FEMA Response

In the aftermath of Katrina, much has been made of the federal, state, and local governments' response to the disaster. Much of the federal criticism has focused on the timeliness of the response, and defenders argue that FEMA's response time to earlier disasters is comparable. At least for me, the problem isn't so much that it took an extra day or two. It's what they did when they got there, and continue to do. Blogs are full of accounts of head-scratchers from FEMA. Sending volunteer firefighters to Atlanta for cross cultural sensitivity training while those on the frontlines were collapsing from exhaustion. Turning away trucks carrying relief supplies and fuel. Cutting off communication lines. Transporting trucks of ice, to Maine. The list is endless. With this type of response, does it really matter if it took an extra day or two to get started?

I look back to 9/11 and see a remarkably efficient response to that disaster. In a very short period of time, an effective evacuation of the towers was started which dramatically reduced the death toll. I remember reading a detailed account of the FAA's immediate response to the attacks. Knowing that airlines were being hijacked and turned into missiles, the FAA had to clear the skies over the US. This was done very efficiently. Why? Because it was done by the grunts who do the real work while the bureaucrats wisely stayed out of the way, only intervening to add any necessary authority to their subordinates orders. Because there was no preparation or warning, the day to day operations people just took over on instinct and did what was necessary.

How would it have been different if management people had taken charge? There would have been an hour-long meeting of managers to come up with a crisis statement, basically an assessment of what the problem is, which would then be properly documented in a memo. Then there would have been a series of brainstorming sessions to come up with options. Eventually, one option would have been adopted, with the criteria by which the decision was made fully documented in additional memos. This recommendation would have been passed up the chain of command for their approval, neccessiating further meetings to elucidate the problem statement and options analysis for their superiors. Eventually the superiors would give their approval, worded in a couched way to provide protection should anything go wrong of course, at which point the lower level managers would then form a team to develop an action plan that the grunts would carry out, with proper assignment of responsibilities and reporting chain. So, after perhaps days of meetings and memo writings, management would conclude that the skies had to be cleared and would have developed a plan by which it could be done, something the grunts did instinctively in minutes.

The model of management we have in business and government has at least one basic flaw: the focus is on management skills, not on the skills being managed. Mike Brown had little or no background in emergency management, but he did have background managing organizations. So he was deemed qualified. In my workplace, they just named a new vice-president in charge of information systems. I read through his history. No background or experience in anything related to IS. His background was overseeing other departments in the company. Now, he will run IS with no practical knowledge or experience in IS. Rather than picking an IS person to run IS, they picked someone who could manage something. Do you think he will be effective in making technical decisions, having no background in them?