Canada s First National Interoperability Baseline Assessment: CPRC Project Study

Transcription

1 Canada s First National Interoperability Baseline Assessment: CPRC Project Study Alison Brooks, PhD, PMP IDC Canada Lawrence Surtees IDC Canada Rob Burbach IDC Canada Scientific Authority Steve Palmer DRDC Centre for Security Science The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the Contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D Canada. Defence R&D Canada Centre for Security Science Technical Report DRDC CSS CR March 2012

2 Principal Author Alison Brooks IDC Canada Approved by Steve Palmer DRDC Centre for Security Science Approved for release by Mark Williamson DRDC Centre for Security Science, DRP Chair Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence,2012 Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2012

3 SURVEY Canada s First National Interoperability Baseline Assessment CPRC Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to determine the current and future state of emergency communications interoperability in Canada relative to the Canadian Communications Interoperability Continuum. Key findings include: Familiarity with the Communication Interoperability Continuum is quite high overall (75%); it should be noted that these results may have been driven higher by the recruitment of CITIG members and event participants. While familiarity with the Continuum is high, familiarity with the Canadian Interoperability Strategy is comparatively low. Almost half of all respondents asked were not familiar with the Communication Interoperability Strategy for Canada. 33 Yonge St., Suite 420, Toronto, Ontario Canada, M5E 1G4 First Responders believe that the current level of communication interoperability needs to be improved, particularly to respond to complex and disaster / large scale emergencies. Overall, respondents assessed their current level of interoperability as moderate. Moreover, First Responders strongly believe that improvements to emergency communication capabilities would both reduce risk to communities and agencies, and improve public opinions regarding safety. Significant gaps exist between current and ideal levels of interoperable Governance, SOPs, Technology, Training and Usage. The largest improvements are in the area of Technology (data and voice) and SOPs. Counter to the individual stream gap analysis, respondents universally pointed to Governance as the area that should be focused on. Challenges did not vary greatly by continuum stream. Funding and resources constraints as well as leadership are the most significant obstacles to improve interoperability. Unsurprisingly, resources required to significantly improve interoperability relate to Funding, People, Time and Leadership. Filing Information: March 2012, IDC #91052, Volume: 1 IDC Government Insights: Canadian IT Opportunity: Government: Survey

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary 1 In This Study 1 Methodology... 1 Demographics... 1 Situation Overview 2 Current and Ideal Levels of Communication Interoperability... 4 Future Outlook 19 Communication Interoperability Gaps and Priorities Challenges and Resource Requirements Challenges Resource Requirements Governance Challenges SOP Challenges...26 Data Interoperability Challenges Voice Interoperability Challenges Training and Exercises Essential Guidance 30 P #91052

5 LIST OF FIGURES P 1 Demographics Continuum Familiarity Strategy Familiarity Current State Preparedness Current State Interoperability by First Responder Group Current level of Interoperability with other First Responders Interoperability with First Responders Interoperability with Supporting Agencies Continuum Gap with First Responders - Overall Continuum Gap with First Responders - Police Continuum Gap with First Responders - Fire Continuum Gap with First Responders EMS/Health Continuum Gap with First Responders - Other Continuum Gap with Supporting Agencies- Overall Continuum Gap with Supporting Agencies- Police Continuum Gap with Supporting Agencies- Fire Continuum Gap with Supporting Agencies- EMS/Health Continuum Gap with Supporting Agencies- Other Gaps in Current and Future Interoperability First Responders Gaps in Current and Future Interoperability Supporting Agencies Priority Areas of Improvement Top Interoperability Challenges - Governance Top Interoperability Challenges- SOPs Top Interoperability Challenges- Data Top Interoperability Challenges- Voice Top Interoperability Challenges - Training and Exercises Top Interoperability Challenges - Usage #91052

6 IN THIS STUDY Methodology This study was based on a web survey of 105 Canadian first responders and emergency management stakeholders, conducted from November to December All organizations had a vested interest in public safety and respondents who were knowledgeable about their organization s level of communication interoperability Demographics Police and Fire accounted for 68% of respondents. Other agencies include: municipal, regional, provincial and federal agencies as well as emergency management and first nations. 46% of respondents were from Ontario, 35% from the West & North and 19% from the East (QC & Atlantic). FIGURE 1 Demographics Please specify your agency or organization type (N=105) 20% 26% 17% 42% Police Fire EMS Other #

7 SITUATION OVERVIEW The purpose of this study was to determine the current and future state of emergency communications interoperability in Canada relative to the Canadian Communications Interoperability Continuum, seeking to: Clearly articulate the current level of Canadian interoperability across each of the 5 Continuum streams by region and first responder group Identify differences and similarities across regions and organizations Provide a baseline so that progress over time can be assessed Identify priority areas Identify areas in need of future research The results will be used to identify priority areas for improvement and also as baseline data against which future progress will be measured. As mentioned earlier, 75% of respondents were familiar with the Continuum. However, given that many respondents are from Ontario and the study was promoted to CITIG members and attendees, this may be an overstatement of the pan-canadian level of familiarity. EMS / Health respondents were the least familiar with the continuum. Conversely, almost half of all respondents asked were not familiar with the Communication Interoperability Strategy for Canada. 2 #91052

8 FIGURE 2 Continuum Familiarity How familiar are you with the Canadian Communications Interoperability Continuum? (N=105) Not aware of Other EMS / Health Fire Police Heard of before today, but not familiar with Total Somewhat familiar with it Very familiar with it Percentage #

9 FIGURE 3 Strategy Familiarity Are you aware of the Communication Interoperability Strategy for Canada? (N=105) Other 15% 20% 65% EMS / Health 59% 41% Fire 31% 43% 26% Police 42% 15% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yes No Not Asked -- Very Familiar with Continuum Current and Ideal Levels of Communication Interoperability Fire, EMS / Health and other organizations feel that the current state of emergency communication interoperability doesn t prepare them adequately for broad-scale emergencies; only Police feel that the current state of communication interoperability adequately prepares them for routine hazards and emergencies. All First Responders emergency service personnel who respond to emergencies or large scale disasters - that strongly believe that improvements to emergency communication capabilities would both reduce risk to communities and agencies, and improve public opinions regarding safety. Respondents self assess their current level of interoperability with First Responders as medium (3 5 on a scale of 7 points). Police report higher levels of interoperability than other First Responders; almost 60% of EMS organizations surveyed rated their current interoperability levels as low (1-3 on a scale of 7 points). 4 #91052

10 FIGURE 4 Current State Preparedness Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about communications interoperability (N varies) The current state of emergency communications interoperability makes us adequately prepared to effectively respond to routine hazards and emergencies 4.7 The current state of emergency communications interoperability makes us adequately prepared to effectively respond to complex and disaster / large scale emergencies Future improvements to our emergency communications Interoperability capabilities would reduce risk to our communities and response agencies 3.7 All Respondents 6.5 Future improvements to our emergency communications Interoperability capabilities would improve public confidence and support Average Level of Agreement 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree #

11 FIGURE 5 Current State Interoperability by First Responder Group Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about communications interoperability (N=105) The current state of emergency communications interoperability makes us adequately prepared to effectively respond to routine hazards and emergencies The current state of emergency communications interoperability makes us adequately prepared to effectively respond to complex and disaster / large scale emergencies Future improvements to our emergency communications Interoperability capabilities would reduce risk to our communities and response agencies Future improvements to our emergency communications Interoperability capabilities would improve public confidence and support EMS / Health Fire Police Average Level of Agreement 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree 6 #91052

12 FIGURE 6 Current level of Interoperability with other First Responders Overall, how would you rate your organization's current level of communications interoperability with the following stakeholders? (N=105) Low (1-2) Other EMS / Health Fire Police Med (3-5) Total High (6-7) Percentage #

13 FIGURE 7 Interoperability with First Responders Overall, how would you rate your organization's current level of communications interoperability with the following stakeholders? (N=105) Limited leadership, planning, collaboration among areas with minimal investment in the sustainability of systems and documentation "First responders" is a general term for emergency service personnel who respond to emergencies or large scale disasters. "Other supporting agencies" include utilities, critical infrastructure and private security firms. High degree of leadership, planning, collaboration among areas with commitment to and investment in the sustainability of systems & documentation Other EMS / Health Fire Police Total Percentage 8 #91052

14 FIGURE 8 Interoperability with Supporting Agencies Overall, how would you rate your organization's current level of communications interoperability with the following stakeholders? (N =98) Limited leadership, planning, collaboration among areas with minimal investment in the sustainability of systems and documentation High degree of leadership, planning, collaboration among areas with commitment to and investment in the sustainability of systems & documentation Other EMS / Health Fire Police Total Percentage #

15 FIGURE 9 Continuum Gap with First Responders - Overall What point on the Continuum best reflects the current and future levels of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE? (N=105) Current Ideal Source: CPRC Project Interoperability Study, December 2011 N=105 / s P O S? / rs E e C ld N o A h e N k R ta E s V e O s G e f th o l to e t v c le e t p n s re re u c e th ts A c S U fle / re t S s E e b IS C m R u E X tin E n o & C G e IN th n IN o A t R in T o / p E t a IC h O w V, / y a A d T o A T D 25 ith w E G 10 #91052

16 FIGURE 10 Continuum Gap with First Responders - Police What point on the Continuum best reflects the current and future levels of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE? (N=105) Current Ideal Source: CPRC Project Interoperability Study, December 2011 N= #

17 FIGURE 11 Continuum Gap with First Responders - Fire What point on the Continuum best reflects the current and future levels of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE? (N=105) Current Ideal Source: CPRC Project Interoperability Study, December 2011 N= #91052

18 FIGURE 12 Continuum Gap with First Responders EMS/Health What point on the Continuum best reflects the current and future levels of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE?(N=105) Current Ideal Source: CPRC Project Interoperability Study, December 2011 N= #

19 FIGURE 13 Continuum Gap with First Responders - Other What point on the Continuum best reflects the current and future levels of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE? (N=105) Current Ideal Source: CPRC Project Interoperability Study, December 2011 N= #91052

20 FIGURE 14 Continuum Gap with Supporting Agencies- Overall What point on the Continuum best reflects the current and future levels of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE? (N=105) Current Ideal Source: CPRC Project Interoperability Study, December 2011 N=105 #

21 FIGURE 15 Continuum Gap with Supporting Agencies- Police What point on the Continuum best reflects the current and future levels of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE?(N=105) Current Ideal Source: CPRC Project Interoperability Study, December 2011 N= #91052

22 FIGURE 16 Continuum Gap with Supporting Agencies- Fire What point on the Continuum best reflects the current and future levels of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE? (N=105) Current Ideal Source: CPRC Project Interoperability Study, December 2011 N=105 #

23 FIGURE 17 Continuum Gap with Supporting Agencies- EMS/Health What point on the Continuum best reflects the current and future levels of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE? (N=105) Current Ideal Source: CPRC Project Interoperability Study, December 2011 N= #91052

24 FIGURE 18 Continuum Gap with Supporting Agencies- Other What point on the Continuum best reflects the current and future levels of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE? (N=105) Current Ideal Source: CPRC Project Interoperability Study, December 2011 N= FUTURE OUTLOOK Communication Interoperability Gaps and Priorities Communication interoperability improvements are required for every stream of the continuum, province and organizational type; however it is not the case that everyone is trying to achieve the highest level of interoperability. For all First Responder groups, the biggest gap between the current and ideal states is with regard to data interoperability; they seek to move from common applications to shared standards-based systems. EMS and Other organizations report the largest improvement necessary to achieve the ideal state; Police are closer to their ideal state than other first responders. #

25 Interoperability levels (current and ideal) are slightly lower for supporting agencies than first responders interoperability with first responders should be the priority followed by supporting agencies. In contradiction to the gap analysis by continuum stream, two-thirds of all respondents cited Governance as the top priority area for improvement. FIGURE 19 Gaps in Current and Future Interoperability First Responders Today, what point on the Continuum best reflects the current level of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE with respect to these stakeholders? In the future, what would you consider the ideal level of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE to be with respect to each of these stakeholders? (N=105) Governance 1.7 SOPs 2.9 Technology - Voice 2.6 Technology - Data 4.6 Training & Exec. 2.1 Usage #91052

26 FIGURE 20 Gaps in Current and Future Interoperability Supporting Agencies Today, what point on the Continuum best reflects the current level of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE with respect to these stakeholders? In the future, what would you consider the ideal level of GOVERNANCE / SOPs / DATA / VOICE / TRAINING & EXERCISES / USAGE to be with respect to each of these stakeholders? (N=105) Governance 1.9 SOPs 3.1 Technology - Voice 3.4 Technology - Data 4.2 Training & Exec. 2.1 Usage #

27 FIGURE 21 Priority Areas of Improvement Which streams of the continuum need to be prioritized in order to improve first responder communications most efficiently? (N=105) Governance 56% 12.4% 10.5% 17.1% SOPs 9% 32.4% 29.5% 20.0% 9.5% Technology 19% 26.7% 21.0% 15.2% 18.1% Training & Excercises 6% 11.4% 27.6% 36.2% 19.0% Usage 10% 17.1% 18.1% 18.1% 36.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% First Priority Second Priority Third Priority Fourth Priority Fifth Priority Source: IDC, #91052

28 FIGURE 22 Combined Percent of Respondents that Ranked the Stream as One of Top Two Focus Areas By First Responder Type Which streams of the continuum need to be prioritized in order to improve first responder communications most efficiently? (N=105) Governance 55.0% 71.4% 65.4% 69% 82.4% SOPs 33.3% 38.5% 41% 50.0% 52.9% Technology Training & Exercise Usage 5.9% 40.0% 41.2% 42.3% 46% 25.0% 16.7% 19.2% 17% 30.0% 17.6% 26.2% 34.6% 28% 52.4% Other EMS / Health Fire Police Total 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% #

29 FIGURE 23 Combined Percent of Respondents that Ranked the Stream as One of Top Two Focus Areas By Region Which streams of the continuum need to be prioritized in order to improve first responder communications most efficiently? (N=105) Governance SOPs Technology Training & Exercise Usage 36.4% 45.5% 44.4% 42.9% 40.0% 35.7% 33.3% 11.1% 51.0% 40.0% 50.0% 25.0% 11.1% 10.2% 14.3% 9.1% 10.0% 36.4% 30.0% 25.0% 44.4% 30.6% 21.4% 41.7% 88.9% 65.3% 80.0% 78.6% 75.0% 72.7% ATL QC ON MB/SK AB BC/North 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Challenges and Resource Requirements Challenges Funding shortages and resource needs are perennial scarcity issues in public safety that are repeated as challenges for each stream of the Continuum. EMS sites a lack of willingness to coordinate as a more significant challenge than other organizations. Lack of provincial policy and legislation are noted as the biggest hurdles to improved governance. Regarding Data, EMS and other organizations also identified lack of data equipment standards and consensus on equipment features and functions as significant challenges, whereas Fire and Other organizations identified lack of knowledgeable resources to select and implement solutions. Training and Exercises are thwarted by time, staffing levels and willingness to participate. Resource Requirements Dedicated funding, resources and national standards are viewed as the items that would be most helpful for data interoperability 24 #91052

30 Standards and training are seen to be the most useful aids, in addition to funding and resources Dedicated time to conduct exercises, access to expertise, and dedicated training materials are noted as the most important aids to improving training. Governance Challenges Funding and Resources are perennial scarcity issues in public safety that are repeated in each stream of our questions on the Continuum. Lack of funding is a particularly acute issue for Emergency Management. EMS sights a lack of willingness to coordinate as a more significant challenge than other organizations. Lack of provincial policy and legislation are noted as the biggest hurdles (and most need help) to improved governance. FIGURE 24 Top Interoperability Challenges - Governance In your opinion, which of the following areas represent a MAJOR CHALLENGE to improving communication interoperability? (N=105) Lack of resources - people and time Lack of funding Lack of formal policy and legislation Lack of formal agreements or MOUs Lack of strategic planning Lack of willingness to coordinate / collaborate Lack of support from leadership Other Lack Other EMS / Health Fire Police Percentage of Respondents #

31 SOP Challenges Generally resources & funding are top two challenges. However, 'Other' organizations have significantly less of a challenge securing funding than First Responders. Lack of knowledge is a key inhibitor for EMS and Other organizations. Re-usable SOP templates are needed by all first responders. Lack of organizational will is an issue for 'Other' organizations. Lack of technology is identified as a significant challenge for EMS. FIGURE 25 Top Interoperability Challenges- SOPs In your opinion, which of the following areas represent a MAJOR CHALLENGE to improving communication interoperability? (N=105) Lack of resources - people & time to develop SOPs Lack of funding Lack of knowledge required to develop interoperable SOPs Lack of willingness to collaborate / coordinate Lack of technology to make interoperable SOPs possible Lack of organizational will Other Lack No Major Challenges Other EMS / Health Fire Police Percentage of Respondents 26 #91052

32 Data Interoperability Challenges Lack of funding is the most significant challenge identified with respect to data interoperability by first responders. EMS and other organizations also identified lack of data equipment standards and consensus on equipment features and functions as significant challenges. Fire and other organizations identified lack of knowledgeable resources to select and implement solutions. EMS and other and Fire all identified interoperable software as a significant challenge. Other first responders appear to need the most help regarding data interoperability. Spectrum is not perceived to be one of the top challenges to data interoperability. FIGURE 26 Top Interoperability Challenges- Data In your opinion, which of the following areas represent a MAJOR CHALLENGE to improving DATA communication interoperability? (N=105) Lack of funding Lack of interoperable data equipment standards Lack of knowledgeable resources to select and implement solutions Lack of consensus on required equipment features/functions Lack of knowledgeable resources to leverage the solutions Lack of interoperability software Lack of affordable, standards-based equipment Lack of sufficient spectrum Other Lack No major challenge Other EMS / Health Fire Police Percentage of Respondents #

33 Voice Interoperability Challenges Lack of funding is the most significant challenge identified with respect to voice interoperability by first responders. EMS and other identified lack of voice equipment standards and lack of consensus on required equipment features / functions as significant challenges for voice interoperability. Spectrum is not perceived to be one of the top challenges to voice interoperability. FIGURE 27 Top Interoperability Challenges- Voice In your opinion, which of the following areas represent a MAJOR CHALLENGE to improving VOICE communication interoperability? (N=105) Lack of funding Lack of interoperable voice equipment standards Lack of consensus on required equipment features/functions Lack of affordable, standards-based equipment Lack of knowledgeable resources to select and implement solutions Lack of sufficient spectrum Lack of knowledgeable resources to leverage solutions Other Lack No Major Challenges Other EMS / Health Fire Police Percentage of Respondents 28 #91052

34 Training and Exercises Lack of time and staff levels to conduct training and exercises is the largest challenge for Police and other organizations. EMS and Fire identified lack of funding as the primary challenge to improving interoperability training and exercises. Availability of expertise and resources are also significant challenges for many organizations. 'Other' organizations indicated that lack of willingness to participate in training or exercise is a significant challenge. FIGURE 28 Top Interoperability Challenges - Training and Exercises In your opinion, which of the following areas represent a MAJOR CHALLENGE to improving VOICE communication interoperability? (N=105) Lack of time/staff levels to conduct training and exercises Lack of funding to support training Lack of availability of training or exercise expertise/leadership Lack of training resources (manuals, equipment, workshops, etc) Lack of willingness to participate in training or exercises Lack of knowledgeable trainers Lack of authority to conduct exercises No major challenges Other Lack Other EMS / Health Fire Police Percentage of Respondents #

35 Usage Police indicate that funding and time to implement and training are major challenges in improving interoperability usage. EMS and Fire identified funding, technology, lack of coordination and willingness between first responders as major challenges. FIGURE 29 Top Interoperability Challenges - Usage In your opinion, which of the following areas represent a MAJOR CHALLENGE to improving the USAGE stream of communication interoperability? (N=105) Lack of time/staff levels to conduct training and exercises Lack of funding to support training Lack of availability of training or exercise expertise/leadership Lack of training resources (manuals, equipment, workshops, etc) Lack of willingness to participate in training or exercises Lack of knowledgeable trainers Lack of authority to conduct exercises No major challenges Other Lack Other EMS / Health Fire Police Percentage of Respondents 30 #91052

36 ESSENTIAL GUIDANCE IDC offers the following essential guidance for first responders, supporting agencies and other involved stakeholders: CPRC should continue to raise awareness of the continuum within the First Responder community. A concerted effort should be made to improve familiarity within the EMS community. The Communication Interoperability Strategy for Canada is newer and is less well known than the Continuum. The Strategy needs to be actively promoted within the First Responder community. Current Levels of Interoperability are moderate. Significant investments are required to improve interoperability to the point where First Responders feel that they can adequately address larger scale emergencies or disasters. In order to secure investments prior to a large scale event, Responders should consider demonstrating the risk / impact of limited interoperability to the government and public in training exercises. These demonstrations could be leveraged to calculate the risks to the community given the current state of interoperability. A significant amount of attention has been given to Voice communication but relatively little to Data interoperability. Data is perceived by the community as of critical importance. More research, guidance and collaboration is required to ensure that emerging Data communications are interoperable. The Police Information Portal (PIP) provided investigative data interoperability. We firmly believe that the combination of 700 MHZ and LTE will provide a platform for data interoperability. Also, the Law Enforcement Information Data Standards (LEIDS) project will provide a data exchange standard for Canada. Governance is a necessary component for interagency cooperation. However, the emphasis on Governance as a focus area seems to contradict the gap analysis conducted for each stream of the Continuum. Once Governance is in place then SOP s and Training & Usage plans can be developed; often without major cost. Focusing on these areas after sufficient governance has been established may be the fastest way to make improvements given limited funding, resources and leadership challenges that have been identified for all streams of the Continuum. The identified challenges align directly with the resources required to improved interoperability. However, these issues are not unknown or easily overcome. Continued lobbying for specific funding for interoperable training and exercises would help improve the overall level of interoperability. Because resources will continue to be scarce, it is critical that organizations like CPRC and CITIG provide guidance, support, facilitate knowledge transfer and ensure connections can be made between individuals willing to take on a leadership role in their organization. IDC would encourage CPRC and CITIG to formalize their approach to supporting the development of: interoperability practice leaders for each stream of the continuum #

37 an interoperability knowledge warehouse that provides ready access to all research on the topic, provides model Governance and SOP documents and encourages the development of best practice case studies, blogs and communities a contact database to assist the community communicate ideas broadly or reach out to specific individuals for support and insight. 32 #91052

38 DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA (Security classification of title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified) 1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document. Organizations for whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency, are entered in section 8.) IDC Canada #420, 33 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M5E 1G4 2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (Overall security classification of the document including special warning terms if applicable.) UNCLASSIFIED (NON-CONTROLLED GOODS) DMC A Review: ECL JUNE TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification should be indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C or U) in parentheses after the title.) Canada s First National Interoperability Baseline Assessment: CPRC Project Study 4. AUTHORS (last name, followed by initials ranks, titles, etc. not to be used) Brooks, Alison; Surtees, Lawrence, Burbach, Rob; 5. DATE OF PUBLICATION (Month and year of publication of document.) March a. NO. OF PAGES 6b. NO. OF REFS (Total containing information, (Total cited in document.) including Annexes, Appendices, etc DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of report, e.g. interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.) Contractor Report 8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development include address.) Defence R&D Canada CSS 22 Nepean St Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2 9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable research and development project or grant number under which the document was written. Please specify whether project or grant.) 9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under which the document was written.) CPRC a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official document number by which the document is identified by the originating activity. This number must be unique to this document.) 10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may be assigned this document either by the originator or by the sponsor.) DRDC CSS CR DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.) Unclassified/Unlimited No Controlled Goods 12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the Document Availability (11). However, where further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement audience may be selected.)) Unlimited 13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph (unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is bilingual.)

39 The purpose of this study was to determine the current and future state of emergency communications interoperability in Canada relative to the Canadian Communications Interoperability Continuum. Key findings include: Familiarity with the Communication Interoperability Continuum is quite high overall (75%); it should be noted that these results may have been driven higher by the recruitment of CITIG members and event participants. While familiarity with the Continuum is high, familiarity with the Canadian Interoperability Strategy is comparatively low. Almost half of all respondents asked were not familiar with the Communication Interoperability Strategy for Canada. First Responders believe that the current level of communication interoperability needs to be improved, particularly to respond to complex and disaster / large scale emergencies. Overall, respondents assessed their current level of interoperability as moderate. Moreover, First Responders strongly believe that improvements to emergency communication capabilities would both reduce risk to communities and agencies, and improve public opinions regarding safety. Significant gaps exist between current and ideal levels of interoperable Governance, SOPs, Technology, Training and Usage. The largest improvements are in the area of Technology (data and voice) and SOPs. Counter to the individual stream gap analysis, respondents universally pointed to Governance as the area that should be focused on. Challenges did not vary greatly by continuum stream. Funding and resources constraints as well as leadership are the most significant obstacles to improve interoperability. Unsurprisingly, resources required to significantly improve interoperability relate to Funding, People, Time and Leadership. Le présent rapport explique les stratégies de formulation et de résolution du problème du projet collaboratif de RDDC et d EMBC visant à améliorer les programmes d analyse des dangers, des risques et de la vulnérabilité (ADRV) et d infrastructures essentielles (IE). On y décrit la méthodologie employée, qui se résume à ceci : utilisation d une approche de recherche opérationnelle souple et application des principes du Code des pratiques exemplaires d évaluation du C2 de l OTAN à divers aspects de la planification axée sur les capacités, à l ingénierie des systèmes et à la gestion des risques. Les recherches documentaires préliminaires sont aussi décrites dans le présent rapport. On y présente les groupes d intervenants consultés et les questions qui leur ont été posées afin de recueillir leurs points de vue au sujet des programmes à l étude et des problèmes connexes. L analyse a permis de cerner les besoins et les lacunes des programmes et de proposer des projets de RDDC en vue de combler les lacunes en question. Parmi ces propositions, on trouve notamment l adaptation du Cadre de sécurité des grands événements pour les besoins d EMBC, le développement d un outil d évaluation des infrastructures essentielles dans le cadre de divers projets pilotes, et l octroi de contrats pour l établissement d un cadre de résilience communautaire et l élaboration de modèles de synthèse mission-tâches. Ces projets sont déjà en cours. 14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful in cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g. Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of each should be indicated as with the title.) Interoperability; First Responder; CITIG

40