During several recent requests for proposals (RFPs), we were invited to submit a response for a mass communication system, not an emergency communication and management platform. While this is not an immediate “No” for me, it is seldom a “yes.” There are many differences between the two different platforms. However, for this blog, we will focus on the primary types of communication for each platform. While we discuss these differences, please understand that many of these differences also apply to other communication systems.
We have discussed many times how vital emergency communication is. Remember, the number one failure during most emergencies is “Communication.” Keeping this in mind, we must do everything possible to ensure that any message we send to our stakeholders is received and understood.
Most mass communication platforms are meant to communicate daily with the schools’ stakeholders for routine communications. For example, homework, fees that are due, how a student is doing, changes in the schedule, marketing various upcoming events and campaigns (fundraising, school spirit, etc.), maybe changes to or new policies, etc. Parents, students, and staff get inundated with communication from the school. While we are not downplaying the importance of communication, the real issue this causes is the fatigue created by receiving so much information. This fatigue can cause the receivers of this communication to become deaf and blind to those communication efforts.
In many cases, people voluntarily opt out of communication altogether. By creating an environment where communication is routinely ignored, we also create an environment where emergency communications are ignored. This is true even if the provider of the mass communication platform has included the ability to send emergency messages. These messages can get lost and ignored. This also holds true for PA and Bell systems. Many of those messages sent are lost or misunderstood. How many times have we asked ourselves about what was announced on the PA or misunderstood which bell just rang? Now imagine that was an emergency communication.
While the country is moving towards using “Panic Buttons,” schools are looking for a solution using mass communication platforms, which is the opposite of panic buttons. While it is essential to have systems that work together to minimize management issues, we must stay in our lanes and focus on what we do well. Adding an “emergency messaging” component to your mass communication platform doesn’t mean it is effective.
Here are the key factors why we should separate the communication types (Mass Communication and Emergency Alerting/Management):
- Emergency Alerts and communications should be readily identifiable as important information that shouldn’t be ignored.
- Most mass communications platforms only send messages outward and don’t allow for responses or two-way communications. This is a critical function when trying to update and maintain situational awareness.
- We need alerts to separate from mass and routine communications to mitigate the potential for messaging fatigue.
- We need to focus entirely on the emergency at hand and not be distracted by other non-emergency messaging that may come from those not impacted by the emergency, isolating the urgent messaging from the routine.
- Even if you have a mass communication platform for messaging, how do you communicate with the safety team only, the first responders, and critical stakeholders?
- Mass communication platforms focus on emergency messaging rather than alerting or response. They certainly don’t focus on the other aspects of emergency cycles: Prevention/Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery.
To sum up, these two platforms have uniquely different purposes. Combining those two purposes into one platform creates a situation where the potential for misunderstanding and miscommunication can have catastrophic consequences.
No Comments Yet
Let us know what you think