2023-2024 NET Program Changes: Difference between revisions
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
2.) '''ISSUE: NETs need clearer guidance and templates on Operations Planning.''' PBEM began requiring NETs to assemble Ops Plans in 2013, but a lack of clarity has led to products that are inconsistent in what they address and leave teams asking questions about their missions that PBEM has not sufficiently responded to. | 2.) '''ISSUE: NETs need clearer guidance and templates on Operations Planning.''' PBEM began requiring NETs to assemble Ops Plans in 2013, but a lack of clarity has led to products that are inconsistent in what they address and leave teams asking questions about their missions that PBEM has not sufficiently responded to. | ||
'''Related problem:''' '''Service area boundaries make no sense.''' For years now, a NET's service area boundaries conform to neighborhood association boundaries. However, those boundaries do not fit with the post-earthquake response capacity available to most teams of NETs. | '''Related problem:''' '''Service area boundaries make no sense.''' For years now, a NET's service area boundaries conform to neighborhood association boundaries. However, those boundaries do not fit with the post-earthquake response capacity available to most teams of NETs. | ||
<br/> | <br /> | ||
<br/> | <br /> | ||
3.) '''ISSUE: NETs have only ever been deployed through PBEM-managed centralized deployments.''' Since NET started in 1994, there has ''never'' been an emergency for which NETs self-deployed and activated a team ops plan. And in fact, ''every'' deployment has been PBEM directing NETs on where to go and what to do (even if that response was on a small neighborhood scale, such as putting up a perimeter around a down power line). And in fact, the only kind of disaster imaginable that would prompt NETs to self deploy and use an ops plan is a catastrophic city-scale disaster that brought down communications...in other words, an earthquake. | 3.) '''ISSUE: NETs have only ever been deployed through PBEM-managed centralized deployments, ops plans have never been used.''' Since NET started in 1994, there has ''never'' been an emergency for which NETs self-deployed and activated a team ops plan. And in fact, ''every'' deployment has been PBEM directing NETs on where to go and what to do (even if that response was on a small neighborhood scale, such as putting up a perimeter around a down power line). And in fact, the only kind of disaster imaginable that would prompt NETs to self deploy and use an ops plan is a catastrophic city-scale disaster that ''also'' brought down routine communications...in other words, an earthquake. | ||
4.) '''ISSUE: NET meeting attendance is consistently low.''' There are probably many reasons for this. But what seems readily apparent is that people have busy lives, and that teams have a lack of direction because there is a lack of direction around operations plans. | |||
== What are the proposed solutions? == | |||
Revision as of 12:46, 5 October 2023
This is a "read ahead" page for NET volunteers and others reviewing proposed changes to the Portland NET program. A feedback survey link will be posted to this page after the presentation on November 8, 2023.
Why make changes?
The NET program has a few long standing creaky problems that should be addressed, and changes are happening (at both the PBEM bureau level and the City government level) that open opportunities and create change factors we should move on. To wit:
1.) ISSUE: Not all 2,100 volunteers listed as "active" are actually active; we estimate only around 800 volunteers are active. This creates a problem because it inflates our planned response capacity, demoralizes Team Leaders who wonder why nobody is showing up to meetings, and skews any program planning directly related or adjacent to Portland NET.
2.) ISSUE: NETs need clearer guidance and templates on Operations Planning. PBEM began requiring NETs to assemble Ops Plans in 2013, but a lack of clarity has led to products that are inconsistent in what they address and leave teams asking questions about their missions that PBEM has not sufficiently responded to.
Related problem: Service area boundaries make no sense. For years now, a NET's service area boundaries conform to neighborhood association boundaries. However, those boundaries do not fit with the post-earthquake response capacity available to most teams of NETs.
3.) ISSUE: NETs have only ever been deployed through PBEM-managed centralized deployments, ops plans have never been used. Since NET started in 1994, there has never been an emergency for which NETs self-deployed and activated a team ops plan. And in fact, every deployment has been PBEM directing NETs on where to go and what to do (even if that response was on a small neighborhood scale, such as putting up a perimeter around a down power line). And in fact, the only kind of disaster imaginable that would prompt NETs to self deploy and use an ops plan is a catastrophic city-scale disaster that also brought down routine communications...in other words, an earthquake.
4.) ISSUE: NET meeting attendance is consistently low. There are probably many reasons for this. But what seems readily apparent is that people have busy lives, and that teams have a lack of direction because there is a lack of direction around operations plans.