and systems, but extends also to the processes, information exchange formats, and ways of working employed by the vast array of aid agencies active in the world today. In this context, what is optimal for the individual organization or agency can become sub-optimal for the relief effort as a whole. Entities like UNOCHA play a major role here and work continuously to achieve a balance between the all-important freedom to act of the individual agency and the need to maintain effective cooperation and inter-working across the whole effort. Waste (whether in terms of time, energy, physical and technological resources or, indeed, money) is to some degree inevitable in the fraught and fast-changing environment of a disaster relief effort, but investment in structures for cooperation and standardization can offset the more negative consequences here.

The needs of second-phase responders

In the Establishment phase, the emphasis shifts to stabilizing, interconnecting, and expanding the capacity and capability of the systems deployed during the First Response phase.

As the relief effort expands the number of responders increases, and while the requirements on communication technologies increase, the system used during the first phase must be scalable.

Responders in the second phase need to be concerned with supporting and facilitating this expansion, and will typically need to create a kind of ‘back office’ infrastructure to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the front line activities.

Challenges: data management

Volumes of communication and data flows increase rapidly during the Establishment Phase and rudimentary systems for organizing and sifting data and for producing summarized information for management and control must be quickly developed. Data on infrastructure, environment, displaced and missing persons, those requiring medical assistance, status and needs relating to supply and distribution of food, the provision of shelter, etc., are all part of the overall emerging picture.

For all of these data flows it is most helpful to have standardized protocols for frequency and content of reporting, supported by common data structures and transaction handling routines, shareable on an inter-agency basis. UN agencies by virtue of their experience and size tend to lead the way in this regard and it is the role of contributors like ER to provide expertise to deploy, fine tune, and support the chosen data management systems at the implementation level.

Challenges: user support and system optimization

One of the main ICT support challenges during the Establishment Phase is to operate a cycle of continuous improvement, adaptation, and relentless optimization of systems and infrastructure – and to do so at speed. This activity encompasses teaching and supporting users to make the most of the technology which is already available to them and can take the form of conducting ‘just in time’ induction and training sessions for new arrivals, distributing simple instructions, tips and techniques to get the most from available technology, and operating help desk type services for more complex user problems and requirements.

In parallel with this there is the constant need to expand system capacity, optimize system elements such as radio frequency and coverage, and maximize inter-operability between systems – often through the provision of Internet access and other IP-based services for data sharing and transfer.

The needs of third-phase responders

By Phase 3, communications capability and infrastructure have typically returned to normal, meaning they have been restored to a level comparable to that before the emergency began. In developing countries, of course, this ‘normal’ status may still entail capacity limitations, service interruptions, etc., on an ongoing basis. Third-phase responders tend to be deployed in supporting follow-up operations dealing with some of the longer-lasting effects of the emergency (examples include reconstruction after a natural disaster, de-mining after a military conflict, etc.). For private sector contributors such as ER, the tasks involved and the applicable skill sets are often similar to those required in normal commercial operations.

Challenges: supply chain

The principal challenges in Phase 3 response relate to the supply chain for tools, equipment, and spare parts. Engineers are accustomed to having ready access to the materials they need to carry out their tasks, and when faced with uncertain and inefficient logistics will inevitably suffer a drop in effectiveness and output. It is often the case that simple component shortages will prevent time-limited mission objectives from being fulfilled.

Volunteers with the capacity to improvise and innovate, to some extent, will overcome these difficulties, but overall the effect will still be sub-optimal. Meticulous preparation and the bundling of tools and spares in the form of well-designed ‘kits’ is of assistance here, as is the collective experience and lessons learned from previous missions. Good advice is often to assume and prepare for the worst.

Challenges: sociopolitical context

It is a frustrating but unavoidable characteristic of disaster and emergency situations, particularly in developing countries, that the extent to which full recovery is possible is constrained by sociopolitical factors. The aid agencies and the technologists in organizations like ER cannot engage in social transformation and ‘nation-building’ initiatives as part of their response. Their mandate does not extend to social change or political reform and, accordingly, they will always be constrained by the prevailing power structure and sociopolitical norms of the large society around the disaster area. Diplomacy and an ability to access and act on the advice of local agencies and community representatives can mitigate, but not fully overcome, this constraint.

Communication needs at the human level

These needs are the most consistent and easy to describe, remaining more or less unchanged at all times and in all places. They simply acquire a greater level of urgency and importance in an emergency context. At the level of the individual contributor in an emergency response situation, there is always an information and communication deficit. The setting is unfamiliar, often uncomfortable, sometimes dangerous, and always rapidly changing. The individual’s efforts to function effectively are informed by continuous internal and external questioning on the fundamental themes of What, Where, Who, When, How, and Why.

Much of this information and communication deficit is improved by command structures and the team context in which the individual contributor operates. Accordingly, almost by definition, a command structure and team which is enabled to exchange information and instructions continuously, and in real time, will go a long way to meeting the needs at the individual level. However, consideration must also be given to the vital component of individual initiative, the power and the imperative of independent action. There are many aspects of the disaster and emergency context where the judgment on how to act and what to prioritize rest firmly with the person ‘on the ground’. Disconnected from command structures and the team, the individual will still need to access information, draw conclusions, and inform about situations encountered and actions taken – the more varied and flexible the options, the better.

Communication needs at the institutional level

Communication needs at the organizational or institutional level pivot on two factors, namely scalability and control.

A note on stakeholders

An adequate and constant flow of funding is the necessary prerequisite for sustaining every relief effort. While structures for mobilizing inputs from donor nations and NGOs are well established, there is always the requirement that such stakeholders get regular, accurate, and (where possible) reassuring information on how their money is being spent. Situation reports – frequent, comprehensive, and integrated to form a clear and communicable picture of the progress of the relief effort – are therefore a core and consistent part of the communication needs at the institutional level.

Communication technologies: what they can and can’t do

Communication technologies, given the state of technological development which has been attained today, can facilitate more or less any form and volume of interaction between any number of individuals and organizations active in a disaster zone or at the focal point of a relief effort. Practical limitations apply, however, and these mostly relate to what can be conceptualized as the base of the logistical pyramid by which the deployment of advanced communications systems is enabled.

The extent of the destruction and attendant chaos at the relief site itself, and the availability of skilled staff to deploy suitable communication systems to support the operation are all factors which potentially limit the effectiveness of the technological response. To this extent, when we speak of a response capability we mean not just the technology itself but the resources and expertise to deploy it, sustain it, and use it to maximum beneficial effect in the particular circumstance of the relief zone.

Improving partnership

Remembering that ER is an exercise in strategic philanthropy and corporate social responsibility, and not the company’s core business, it is essential for ER to maintain alignment with the overall Ericsson market vision and supporting strategies. Communications technology, while recognized as a key enabler, is manifestly not the core business of the humanitarian agencies. Clearly, potential exists for mutually beneficial partnerships with providers from the private sector.

ER has succeeded in becoming a standby partner for many of the UN humanitarian agencies and, accordingly, has earned the opportunity to build cooperative initiatives with them in the formulation and deployment of communication technology strategies, based on Ericsson core competence, but informed by the experience and operational needs of the agencies themselves. For this possibility to bear full fruit, there must be more emphasis on collaboration and joint development, re-use of lessons learned in emergency crisis operations, and a better analysis and understanding of everyday communication needs. Essentially, the partnership needs to evolve. Unfortunately, such evolution is hampered by some natural, but not well-grounded, fears that commercial interests must in the end prevail and that the private sector always has a hidden agenda.

Within the defined boundaries of budget and ambition level which are a natural part of all commercial engagements, there is considerable room for flexibility and integration of effort. Topics worth exploring are numerous, but one immediately fruitful area to address would be the relatively short ‘window of availability’ (but coupled with high expertise) of the ER volunteer, typically limited to four to six weeks, compared to the typical four to six months’ continuous commitment available from non-commercial GOs and NGOs.

Active and strategic partnership management in the ICT area will see agencies work closely with the standby partners to constantly monitor emergency response requirements, to encourage partners in new technology areas, and to synchronize volunteer competence to what is required by the missions. The evaluation and monitoring of volunteer competence and performance by the aid agencies is an underdeveloped area in the current stage of partnership evolution. Direct and candid feedback is essential to ensure improvement, and private-sector contributors will have no objection to meeting strict criteria on volunteer capability and field performance.

Improving organization

There are two main components here, namely volunteer coordination (rostering) and solution management (technology development). Volunteer coordination involves effective synchronization of the size and availability of the volunteer base in the standby partners with the mission needs of the partnering agencies. To ensure the quality and reliability of the volunteer roster, recruitment criteria need to be better defined and integrated with in-company employee development. Within the enterprise, this also means coordination with local management to maximize the positive impact of hosting volunteers in their organizations. Ways of measuring this positive impact also need to be examined.

Solution management involves improved and more active collaboration for emergency communication technology preparedness. Away from the white heat of the mission scenario, current and emerging communication requirements during a crisis response can be better aligned and understood, with respect to functionality offered by available and emerging technologies.

The Humanitarian Reform Initiative in 2005 created a new organizational structure to address deficiencies in the area of emergency response. One important outcome was the clarification and improved specification of roles and accountabilities during such operations.

Another significant outcome affecting ER was the birth of the Emergency Telecom Cluster, supported by clear statements about services to be provided and how the services should relate to each defined phase of the emergency response. Five years on, however, it is not clear how successful the cluster concept has been and additional changes introduced in 2010 have still to show their effects. Overall, the concept should lead to better communication, but old ways of working need to be reformed before the new approaches can become reality.

Improving information access

The rules governing information management in crisis situations are quite well defined, but there remains the problematic question of access. The challenge is not just to spread information but to do it in a secure way, being able to quickly adjudicate on what information can be open for all and what needs to be restricted so as not to compromise the affected population and the initial responders.

Most governments require that all communication is open, while among UN agencies the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is the only UN humanitarian agency that has the mandate to protect its direct beneficiaries, and therefore can encrypt its communication. But even UNHCR cannot fully assure the privacy of its own access where it uses a third party to manage its information. The technology exists to provide effective information security at multiple levels while still respecting host government requirements, but close cooperative effort will be required between agency and standby partners to achieve an optimal implementation.

Improving technology

One stark and basic fact governs technology in an emergency context. If the technology cannot provide a reliable service during an emergency it will not be used. Reliability is paramount. Equally important is ease of use and familiarity. The most successful systems are those which conform to or mimic the everyday experience and basic technical competence of the non-technologist.

Most large-scale natural disasters occur in developing countries, and developing countries typically represent a worst-case scenario with regard to technology infrastructure. Hurricane Katrina, in the southern part of the USA, was an exception and a root cause analysis of communication failures during this emergency suggests that it was information management and not communication technologies that ultimately proved deficient. Most first-world countries will have geographically redundant networks and a certain level of disaster preparedness in place. The available networks have extra capacity to manage traffic peaks (New Year’s Eve being a routine example). This is not the case in developing countries, where most networks are under-dimensioned and underfunded. More often than not there is little in the way of network redundancy in place.

When disaster strikes, it is normal for all forms of communication to fail quickly and often completely during the first 72 hours. The humanitarian response must therefore rely on satellite and simple radio communication. Knowing this to be the case, the private sector can be encouraged to work via corporate social responsibility programs with disaster preparation in cooperation with local operators in at-risk areas. In parallel, work can proceed at the strategic level to define via the global humanitarian partnerships (e.g. the Emergency Telecoms Cluster, ETC) the most suitable technologies for use during an emergency response. Once such technologies are identified and agreed there should be a clear development roadmap, acceptance testing and proving program, etc., before it is introduced in the field. Solutions should demonstrably satisfy agreed performance goals with respect to reliability, coverage, speed, etc.

Self-imposed limitations

The scope of what is possible in the technology of information and communications today far exceeds that of the deployments which have thus far been attempted. It seems that there is a reluctance among technology providers, and not just in the ICT domain, to make available their very latest and most advanced components and services. Companies are prepared to deploy products which are ‘leading edge’, and in some cases not fully proven, in a variety of settings. These include in sport, in high-visibility trials and challenges of various kinds, in road shows and in proof-of-concept demonstrations, and in all kinds of customer field trials and marketing initiatives. This is sometimes risky, as the chances of failure are higher than when using exhaustively tested and mass-market-ready solutions.

Where rewards are high in terms of publicity, enhanced company image, and high profit potential, the risk is deemed to be very much worth taking. Indeed, it is often the case that only in extreme, stressed, and unpredictable conditions can the real quality, robustness, and capability of a system be fully exercised. It seems paradoxical that commercial organizations are reluctant to expose their most advanced technologies in the most challenging and unpredictable of all contexts, namely in disaster relief and emergency humanitarian assistance. There is arguably no single reason for this reluctance but rather a combination of at least two significant factors: cost and the fear of failure.

Limiting factors

Full video capability in the field

Consider the benefits of equipping first responders with communications devices (Smartphone or equivalent) enabled for interactive video transmission. Improvements in early situational assessments and a transformative impact on emergency medical response would be among the immediate benefits. Add GPS capability and Internet access and the first responder becomes intimately connected to an array of location-based services from a single, portable device routing support of all kinds directly to the point of need.

Intelligent, always-on collection of measurements

The telecommunications marketplace today pursues growth not just in terms of numbers of connected subscribers, but also in terms of numbers of connected devices. Indeed, based on currently available applications, the already identified market potential for devices exceeds that of human users in a ratio of 10:1. These intelligent, always-on devices, sending and receiving data continuously, can be used to collect and transmit data on a variety of physical and environmental characteristics of the disaster or emergency zone. Air and water quality, temperature, toxicity, etc. are examples of the data collectable by these static and mobile probes, creating the potential to multiply the effectiveness of the human teams deployed and to contribute to increased safety and a more rapid return to self-sufficiency for the affected populations.