Un caso ejemplar: el Congreso Argentino de Ciencias de la Educación de

Currently, there is no specific ski area plan for handling a volcanic event. During the interviews, it was discovered that the plan for RAL management was to apply a broad evacuation plan for the Stage 2 part of the response effort. However, this is likely to be impractical, as a volcanic event is a unique event and quite dissimilar to any other kind of hazard the ski area may face. Disaster planning is not only beneficial due to the output of a ‘plan’ to help guide the response effort, but it also helps those who engage in the planning activities to develop similar mental models of the event and response which will be beneficial during an actual event (Paton and Jackson, 2002). The plan should be based upon a detailed and comprehensive analysis of operational demands (similar to Section 7.4), and an inventory of potential disaster stressors (similar to Section 6.2.9 and 6.3.9), linked to actions such as training and simulation exercises, and test regularly (Paton and Jackson, 2002; Paton and Flin, 1999). It was found that staff are very open to having a specific volcanic event plan, as most either already thought RAL had one or were in support of developing one.

It is also important for the plan to make note of the need to suspend organisational authority in favour of lower level decision making in the early stages of the response (Galley et al., 2003). Authority can then gradually be transferred back to head management staff after Stage 1 (initial response) has passed (Paton, 1997). The overall evacuation plan must also be decided, with the option of flexibility, as certain evacuation routes may be impassable after a volcanic event. It is also necessary to decide if the evacuation will be done group by group, with groups being

specifically instructed when to move or whether all groups will be given permission to move at the same time (Galley et al., 2003). Staff must be informed during lahar hazard training of what the decision is so that they know what to expect during the response to a volcanic event.

RAL has also recently shown an interest in using CIMS during the response to a volcanic event. Although this may be beneficial as a CIMS structure will provide RAL the flexibility that will be needed to handle a volcanic event, there are several reasons why using CIMS during a volcanic event would not currently be beneficial for RAL. The first is that only a few key management staff at RAL are aware of CIMS. It was found during the staff interviews that only three out of twenty- six staff knew what CIMS was. In order for CIMS to work, it is important for all management staff

Chapter Seven 120

to be aware of it so it can be quickly implemented during an emergency event with minimal confusion. CIMS is also fundamentally about working together, rather than simply describing how people should work together. In CIMS, top-down organisational structure is used. However, as discussed previously (Section 4.1.1, as well as in the previous paragraph), it is more likely during a ski area response to a volcanic event that organisational authority will likely be suspended in favour of lower-level decision making (Galley et al, 2003; Paton, 1997). Also, integrated

communication in stressed in CIMS, but it is more likely that information management (which is separate from communication) will be more crucial to the ski area during the response effort. Information management involves identifying what is communicated and whether it is meaningful to recipients (Paton and Hannan, 2004). CIMS also requires that an Initial Action Plan (IAP) be drafted before an event. However, this plan would involve including response goals, operational objectives, and support activities, which are unimportant for a ski area event as the goals and objectives are obvious.

In summary, it is important for RAL to draft a plan for how they will deal with a volcanic event. Thinking through how they will handle a volcanic event will increase the company’s resilience, which is defined as “the capacity of systems to main their integrity and the relationships and balance between elements in the presence of significant disturbances by drawing upon internal resources and competencies to manage the demands, challenges, and changes encountered” (Paton et al., 2001, p.47). This resilience will decrease the reliance of RAL on DoC, as it is important for the ski area to plan for a worst case scenario where they will be isolated from outside help. A CIMS structure could be effective at the ski area, however staff members need to be aware of CIMS and how to implement it, and an initial action plan (IAP) must be drafted. To be successful, the plan requires support from all levels of management, most important being senior management (Clark, 1996).

7.4 Training needs analysis

In preparation for managing a potential crisis, training needs analyses become very important. It is vital for a training needs analysis to identify situations that may be encountered when responding to a disaster, and the demand characteristics and competencies likely to be used (Paton, 1999). Paton (1999) notes that “information obtained can be useful to assist plan development, defining the training and support needs of staff, and to develop systems and procedures that promote

Further Discussion and Recommendations 121

6.29 and 6.39 were used when developing the training needs analysis to help identify high risk situations and to provide a basis for anticipating the intensity of reactions to these stressors (Paton, 1996b). These potential stressors can also alert RAL to the likely support requirements that will need to be met (Paton, 1996b).

Galley et al. (2003) suggests people will function better during an emergency if they know what to do in advance, but stresses that this does not mean developing a long list of details of individual actions. A clear role description should be provided, based on the development of general competencies (Paton, 1996b; Paton and Jackson, 2002), which allows individuals to use common sense to carry out the role. The following training needs analysis for Whakapapa and Turoa ski areas (Tables 8 to 16) attempts accomplish this. This table was expanded from the original training needs analysis from Ward et al. (2003) (Tables 6 and 7). The head of the response effort is referred to in the training needs analysis as the Incident Controller (IC). There are slight differences as to how the training needs analysis should be applied to each area, which are explained in the sections below.