Los antiguos canarios (aborígenes de Canaria)

Even though in presented analysis of effectiveness of DCRA framework, a cross sectional view was taken and two major regions are evaluated at given snap shots of time. However, it is envisaged that the proposed framework will be implemented in a continual basis, allowing for organizational learning to take place. Need for DRCA framework is important for number of reasons including:

 To allow for monitoring readiness of regional Civil Defence organizations to face different types of natural and man-made disasters

 Building capacity and capability of disaster response operations

147

 To allow for a quantified metrics that can be used to assess readiness

 To provide stakeholders with an idea where disaster response organization is lacking in a specific area and to provide a metrics for key decisions e.g. allocation of resources using informed decision making

 To allow for organizational reflection i.e. encouraging teams to look into key areas of disaster readiness and document organizational endeavours in this respect

 Allowing for accountability i.e. Governmental investment vs disaster response organizational readiness

 Allowing for reporting in a consistent format

 Allowing for internal evaluations/audits without the need for external audits which are quite expensive

Participants thought there is real opportunity to enhance existing skill level. There are number of training programmes being initiated by Civil Defense, which is seen as helping achieve the goal of skills enhancement. Need to make the most use innovative technologies in responding to disasters were identified. Many interviewees revealed the need to improve co-ordination between Civil Defense and Ministry of Interior. Respondents were confident in ability of Civil Defence and Ministry of Interior in managing small scale disasters. However, in responding to large scale disasters, there was a mixed view.

Respondents identified importance of strong leadership and commitment for a good top down communication. Need for strong collaboration with private sector and volunteer organisations was also identified, alongside need to delegate powers at local level and better co-ordination with private sector is identified. Various potential risks or challenges to uptake of DRCA Framework were also highlighted including:

 Absence of an evaluative culture within KSA. Every day management is usually not very quantitative driven and implementation of such a framework requires a culture where outcomes are continuously recorded in an empirical format and benefits of various interventions are quantified. It also requires ability to challenge status-quo where organization is in continuous search of reflective questions such as how can we improve on previous performance, where are opportunities for future growth etc.

148

 “DRCA framework is quite generic and will not be so effective in certain cases”. This was a valid comment however; objective of DRCA framework was to demonstrate initial idea and proof of concept. It is possible for various organizations to include elements more specific to their context.

Although five CSFs were identified as priority for building capacity for disaster response, it is possible that different regions may have different priorities or priorities change over time. Thus, the approach presented for implementation includes a suggestion to include flexibility to change CSFs based on changing global best practice or internal organisational dynamics. In addition to this, a section that focus on addressing challenges and their impacts is also included to ensure that current challenges are dealt with, and that understanding and arrangements are in place to deal with future challenges. Figure 6.9 which contains four stages, captures aspects of objective one, two and three so that the framework can be more effective than the adopted methodologies from the UN and other developed countries.

Improvement Development Implement Advancement

Stage 1

Stage 2

Design and conduct Response Capacity Assessment

+

Define indicators and indexes for response performance Add five priority

CSFs & its elements Add five lacking

global best Practice

Review existing Structure for preparedness & response

Response to Disaster(s)

Stage 3

Stage 4

Evaluate capability for response using indexes and indicators

+

Examine operational capabilities in relation to disaster impacts

+

Return to stage 1 (improvement)

150 Figure 6.9 has four stages; improvement, development, implement and advancement. These stages all have components and actions plans that need to be conducted in order for the framework to translate into effective response for any disaster size and type. The framework also has green broken arrow, black broken arrow and black thick arrow and black thin arrow, all which have significance in using the framework as a road map for capacity assessment and development of disaster preparedness and response capabilities. All these arrows are explained and their functions discussed within the stages inputted in the framework as follows:

Stage 1 (Improvement): this stage is critical, not because it is the first stage, but because it contains

three main components that aims to improve existing structure in KSA without disrupting the existing structure. This stage bears in mind the good practice in the existing structure, but shows that the lacking global best practice and five CSFs and their elements are integrated into existing structure. This stage also includes black thin arrows between each component to encourage integration between all activities, actions and components. It is expected that this stage will simultaneously improve the existing structure and directly and indirectly address gaps such as lack of five global best practice, and lack of communication and problems with other CSFs identified during this research inquiry. Stage 1 needs to focus directly on improving, and where necessary develop elements of CSF1, CSF2, CSF3, CSF4 and CSF5. However, it is important to state that in order to integrate these two components with existing structure, it is necessary to review existing structures so that the appropriate manner in which the stage can operate can be determined. This process will complete the integration process for this stage.

Stage 2 (Development): this stage sees to it that the KSA structure is being developed to

appropriately conduct response capacity assessment (Figure 6.9) for enhancing preparedness and response arrangements for confronting disasters. This stage has a component, but with two action plan that are interlinked. This stage can be likened to a test-run process for the previous stage where improvement have been made to the existing structure. It is a stage where all elements of CSF1, CSF2, CSF3, CSF4 and CSF5 need to be reviewed and assessed in relation to risks in KSA, so that appropriate capabilities are developed.

151 This stage require that a suitable response capacity assessment is designed and conducted to determine whether methodologies and approaches in place are sufficient for dealing with any size and type of disasters. The stage also requires that indicators that fit the KSA system are defined and indexes that can help evaluate response performance are clarified. Indicators should also influence training design and past disasters used as scenarios for testing response arrangement so that better preparedness can be done. This stage is key for stage 4 which is the stage where evaluation is conducted to determine how response was carried out and the level of response performance.

Stage 3 (Implement): this stage is actual response to disaster of any size and type, where all that has

been improved and developed are put to use by all organisations involved in response. Completing incident report in relation to indicators is very important at this stage, so that actual response performance can be evaluated promptly before another disaster occurs. This is because the case study chapter indicated that flooding and other disasters occurred within months apart when recovery of the past disaster was still ongoing. Therefore, it is important that indicators that can be evaluated to determine areas where response performance can be improved is strategic to business continuity arrangements (which is under CSF4), advancing to another disaster response and to returning to the improvement stage. Here all the elements with CSF2 and CSF5 need to be put to use.

Stage 4 (Advancement): this stage requires three different, but related activities. First, there is need

to evaluate capability for response using the indicators and indexes that were defined in stage 3. This is important in order to determine the effectiveness of the capability that had been developed in stage 1 and the training conducted in stage 2 for response in stage 3. Second, the operational capabilities such as equipment, procedures, communication and coordination between agencies (essentially to evaluate the CSF2) need to be examined in relation to the disaster impacts. It is also helpful at this stage to re-assess elements of CSF1 to determine the extent of community engagement prior to, during and in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. Lastly, stage 4 need to advance from this stage to stage 1 in order to improve areas that suffered limitations or were deficient in operational terms.

Due to the gaps and results of this study, the framework (Figure 6.9) is recommended as a guide for improving, developing, monitoring and evaluating the disaster management system in KSA so that response to disasters can be more effective. However, this framework is not recommended in vacuum without experts in Saudi validating components of the first stage which has influenced other stages of the framework.

152