Building Operational Public
Private Partnerships
A Community Reference Guide for Emergency
Management Agencies and Private Sector Partners
July 2017
Version 1.0 Prepared By:
NEMA Private Sector Committee
Information Sharing Task Force
2016-17 Task Force Membership
Joel Thomas, SPIN Global (Task Force Chair)
Shandi Treloar, EM Strategies (Private Sector Committee Chair)
Jonathon Monken, PJM (Private Sector Committee Vice-Chair)
Rob Glenn, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Private Sector Division
Ann Beauchesne, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Mary Ann Adams, Onstar
Mike Dossett, Kentucky Emergency Management
Edie Casella, Illinois Emergency Management Agency
Tom Serio, Verizon
Brooke Brager, Walmart
Susan Reinertson, Amtrak
Mary Carlson, Amtrak
Melisa Hucks, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency
Charley English, American Red Cross
Nushat Thomas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Water Security Division
Lauren Wisniewski, EPA, Water Security Division
Nicole Kim, EPA Water, Security Division
Sean Griffin, U.S. Department of Energy
Karen Cobuluis, National Emergency Management Association
Foreword
The NEMA Private Sector Committee’s Information Sharing Task Force has developed a truly
collaborative document intended to assist state emergency management and homeland security
organizations to improve their overall posture to coordinate with the private sector, to ensure that
economic viability is assured before, during, and after a disaster.
When FEMA Administrator Brock Long served as the previous NEMA Private Sector Committee
Chair between 2013 to 2015, he commissioned the Task Force with two primary objectives:
develop a common operating process for public and private organizations to more effectively work
together; and provide a resource to the community that helps organizations begin to implement
that process. This document represents the answer to that call. While FEMA participated in the
development of the document it’s not a FEMA document and in some cases may include “non-
doctrinal” elements. While several companies participated, it is not corporately owned, or a
document that is specific to a critical sector – although Energy is used an example in the planning
integration template. This is a NEMA document coming from a committee that has struggled over
the years. This struggle reflects the profession of emergency management as a whole, and this
document reflects an actionable effort to overcome that struggle.
The American marketplace is increasingly diverse, digitally enabled, and interdependent. We have
learned through 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and other events that the objectives and priorities of
business and government do not always inherently align. Therefore, forging mutual understanding
through operationally oriented partnerships before disaster helps pave the way for innovation and
efficiency in planning, mitigation, response, recovery, and long-term resilience. The next steps on
this path are up to today’s leaders in business and government, and we hope that the effort of the
Task Force effectively serves to advance the whole of community dialogue. To that end, the Task
Force is committed to working with those who contributed to this document and those who have
yet to be engaged. While there have been many conferences, committees, and conversations about
building public private partnerships, translating those ideas into action is pragmatically the next
step. Thus, this document is a relevant contribution to the evolution of national doctrine and
common understanding between public and private sector partners that is designed to help
improve decision making before, during, and after a disruption with a common view of risk.
Our sincere gratitude must be extended to the members of this esteemed Task Force, who
voluntarily spent the last 18 months deliberating and crafting this document, which only represents
Version 1.0 of our thinking. We are also grateful to the input provided from the FEMA Regional
Private Sector Liaisons. Your point of view is also welcome. You are invited to read the document
in its entirety and provide us feedback. We hope you take us up on the offer to engage.
All the best,
Joel Thomas Shandi Treloar
NEMA Private Sector Committee NEMA Private Sector Committee Chair
Information Sharing Task Force Chair
Jonathon Monken
NEMA Private Sector Committee Vice-Chair
2. Background
Since Hurricane Katrina, the rapid growth of global security operations centers in companies,
corporate emergency operations centers, and other private sector coordinating capabilities and
resource support roles during disasters has created an increasing demand for private sector
coordination and communications with the public sector. This evolving reality represents an
unreported capacity gap that will grow as businesses continue to expand their emergency
management and resilience functions, and will inevitably require government to modernize how it
interacts with private sector partners.
While Business Emergency Operations Centers (BEOC) have existed in some form since the
immediate time following Hurricane Katrina, they, or similar constructs enabling public private
partnerships have languished largely because no guidance has been developed to facilitate
development in at the least all 50 states, territories, and major metropolitan areas. For the
purposes of this document, the use of BEOC does not refer to EOCs that businesses operate
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
6
themselves, but integrated EOCs at local, state or federal levels. In 2012, only 23 states identified
public private partnership programs that strengthen coordination between private sector entities
and government to contribute to both business and community resiliency1. In 2017, 24 states still
have no BEOC or Public Private Partnership (PPP) capability, in part to resources and funding, and
there is disconnected or unavailable guidance on how to accomplish an effective BEOC/PPP
program or coordination model. As such, those programs that exist have different levels of
maturity and functionality, similar to the establishment of fusion centers that required standard
guidance for capability, function, and focus.
Figure 1 Nationwide Public Private Partnerships2
2.1. The Task Force
The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) Private Sector Committee, Information
Sharing Task Force, drafted this document to begin to address the stated need for uniform
guidance. NEMA members continue to express their desire to improve private sector and public
sector coordination and shared capabilities throughout the emergency management lifecycle. Based
upon review of existing models of public private partnerships throughout the country, it is clear
that there are various knowledge and performance gaps that need closure. One critical gap is the
lack of a common operational process for private sector and government to coordinate mission
1 NEMA survey results are available upon request. 2 Graphic produced by the NEMA Task Force with best available information. Continued efforts are underway to set objective criteria to
ensure all self-reported data include standard definitions of BEOCs/PPPs.
priorities, cross-sector operations, and share information.
The mission of the NEMA Private
Sector Committee’s Information
Sharing Task Force is to facilitate
development and documentation of
a common operating process for
information sharing between public
and private sector stakeholders in
emergency management
communities. The vision of the Task
Force is to provide NEMA members
and partners practical guidance about how to achieve their respective public private partnership
missions through development of a community reference guide. This document reflects 18 months
of deliberate monthly discussions amongst Task Force members. It incorporates the work products
developed by the Task Force members, which aim to bridge the gap between the National Response
Framework (NRF), the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF), the National Infrastructure
Protection Plan (NIPP), and actual operational experiences of those private and public sector
organizations that work together throughout the emergency management lifecycle.
2.1.1. Defining the Problem
The following list of foundational problem statements developed by the Task Force represents
inputs from private and public sector organizations throughout the United States.
Regardless of type or size of the organization, business and government both need basic,
factual information about the current situation in a timely manner.
Gaps exist in integrated planning between private-public entities.
There is no standard/clear channel for the private sector to gather official information and
communicate during a disaster. Companies often get multiple competing requests for
information from Federal, State, and Local entities causing duplicative efforts.
An operational coordination framework is needed to align the timeline of disaster, key decision
thresholds, information requirements, data sources, and resource allocation determinations.
Neither government nor private sector enterprises effectively respond to disruptions, crises, or
disasters without sharing information among and between partners for resumption of normal
operations.
Divergent information sharing linkages exist between government and the private sector.
Information sharing is crisis-oriented, at times creating false assumptions and/or out of date
information during a crisis (i.e., Capabilities not fully known).
No coherent jurisdictional / scale of operations standards exist for linking government and
private sector information sharing.
Federal, State, Local, Territorial, and Tribal processes information sharing with the private
sector need further advancement.
Government and private sector partners need to coordinate logistical aspects of supply chain
and operational management.
Private sector needs clarification on key operational public sector programs (e.g., access and
credentialing) and how their companies can better leverage these programs.
Government and private sector partners need a framework for information privacy that helps
navigate issues related to information security and public disclosure laws.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
8
2.1.2. Desired Outcomes
Strategic Outcome:
Develop clarity for establishing and maintaining operational public private partnerships with each
state taking steps to integrate the private sector into planning, training, exercises and operations.
Desired Outcomes:
The following list of desired outcomes developed by the Task Force represents inputs from private
and public sector organizations throughout the United States.
Improving access to information and data at all levels that provide a sound decision-making
landscape between the government and the private sector.
Increasing efficiency in response and recovery operations planning for public and private
sectors.
Enhancing operational coordination and communications between the private sector and public
sector.
Understanding of processes and capabilities across government and private sector, where they
intersect, and how to work together more effectively.
Identifying shared priorities in operational time periods in order to have a shared operational
vision between the public and private sector and incorporating into the incident action plan.
(e.g. helping private-public determine what is the most important mission priority (by
agency/by company).
Creating a shared understanding of both the public and private sector’s have a shared
understanding of the most essential operational functions to maintain/recover the organization.
Developing a clear understanding of what information needs to be shared between the public
and private sector and how the information is shared and disseminated.
Defining a measurable positive return on investment for both sectors due to the partnership.
Clarifying virtual and physical constructs to share information between the sectors are both
needed before, during, and after a disaster.
Allowing private-private partnerships to enhance the capability of businesses helping
businesses get back into business.
Developing a clear on-boarding process for new private sector companies into
local/regional/national coordination activities.
Developing clear guidance to build a program or improve an existing public private program.
Defining process first, and then providing technology configuration requirements to support the
mission.
2.2. The Guide
The intent of this document is to define emerging operational concepts, to provide a roadmap for
state emergency management agencies and their private sector partners, and to spur robust
community dialogue.
This guide is designed to serve as a roadmap for:
• Jurisdictions trying to build a program or those seeking to improve existing programs;
• Private sector partners trying to understand interdependencies that enable them to
approach public sector partners to start a dialogue; and
• Fostering or enhancing direct public private communications channels.
Document Approach:
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
9
• The document defines a repeatable process for industry and government to better
coordinate and share information.
• The document offers operational integration approaches for various market segments (e.g.,
power, water, transportation, communications).
• The document references guidance for building a localized public private partnership
program, and a BEOC (physical or virtual).
The intended audience for this guide primarily includes NEMA members and community leaders3
with a vested interest in developing, improving, or sustaining public private partnerships for
operational excellence. The intended focus of this document is to outline an approach to facilitating
efficient operational coordination for all hazards, enabled by a premeditated approach to
information sharing. The premise is that improving public private coordination will result in a
stronger posture of preparedness, and the more prepared we are, the more resilient we will
become.
Specifically, the guide will enable users to:
• Promote understanding of shared interests of private sector and government.
• Jumpstart development of a locally customized framework that builds trust and resilience.
• Apply a common process for private sector engagement with government.
• Provide clarity for linkages across already established governance structures to ensure
known points of coordination and processes.
• Define key operational thresholds for decision-making, and related priority information
requirements for each market segment.
• Improve information access, share strategic situational knowledge, and facilitate access to
specialized resources that may benefit community members in the time of need.
• Contribute to the building and development of this guide, and work to influence the
evolution of official and de facto national policy and operational practices.
Disclaimers:
• This guide is not intended to supersede the NIPP or U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s
(DHS) Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) Information Requirements for Fusion
Centers. This guide is intended to provide clarity for those dynamics most typically focused
on threat and terrorism and identifies how to approach differences between intelligence
(e.g., fusion), vulnerability (e.g., infrastructure), and remaining operational elements (e.g.,
emergency management).
• This guide is not intended to supersede existing BEOC models, but serve as a starting point
for new BEOC/PPPs and a reference guide that may offer ideas for enhancing existing
models.
• This guide intentionally does not include many references to federal language that you may
find in the NRF, NIPP, NDRF, etc. The Task Force believes the information provided in this
document is complementary to those models, but distinct in its operational orientation and
intended application for states and private sector program partners.
3 Including but not limited to the membership of National Business Emergency Operations Center (NBEOC), International Association of
Emergency Managers (IAEM), and Big Cities Emergency Managers.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
10
3. Defining the Common Operating Process
Many stakeholders are ready and willing to engage, but they simply do not know where to start,
who to coordinate with, or how to achieve the ideals of joint prioritization of efforts to establish an
effective “common operational process”. In addition, many efforts are emerging at every level of
government, often duplicating interactions with private sector stakeholders, and at times with
competing interests. Therefore, the NEMA Private Sector Information Sharing Task Force identified
the need for a common operational process that will serve industry and government efforts to
coordinate and effectively share information that supports clearly identified operational outcomes
for various market segments. The initial stages of development of the common operational process
will focus on the planning elements of the process.
3.1. Approach
The approach recommended by the Task Force recognizes different approaches to industry
engagement, such as operationally oriented engagement via Emergency Support Functions and
non-operational oriented engagement with critical sectors.
From a private sector point of view, these efforts at times appear to be competing mechanisms to
achieve what is for their organizations a very similar task of mitigating risk within their
organization, within their market segment, and across interdependent market segments. This
approach represents an initial effort to rethink how to create an operational framework for public
private partnerships that addresses the risks of the future. The goal is to accomplish the task in
such a way that it is driven by the planned strategic mission priorities of each market segment
and does not incur an undue burden on companies.
At the most basic level, the result of the operational framework for improved crisis information
management should help organizations be postured to access and share information that will
quickly help determine the answers to five foundational questions in the event of a disaster:
1. What types of information is being shared pre-disaster? (baseline posture)
2. What happened, and how is it affecting the community? (impact assessment)
3. Who is taking what action and what is their desired outcome? (stakeholder specific actions)
4. What is it that they still need? (resource requirements)
5. What needs to be documented and institutionally established?
3.1.1. Joint Planning Process
The model below was designed by the Task Force for use by emergency management communities
to assist the process of public and private sector stakeholders to define how they will integrate, and
what information and data is required to support operations. The model represents a vision for
public private operational coordination to be shaped “left of boom”, in other words pre-incident.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
11
Figure 2: PPP Joint Planning Process
4
Step 1: Identify Primary Industry Stakeholders: Identify organizations, associations and
companies with the expertise, resources and willingness to engage in all phases of the partnership.
This is a continuous step that should occur throughout the process that will begin prior to
determination of strategic mission priorities. Consider what industry-government interactions or
working groups already exist to leverage their experience, integrate their activities, and to
minimize duplication of effort.
Step 2: Determine Strategic Mission Priorities (SMPs). SMPs are defined as those tasks that
support the essential functions of a market segment. The task involves prioritizing the most
important internal and external mission priorities. The SMPs should be defined based upon what
4 This graphic is derived from the Federal Interagency Operational Plans.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
12
organizations want people to report on internally. All future steps of this process should orient
around achieving clearly defined SMPs that interact with other market segments.
Step 3: Identify Cross Sector Dependencies (CSDs). Identification of CSDs requires
consideration of the question, “what market segments does my organization or community
implicitly rely upon to function?” Identification of CSDs should include explicit definition of the
primary government and private sector stakeholders, and the role they play. In addition, CSDs of
your external partners should be considered to understand supply chain risks and individual
facility dependencies outside of your direct jurisdictional control or authority, and consider what
intergovernmental entities can be leveraged to mitigate risks to entities (e.g. waivers or regulatory
relief).
Step 4: Establish SMP Task Force (if needed). A SMP Task Force is needed if there is a SMP that
requires multiple market segments or jurisdictions to execute the task. The Task Force should
function to jointly make priority decisions related to the allocation of resources (e.g. emergency
generator allocation, USAR allocation, fuel allocation). The Task Force will leverage priority
information requirements and analytics to inform decision-making. Each Task Force will require
established governance structure with predetermined points of engagement, and will require
codified information delivery in the IT environment.
Step 5: Identify Specialized Resource Needs. Specialized resources include those critical assets
required to achieve SMPs that exist in limited quantities due to unique equipment, training, and
cost. Each community must prioritize and allocate resources, and determine what
logistical/transportation/communication support is needed to deploy the assets. This task includes
identification of critical commodity consumables; those items needed in significant quantities to
maintain operations and that are likely to be needed by others, and must be rationed or prioritized.
Step 6: Define Crosscutting Priority Information Requirements (PIRs). PIRs are those that
directly support SMPs at each phase of operations, decisions related to resource allocation, and
coordination needs with other market segments. PIRs should communicate the status of
operations, help assess comparative impacts, and inform operational decision-making. PIRs should
be driven by operational requirements of internal and external stakeholders, and will be supported
by downstream data requirements.
Step 7: Identify and Define Predictive Models and Analysis Needs. After communities fully
define their PIRs, they can begin the process of identifying and defining scientific models and
analytical needs to support the PIRs. Models and analytics should support refined decision making
related to primary and secondary impact assessments (e.g. surge predictions, economic impacts).
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
13
Step 8: Identify Primary Data Sources. To support operational and information requirements,
communities should identify and describe the custodial owner of the data, from where it is sourced,
and how it is collected during normal operations and emergency operations. Communities should
also determine the form that the data will take, including units of measurement, if relevant.
Step 9: Assign Levels of Confidence. A clear and systematic method for assigning levels of
confidence in the data, models, analysis, and information should be determined. This may include
consideration for source, frequency, margin of error, etc.
3.1.2. Operational Integration Models
The Task Force tested the joint planning process and developed a series of operational integration
templates for various market segments that represent sample outputs of the planning process. The
purpose of the operational integration models is to provide clarity for the integration of private
sector planning, exercise, response and recovery activities within public sector execution of the
National Response Framework. Additionally, each example establishes thresholds for scale of
operations and decision-making, and delineates responsibility for information sharing, resource
support and allocation, and joint operational execution of tasks. The final purpose of these
examples was to facilitate dialogue and establish commonalities amongst the NEMA membership
related to identification of critical capability requirements and sector interdependencies, and the
forming of operational mechanisms to coordinate cross-sector resources and critical commodities.
3.1.2.1. Market Segment Model (Power)
The Task Force initially developed and tested four models: power, water, communications, and
transportation. The model for the power market segment is provided in the report (See Figures 3-
10), and the others are provided in the NEMA member web portal. Each model includes a list of key
organizations, definition of responsibilities based upon scale of operations, definition of strategic
mission priorities, identification of interdependencies, identification of SMP Task Forces, definition
of specialized resource needs, priority information requirements and data sources. In addition,
each FEMA Region has developed/is developing a Power Outage Incident Annex, a planning process
that may provide states with an opportunity to plan with regional and private sector partners from
a state perspective.
Figure 3: Key Stakeholder Organizations (Power Market)
Federal State Private Sector
• FEMA – Federal Interagency
Consequence Management;
Regional Offices
• DOE – Sector-specific agency
for ESF 12
• NBEOC – Information conduit
for private companies; regional
private sector representatives
• State EM – State interagency
consequence management
• State BEOC – Information
conduit for private
companies
• State Utility Commission –
Compliance and regulatory
authority for power
• Asset owners in power
generation, transmission
and distribution
• Electric Reliability
Organization
• Power trade associations
(EEI, APPA, NRECA)
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
14
Figure 4: Defining Scale of Operation (Power Market)
Figure 5: Strategic Mission Priorities (Power Market)
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
15
Figure 6a: Cross-Sector Dependencies (Power Sector)
Figure 6b: Cross-Sector Dependencies (Local Level)
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
16
Based upon the SMPs and CSDs identified, Task Forces may need to be created (See Figure 7).
• A SMP Task Force is needed if there is a SMP that requires multiple market segments or
jurisdictions to execute the task.
• The Task Force should function to jointly make priority decisions related to the allocation of
resources (e.g. emergency generator allocation, USAR allocation, fuel allocation).
• The Task Force will leverage priority information requirements and analytics to inform
decision-making.
• Each Task Force will require established governance structure with predetermined points
of engagement, and will require codified information delivery in the IT environment.
Figure 7: SMP Task Forces (Power)
The Task Force(s) will identify specialized resources needs (See Figure 8).
• Specialized resources include those critical assets required to achieve SMPs that exist in
limited quantities due to unique equipment, training, and cost.
• Each community must prioritize and allocate resources, and determine what
logistical/transportation/communications support is needed to deploy the assets.
• This task includes identification of critical commodity consumables; those items needed in
significant quantities to maintain operations and that are likely to be needed by others, and
must be rationed or prioritized.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
17
Figure 8: Specialized Resource Needs (Power)
When operational requirements are defined, cross cutting PIRs must then be determined (See
Figure 9).
• PIRs are those that directly support SMPs at each phase of operations, decisions related to
resource allocation, and coordination needs with other market segments.
• PIRs should communicate the status of operations, help assess comparative impacts, and
inform operational decision-making.
• PIRs should be driven by operational requirements of internal and external stakeholders,
and will be supported by downstream data requirements.
Figure 9: Priority Information Requirements (Power)
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
18
After PIRs are developed and understood, modeling and analysis requirements and data
requirements should be developed (See Figure 10).
• After communities fully define their PIRs, they can begin the process of identifying and
defining scientific models and analytical needs to support the PIRs.
• Models and analytics should support refined decision making related to primary and
secondary impact assessments (e.g. surge predictions, economic impacts).
• To support operational and information requirements, communities should identify and
describe the custodial owner of the data, from where it is sourced, and how it is collected
during normal operations and emergency operations.
• Communities should also determine the form that the data will take, including units of
measurement, if relevant.
Figure 10: Primary Data Sources (Power)
Notably, this market segment model for power was tested and validated by the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) in a June 2017 Resource Allocation Workshop in South Carolina. Workshop
participants noted that the process developed by the Task Force enabled more effective
implementation of various steps in the Joint Incident Action Planning process. The DOE slide deck
is available in the NEMA Member portal.
3.2. Getting Started
3.2.1. Initiate, Embrace and Sustain Public Private Partnerships
The most important first step emergency managers can take is to embrace the role of the private
sector and initiate a partnership5. Partnerships serve to establish a common purpose, build trust
5 Emergency Management Institute offers two courses, IS-660 Introduction to Public-Private Partnerships, and IS-662 Improving Preparedness and Resilience through Public-Private Partnerships.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
19
and consensus, establish lines of communication, provide common understanding of roles and
responsibilities, and improve appreciation for partner contributions.
For public private partnerships to be successful, they must focus on collaborations to achieve
results. Emergency managers must consider barriers to an effective partnership from the outset
and conceive of an approach to enable successful partnership. Part of the solution is selecting
partners relevant to the overarching purpose of emergency management, which is why the Task
Force elected to focus on power, water, communications, transportation, and voluntary
organizations active in disaster (VOADs).
The Bay Area Partnership Framework6 identified eight key benefits of public private partnerships,
including the following:
• Enhance situational awareness
• Improve decision-making; access more resources
• Expand reach and access for communication efforts
• Better coordination with other efforts by segments of the private sector
• Increase effectiveness of emergency management efforts
• Maintain strong relationships built on mutual understanding
• Create more resilient communities
• Increase jurisdictional capacity to prevent, protect against, respond to and recover from
major incidents
Partnerships may take several forms including, but not limited to:
• ESF-centric
• Cross-Sector
• Sector-specific
• Discipline-specific
• Task-specific
• Community-specific
• Fusions
• Hybrids
The important task of every emergency manager is to identify and reach out to partners that exist
within the geographic or virtual footprint of their threats, hazards and vulnerabilities. Then,
emergency managers should apply a systematic approach to develop and maintain those
partnerships.
In the report “Building Community Disaster Resilience through Private-Public Collaboration”7, the
National Research Council of the National Academies recommends the following developmental
steps and guidelines to build effective collaboration:
• Identify Leadership
• Create an Advisory or Leadership Team
• Invite Key Stakeholders to the Table
• Institutionalize Collaboration by Developing an Organizational and Operational Framework
• Identify Collective Resources and Capabilities that Mitigate Disaster Impact
• Focus on Disaster Resilience and Explore Community Resilience
6 Background and resources from the Bay Area Partnership Framework are referenced in Section 4 and both publicly available and included in the NEMA member portal. 7 http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13028
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
20
• Develop Feasible and Measurable Objectives
• Build Capacity
3.2.2. Establishing a Business Emergency Operations Center
The notion of the BEOC has evolved over time and may take shape as a physical or virtual apparatus
– typically there is an element of both as the concept has matured from “getting everyone in a
room” in 2007 to “getting the right people connected” in 2017. The creation of the BEOC concept
represents community efforts to integrate private sector into existing emergency management
frameworks. To begin, public and private sector partners have a shared interest in identifying,
prioritizing, and resolving private sector-oriented challenges through the following capabilities:
• Planning
• Operational Coordination
• Intelligence and Information Sharing
• Access Control and Identity Verification
• Physical Protection Measures
• Risk Management for Protection
• Supply Chain Integrity and Security
• Community Resilience
• Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment
• Critical Transportation
• Operational Communications
• Situational Assessment
• Infrastructure Systems
• Economic Recovery
There are advantages to integrating private sector partners into state emergency management
planning, response, and recovery efforts vis-à-vis the BEOC. However, as previously noted in this
guide, it might be necessary to re-imagine the entire relationship between public and private sector
partners, specifically from the point of view of the private sector. Nevertheless, now, this guide
offers an initial approach to engage in a joint planning process as described in section 3.1, and
through comment from the NEMA membership, will hopefully evolve into a useful tool for
communities around the nation to jumpstart a localized capability.
The Task Force has developed a model organizational chart and communications structure for
consideration by State Emergency Management Agencies. The diagram defines a team approach to
managing private sector programs that will support the evolution of public private partnerships as
they mature toward operational integration. It is recommended that the leadership team be
comprised of the Governor’s Office, State Emergency Management Director and State Homeland
Security Advisory. It is also recommended that the private sector program management team
include a Private Sector Coordinator, EOC Manager, Plans Chief, Logistics Chief, Volunteer
Coordinator, Economic Development representative, Utilities Commission Representative, Fusion
Center Director, and External Affairs representative.
Figure 11a: An Organizational Approach to Private Section Program Management
Governor's Office
Private Sector CoordinatorEOC ManagerPlans ChiefLogistics ChiefVolunteer CoordinatorEconomic DevelopmentUtilities CommissionFusion Center DirectorExternal Affairs
State Emergency Management DirectorState Homeland Security Advisor
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
21
Figure 11b: A Team Approach to Private Section Program Management
In addition, the Task Force would like to note that according to the National Response Framework,
ESF-15 – External Affairs includes the Private Sector. Yet, the document as currently written does
not acknowledge fully the growth of operational public private partnerships including Business
Emergency Operations Centers. The following table (Figure 12) is intended to reconcile this and
provide a level of clarity for developing cohesion at the state level given different dynamics across
regions and states and how these structures.
Governors Office
SCO
Corporate Volunteer & Foundations
Mitigation
Logistics
State Chamber of Commerce
Fusion Center & Infrastructure Protection
Utilities Commission
State EM Director
HSA
EOC Manager
Economic & Workforce Development
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
22
Figure 12: Clarifying Players and Interests
State Office Interest Area
Governor’s Offices Economic security and future viability.
ESF – 15 External Affairs Strategic Communications and messaging coordination with
corporate interests.
State EOC Overall disaster coordination including integration of private
sector across ESFs if used and plans.
State Fusion Center Focused on preventative and protection operations including
infrastructure.
Business Emergency Operations Center Provides information sharing, operational coordination, and
resource coordination point for the broad marketplace in
disasters or specific events including recovery.
ESF – Business & Industry A planning construct that exists in concert with External Affairs
and BEOC that incorporates economic-driven priorities such as
pre-disaster unemployment
Last, there are several successful models of BEOCs around the country. The State of Illinois
contributed the “BEOC Quick Start Guide” (see Figure 13) as a starting point for future discussions
and to assist states with rapid development of their own public private programs. The quick start
guide provides a checklist of activities to be completed, and additional “how-to” resources are
available on the NEMA member portal.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
23
Figure 13: BEOC Quick Start Guide
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
24
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
25
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
26
3.2.3. Developing Crisis Information Management Capabilities
Maintaining the public private partnership is largely dependent upon the perceived and actual
value of the relationship by all parties. Value creation can be achieved in numerous ways, most
notably by jointly developing and following through on collaborative efforts to plan, train, exercise,
share information, and coordinate operations. At a foundational level, there must be methods
established to share risk, vulnerability or other threat information, as well as actual operational
status information. This requires methods to enable information sharing, shared situational
awareness and decision-support. The assumption of the Task Force is that information sharing will
be ultimately be managed by the custodial owners of data, who will share what they want, with
whom they want, and through whatever means appropriate given consideration for either open or
proprietary data and information. This assumption accounts for the fact that many information
owners will not share information unless the recipients are trusted and the data is secure. As such,
these methods must be developed, tested and evaluated through a repeatable process and evidence
based improvements over a period of time.
Improving crisis information management capabilities in communities is an effective way to
develop and maintain public private partnerships, and improve regional disaster resiliency. This
has been demonstrated in numerous regional initiatives such as the Central U.S. Earthquake
Consortium’s regional programs to facilitate preparedness for an earthquake along the New Madrid
Seismic Zone. Communities need a common process framework and toolkit to assist efforts to
assess, train and measurably improve crisis information management capabilities of public and
private sector partners. A foundation for assessment can be found in the modified DHS SAFECOM
Interoperability Continuum8, which describes five core elements of human and technical
interoperability in terms of Governance, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Technology,
Training & Exercises and Usage.
The continuum is provided in Figure 14.
8 This was first modified in “Crisis Information Management Framework for Regional Disaster Resiliency”.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
27
Figure 14: DHS SAFECOM INTEROPERABILITY CONTINUUM (MODIFIED)9
9 SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum first available at www.dhs.gov/safecom, and was modified in the “Crisis Information Management Framework for Regional Disaster Resiliency”.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
28
To assist communities, DHS created the “Incident Management Information Sharing (IMIS)
Capability Maturity Model (CMM)” which enables communities of organizations to self-assess their
information sharing capability maturity as defined by five core elements of the Continuum.10 The
CMM includes several dozen maturity attributes for each of the five core elements of the Continuum
that communities can use to benchmark and self-assess progress. The benefit of this model is that it
offers a common framework for emergency managers to think about, develop and measure crisis
management information sharing capabilities between public and private sector partners. Figure
15 defines the IMIS CMM concept.
Figure 15: IMIS CMM Concept11
Core Elements – Adopted from DHS SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum, the core elements divide the overall
IMIS mission into five manageable topics (i.e. governance, standard operating procedures, technology, training &
exercise, and usage).
Maturity Levels – The IMIS CMM Maturity Levels provide a simplistic tool for measuring maturity through the details
presented within the attributes. The maturity levels include Level 1 Assessment, Level 2 Planning and Development,
Level 3 Limited Operational Capability, Level 4 Extended Operational Capability, and Level 5 Mature Operating
Capability.
Attributes – The CMM includes 179 attributes, which are statements that describe aspects of capability maturity.
Each attribute is designed to expand upon the core elements within each of the five maturity levels to convey a
means to measure current status and progress within the context of the IMIS CMM. Each attribute is weighted based
upon level of difficulty.
The CMM includes a self-assessment tool that is available to NEMA members. Furthermore, upon
completion of the assessment, the tool offers a stepwise process to advance crisis information
sharing capabilities through training and implementation process. The details of this process are
available in the document titled “Crisis Information Management Framework for Regional Disaster
10 The CMM has been applied at local, state, regional, national and multinational levels, including but not limited to: Marshalltown,
Iowa; New Orleans, Louisiana; City & County of Denver; King County, Washington; Commonwealth of Virginia; California Office of
Emergency Services; and 23 organizations throughout Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro. 11 As presented, Figures 15-17 were first introduced in the “Crisis Information Management Framework for Regional Disaster
Resiliency.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
29
Resiliency”, which is available on the NEMA member web portal. The framework offers a repeatable
process to measurably improve crisis information management capabilities for communities.12
Figure 16: CMM Stepwise Process
Figure 17: Stepwise Model to Improve Governance
13
12 This stepwise process to advance capability maturity is currently being implemented in partnership with NATO and 23
organizations located in Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro. 13 This diagram represents only a subset of the stepwise model.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
30
State emergency managers interested in developing and measuring crisis information management
capabilities, particularly in partnership with private sector partners, will benefit from these freely
available resources.
3.3. Conclusion
In conclusion, the Task Force developed an initial set of planning elements of a common operational
process provided in this guide. NEMA members and community stakeholders throughout the public
and private sector are invited to comment and contribute additional ideas, resources, and tools to
help communities around the nation improve public private partnerships. Please provide written
comments and resources that you would like to share with the community to Karen Cobuluis
at kcobuluis@csg.org.
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
31
4. Downloadable Resources
The following resources are downloadable from the NEMA member portal at www.nemaweb.org.
A. National Points of Contact List (Provided by NEMA)
B. List of Relevant After Action Reports
C. BEOC Quick Start Guide (Provided by Illinois EMA)
D. Operational Integration Models (Provided by the Task Force)
E. Private Sector Representative Toolkit (Provided by the Bay Area UASI)
a. Position Descriptions
b. Private Sector Representative Roles & Responsibilities
c. Private Sector Position Checklist
d. ICS 214 Form
e. ICS 209 Form
f. Activity Prioritization Matrix
g. Activity Plan Template
h. Sample State-Private Company MOUs
i. VOAD Cooperative Agreements
j. Local Emergency Action Plan MOU
F. List of Relevant Sources of Disaster Information (Public/FOUO)
G. List of Relevant Training Resources
H. DHS SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum
I. Incident Management Information Sharing (IMIS) Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
J. “Crisis Information Management Framework for Regional Disaster Resiliency”
K. General: How-To Guides to implement various elements of the BEOC
L. U.S. Department of Energy Resource Allocation Workshop Slide Deck
Developing Operational Public Private Partnerships
32
5. Key Acronyms
BEOC Business Emergency Operations Center
CSD Cross Sector Dependencies
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
NBEOC National Business Emergency Operations Center
NDRF National Disaster Recovery Framework
NEMA National Emergency Management Agency
NRF National Response Framework
NIPP National Infrastructure Protection Plan
PIR Priority Information Requirements
PKEMERA Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
PPP Public Private Partnership
SMP Strategic Mission Priorities
VOAD Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster
Produced By:
National Emergency Management Association
Private Sector Committee
Information Sharing Task Force
www.nemaweb.org
