1. Stanford Emergency Management All DOC Training Meeting October 25, 2011

2. Agenda Mass Notification system improvement project AlertSU system test results Satellite phone communications DOC Incident Planning process review FEMA Grant update DOC Expectations project FEMA L-363 Course offering 2 of 29

3. Objectives To specify university requirements for a mobile and web- based check-in capability, including an administrative system to collect information to assist with response during an emergency To identify the most feasible options to provide this capability To recommend the best option for Stanford crisis management using a check-in capability, including high- level information concerning: timeline with phased deliverables, approximate costs, implementation strategy and plan, other pertinent information, as necessary

4. Vendors considered Vendors Blackboard Connect CassidianGlobalAlert Link HipLink & IntelliGuard Mir3MissionModeRaveRegroupSendWordNowVoloRecoveryWARNxMatters

5. Finalist vendors All three are proven vendors in the emergency notification industry, although MissionMode is not currently in the higher education sector.

6. Evaluation participants Aaron Buzay, Res Ed Bernadette Burnes-Line, Hospital Bob Wheeler, LBRE Brandon Bond, Hospital Elaine Ray, University Communications Elise McMath, EH&S Keith Perry, EH&S Lance Lougee, SLAC Larry Gibbs, EH&S Lee Connor, Student Affairs Mark Mannia, DPS Susie Claxton, Student Housing Thomas Walters, R&DE Tim Flood Tim Torgenrud, ITS

7. Agile Gave the most thought to our RFP Developed mock-up of their ideas of what we wanted Clearly grasp our vision Willing to engage in long-term development process with Stanford Want to emerge from the pack with a superior product Medium price – came down substantially in price Therefore, desires a 5-year contract. Mike Mitchell of MissionMode: “We've tried to structure this so that Stanford remains a valuable and influential MissionMode customer far beyond the completion of our short-term development plans.” RECOMMENDATION We attempted to make our choice as the best return on our investment while enabling us to realize Stanford’s vision.

8. Comparison Bb Connect & MissionMode  Performs basic multi-modal notification  Rudimentary check-in features – check-in is phone only  Slow product release cycle  Emergency is not primary product focus  No glimpse into their product roadmap  Little real results in working with us  Performs more advanced multi- modal notification  Multi-modal check-in features, no app yet  Have incident management tool & collaboration features  Rapid product release cycle  Will work on rapid timeline  Willing to obligate themselves to deliver our functionality within 90 days  Emergency is primary focus  Willing to incorporate features we are requesting into their base product

9. THREE CHALLENGING EFFORTS System Organization Communication The Project  Notification  Emergency Check-In  Common Operating Picture  Use MDM to push to smart devices  Roles, responsibilities, authorities  Training & practice  Issue identification & resolution  Setting the right expectation  Framing the necessity

10. Timeline  Subject to Procurement, negotiation, & planning with MissionMode; however …  Bb Connect license expires Dec 12 (with 30-day notice)  Must move quickly  General framework can be established based on conversation, as follows: OctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJun… Purchase Phase 1* Sep Phases 2+: Design, Develop, Implement (in Phases) Common Operating Picture Organize Check-In *Phase 1 includes setup, configuration, replacement of Bb Connect for notification Integrate with iStanford & MDM

11. AlertSU System Test Results 11 of 29

12. AlertSU Test Results Simultaneous activation of mass notification system and outdoor warning system, including websites, hotlines, radio, and cable system –Test began at 12:05 PM Mass Notification system test results 12 of 29

13. 13 of 29

14. 14 of 29

15. 15 of 29 67 68 74 61 69 61 63 84 74 69 65 67

16. SATELLITE PHONE OPTIONS 16 of 29

17. New ATT Sat Phone Previous model drawbacks –High purchase price –Monthly fee –Never use it New model –High purchase price –Monthly fee –Fully functional daily use ATT phone comparable in size, weight and functionality to a regular phone. 17 of 29

18. Incident Planning Process

19. Incident Management We opened our DOC, what do we do now? When do you need to formalize the Planning process? –The incident will be prolonged (more than one operational period) –Two or more groups are responding to the event –You have several Command positions activated 19 of 29

20. 20 of 29 Who Does What? Incident Commander Incident Commander Operations Section Operations Section Planning Section Planning Section Logistics Section Logistics Section Finance/Admin Section Finance/Admin Section Command: Develops incident objectives. Ensures Safety Analysis is completed. Approves IAP. Operations: Establishes strategies and tactics to meet incident objectives. Planning: Provides status reports, manages the planning process, and produces the IAP. Finance/Admin: Conducts any needed cost analyses. Logistics: Identifies the logistics requirements to support the tactics.

21. 21 of 29 Incident/Event Notifications Initial Response & Assessment Incident Brief Using ICS-201 Initial IC/UC Meeting Tactics Meeting Preparing for the Planning Meeting Planning Meeting Execute Plan & Assess Progress New Ops Period Begins IAP Prep & Approval Operations Briefing Command & General Staff Meeting Preparing for the Tactics Meeting Initial Response IC/UC Develop/Update Objectives Meeting The Start of Each Planning Cycle  Planning for each operational period begins with the Incident Commander or Unified Command developing/ updating incident objectives.  Objectives are based on the continued assessment of the situation and the progress made. Initial Response

22. The Planning P 22 of 29

23. Effective Objectives S -Specific M - Measurable A -Attainable R -Realistic T -Time sensitive 23 of 29

24. 24 of 29 Sample Strategy and Tactics Tactics: Use truck-mounted pumps working from the road into spillway, and portable pumps on the east side discharging into Murkey Creek. Strategy #1: Reduce/divert inflow. Strategy #2: Release water from spillways. Selected Strategy: Pump water from reservoir. Resources: 5 crews with (3) 1,500-gpm truck-mounted pumps & (2) 500-gpm portable pumps Objective: Reduce reservoir level to 35 feet by 0800 on 2/10.

25. FEMA Grant Project Project 1 –Risk Assessment –Campus Plan Revisions –Table Top exercises Project 2 –Emergency Management Training Target 200 courses Current total 200+ completed Project 3 –Medical response Project 4 –Threat Assessment DOCs reporting completed training –Athletics, Business Affairs, DPS, EHS, Engineering, GSB, H&S, IT Services, LBRE, R&DE, School of Medicine, SULAIR, Student Affairs DOCs who have not reported completed training –Alumni & Development Offices, Dean of Research, Hoover Institution, Law School, President & Provost Offices, School of Earth, Sciences, School of Education, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford Campus Residential Leaseholders, Stanford Management Company, Vaden Health Center 25 of 29

26. DOC EXPECTATIONS PROJECT 26 of 29

27. DOC Expectations Project DOCs who have updated their pagespages EHS LB&RE School of Earth Sciences School of Humanities and Sciences School of Medicine DOCs who have not updated their pages Department of Public Safety ITS R&DE Vaden Alumni & Development Business Affairs Dean of Research GSB Hoover Law School Pres/Provost Office School of Education School of Engineering SLAC SCRL Stanford Management Company Student Affairs University Libraries 27 of 29

28. FEMA L-363 COURSE 28 of 29

29. L-363 Course Emergency Management for Higher Education –December 6, 7, 8 –Mission College –Free! 29 of 29

30. Questions? 30 of 30