FEMA recently released a draft Operational Period Shift Brief Template for EOCs, open to public comment. The document is fine, though there was one glaring issue... it assumes an ICS-based model is in use in the EOC.
With the release of the NIMS refresh, we were given some 'official' options for EOC management structures. Unfortunately, we aren't seeing much material that supports anything other than an ICS-based structure. An ICS-based structure may certainly be fine, but every organization should examine their own needs to identify what works best for them. Story time...
We recently completed a contract that included the development of a plan for a departmental operations center for a state agency. The plan had to accommodate several considerations, including interaction with regional offices and operations, interaction with the State EOC, and integration of a call center. When we talked to people, examined form and function, and looked at fundamental needs, the end result was an ICS-based organization. While accommodations had to be made for translating their own agency structure and mission, it fit rather well.
For a contract we are currently working on, we are developing an EOC plan for a private utility. Again, we reviewed documents, talked to people, and identified the fundamental needs of the company and the EOC organization. The end result is shaking out to be something a little different. At a glance, it's largely ICS-based, but has some aspects of the Incident Support Model, while also having its own unique twists. One particular observation was that their company's daily structure has functions combined that we would normally break up in traditional ICS. Breaking these functions up for an incident would be awkward, disruptive, and frankly, rather absurd. Not only would personnel be dealing with something out of the ordinary, they would be changing the flow of corporate elements that have been placed together by necessity in their daily operations, which would detract from their efficiency during the incident.
My third example is a contract we are just getting started on. This project involves developing an EOC plan for a municipality. While we've had some initial discussions, we aren't sure what the end result will be just yet. The client isn't set on any particular structure and is open to the process of discovery that we will be embarking on. As I've thought about their circumstances and the recent and current work we've done on this topic, there are a few things that have come to mind.

 

Logical fallacy is a term you hear thrown about a lot, especially if you keep track of politics. Put simply, logical fallacies are errors in reasoning. Though they come in many forms, all logical fallacies are constructed to make it easier to prove your own point while devaluing your opponent's without pesky ol' reality being in the way. Here are a few of the most common logical fallacies:

Strawman
Perhaps the king of logical fallacies, users of the Strawman misrepresent, exaggerate, or straight-out lie about the opposition's argument to make their own point easier to "prove".
Example: After Joe said more funding should be allocated to school lunch programs, Will responded by saying he was surprised that Joe doesn't care about student safety and wants to take money from security budgets.

Ad hominem
This one isn't pretty. Ad hominem fallacies are an attack on your opponent's character or personal traits in order to discredit them.
Example: Following a passionate speech from Frances on improving facilities for the mentally ill, her opponent asks the audience whether they're going to base their decision on input from someone who has been receiving psychological treatment since childhood.

Anecdotal
Though some fallacies are more blatant, this is one that creeps in accidentally all the time. Anecdotal fallacies are just that - they use personal experience, or more frequently an isolated example, to "prove" a point in the face of statistics or scientific measure.
Example: Though economic studies showed plant workers were barely making a living wage as it was, the company CEO repeatedly used the example of Roger, a veteran worker who managed to support his extended family through frugal spending, to rationalize upcoming cuts.
While you're not out there purposely employing logical fallacies for your communications (I hope...), I do see them used unknowingly far too often. Anecdotal fallacies are among the most common, as the folks making difficult decisions struggle to find some example that fits their version of events, but they're far from the only ones. Another terribly fallacy is use of ambiguity, which includes being wrong but counting yourself as "technically right" along with using language that's likely be misinterpreted in your favor.
At their core, fallacies undermine your argument. While using fallacies can pull the wool over the eyes of some they're just as likely to land you in trouble. With audiences today actively looking to criticize and even become outraged over any piece of communication it's simply not worth the risk. Fortunately for you philosophy departments at schools around the country are more than happy to share information about fallacies and how they can be avoided via the web. Get educated, double-check your messaging, and avoid digging the hole deeper when you're trying to climb out of a bad situation.

© 2019 - Erik Bernstein

Erik Bernstein is Vice President of Bernstein Crisis Management, a specialized firm dedicated to providing holistic strategies for managing crisis situations.