Incident Management Software for Emergency Response: Focus Group Report

SAVER-T-FGR-10

Approved for Public Release

Incident Management Software

for Emergency Response

Focus Group Report

January 2021

Approved for Public Release

The Incident Management Software for Emergency Response Focus Group Report was prepared by

the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory for the SAVER Program of the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate.

The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.

government.

Reference herein to any specific commercial products, processes or services by trade name,

trademark, manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,

recommendation or favoring by the U.S. government.

The information and statements contained herein shall not be used for the purposes of advertising,

nor to imply the endorsement or recommendation of the U.S. government.

With respect to documentation contained herein, neither the U.S. government nor any of its employees

make any warranty, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability

and fitness for a particular purpose. Further, neither the U.S. government nor any of its employees

assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any

information, apparatus, product or process disclosed; nor do they represent that its use would not

infringe privately owned rights.

The cover photo and images included herein were provided by the National Urban Security Technology

Laboratory, unless otherwise noted.

iii

Approved for Public Release

FOREWORD

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established the System Assessment and Validation

for Emergency Responders (SAVER) Program to assist emergency responders making procurement

decisions. Located within the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) of DHS, the SAVER Program

conducts objective assessments and validations on commercially available equipment and systems

and develops knowledge products that provide relevant equipment information to the emergency

responder community. The SAVER Program mission includes:

• Conducting impartial, practitioner-relevant, operationally oriented assessments and validations

of emergency response equipment

• Providing information—in the form of knowledge products—that enables decision-makers and

responders to better select, procure, use and maintain emergency response equipment.

SAVER Program knowledge products provide information on equipment that falls under the

categories listed in the DHS Authorized Equipment List (AEL), focusing primarily on two main

questions for the responder community: “What equipment is available?” and “How does it perform?”

These knowledge products are shared nationally with the responder community, providing a cost-

saving asset to DHS by ensuring federal, state and local responders are prepared to make

operational and procurement decisions.

The SAVER Program is managed by the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL).

NUSTL works with stakeholders to identify and prioritize project topics that address emergency

responder needs, develops SAVER knowledge products and coordinates with other organizations to

leverage appropriate subject matter expertise.

NUSTL provides expertise and analysis on a wide range of key subject areas, including chemical,

biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive weapons detection; emergency response and recovery;

and related equipment, instrumentation and technologies. Under its SAVER Program, NUSTL - in

conjunction with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory – will conduct a comparative assessment of

Incident Management Software to provide emergency responders with reference information on

commercially available technologies. Incident Management Software for Emergency Response falls

under the AEL reference numbers 04AP-05-CDSS, titled Systems and Tools, ICS; 04AP-05-SVIS, titled

Software, Operational Space Visualization; and 04AP-03-GISS, titled System, Geospatial Information.

As part of this project, recommendations for the assessment were gathered from a focus group and

are documented in this report.

For more information on NUSTL’s SAVER Program and Incident Management Software for Emergency

Response or to view additional reports on other technologies, visit:

www.dhs.gov.science-and-

technology/SAVER.

Approved for Public Release

POINTS OF CONTACT

National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Science and Technology Directorate

201 Varick Street

New York, NY 10014

E-mail: NUSTL@hq.dhs.gov

Website: www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/SAVER

Authors:

Cecilia Murtagh, Mechanical Engineer, NUSTL

Eliot Calhoun, Program Analyst, NUSTL

Brenda Velasco-Lopez, Test Engineer, NUSTL

Andre Coleman, Senior Research Scientist, PNNL

Richard Ozanich Ph.D., Technical Advisor, PNNL

Jerry Tagestad, Geospatial Data Scientist, PNNL

Approved for Public Release

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Incident management software (IMS) consists of a suite of mobile-ready tools that aggregate pre-

planned or no-notice critical incident information in a real-time collaborative environment such that

situational status, response priorities, and resource deployment are brought into a common

operating picture. IMS brings together diverse types of data (e.g., map views, property information,

sensor data, resource tracking, computer-aided dispatch) in a multilayered format, providing first

responders and emergency managers access to the information they need to manage small and

large scale no-notice incidents (e.g., house fire, earthquakes) and pre-planned events (e.g., parade,

protest). Emergency management, fire service, law enforcement, and other emergency response

agencies that have a role in the management of incidents and events use IMS to conduct pre-

planning, multiagency coordination, resource allocation, asset tracking, and information collection

and analysis to aid decision making and after action audits and reports.

The National Urban Security Technology Laboratory’s (NUSTL) Systems Assessment and Validation

for Emergency Responders (SAVER) Program, in cooperation with the Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory (PNNL), will conduct a comparative assessment of IMS for emergency response to provide

emergency responders with information to assist their making operational and procurement

decisions.

As part of the assessment planning process, NUSTL convened a virtual focus group from September

16-23, 2020. The virtual focus group was conducted in three parts over the course of one week: an

introductory video conference, individual participant follow-up interviews, and a final group

discussion by video conference. Seven emergency responders from various jurisdictions who have

experience using IMS for emergency response participated. The focus group generated

recommendations on evaluation criteria, developed product selection specifications, and discussed

possible scenarios for assessing IMS.

The focus group identified 31 evaluation criteria. “Capability” and “usability” were the most

important of the five overarching SAVER categories. Eight additional criteria were identified by the

focus group as being of utmost importance for IMS to be used in emergency responses:

• Ability to handle standard geographic information system (GIS) files

• Personnel tasking and accountability tracking

• Information sharing across personnel and agencies

• Interoperability with other software and sensors

• Intuitive user interface

• Reliability of software

• Technical support availability

• Scalability of users and data traffic

The focus group participants also recommended scenarios and products to be considered for

inclusion in the assessment. These recommendations will be used create the Incident Management

Software for Emergency Response Assessment Plan.

Approved for Public Release

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7

1.1 Participant Information ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.0 Focus Group Methodology .................................................................................................................... 8

3.0 Evaluation Criteria Recommendations .............................................................................................. 10

3.1 Capability.......................................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Usability ............................................................................................................................................ 12

3.3 Deployability ..................................................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Maintainability ................................................................................................................................. 13

3.5 Affordability ...................................................................................................................................... 13

4.0 Evaluation Criteria Assessment Recommendations ......................................................................... 14

5.0 Assessment Scenario Recommendations ......................................................................................... 15

5.1 Pre-planned Event - Protest ............................................................................................................ 15

5.2 Fast-moving No-notice Incident – Scenario TBD ........................................................................... 15

5.3 Small No-notice Incident – House Fire .......................................................................................... 16

6.0 Product Selection Recommendations ................................................................................................ 16

7.0 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 16

8.0 Future Actions ...................................................................................................................................... 17

9.0 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 17

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Focus Group Process ................................................................................................................. 8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Focus Group Participant Demographics .................................................................................... 7

Table 2-1 Evaluation Criteria Weighting Scale ........................................................................................... 9

Table 3-1 Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 10

Table 4-1 Evaluation Criteria Assessment Recommendations ............................................................... 14

Approved for Public Release

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Emergency management, fire service, law enforcement, and other emergency response agencies use

incident management software (IMS) to conduct multiagency coordination, make resource allocation

decisions, and collect and analyze information. By aggregating real-time and historic incident

information in an intuitive, map-based environment, IMS assists first responders with the planning,

management, and reporting of small- and large-scale events and incidents.

Mobile, map based, commercial IMS products incorporate real-time geospatial views of an operating

area and have capabilities for pre-event planning as well as incident response and management.

Operating on handheld devices, tablets, or mobile PCs, these software solutions enable first

responders to execute various tasks including location sharing for fleet and asset tracking, assigning

roles and creating checklists, and after-action reporting.

1.1 Participant Information

On September 16-23, 2020, the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory’s (NUSTL) System

Assessment and Validation for Emergency Responders (SAVER) Program conducted a virtual focus

group on IMS in order to gather recommendations on evaluation criteria, product selection

specifications, products and possible scenarios for the assessment of incident management

software for emergency response. Conducted in three parts over the course of one week, the

virtual focus group consisted of an introductory video conference, followed by individual

participant interviews, and a group discussion video conference at the finish.

Seven emergency responders from various jurisdictions and with at least two years of experience

using IMS were invited to participate in the focus group. Demographic information is listed below

in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Focus Group Participant Demographics

Participant Discipline

Years of

Experience

(Discipline)

Years of

Experience

(IMS)

State

Emergency Communications 17 10 New Jersey

Emergency Management 4 3 Colorado

Emergency Management/Fire Service 1/20 6 Virginia

Fire Service 20 20 Minnesota

Fire Service/Emergency Medical Services 31 10 Maryland

Fire Service/Emergency Medical Services 40 25 Maryland

Information Technology (Fire Service) 25 15 Washington

Approved for Public Release

2.0 FOCUS GROUP METHODOLOGY

Held via video conference, the first session of the virtual focus group opened with an overview of

NUSTL, the SAVER Program, IMS, and the goals of the focus group. In this first session, a facilitator

asked participants about their experiences using IMS. Focus group participants discussed the types

of scenarios in which they use IMS, including pre-planned large, slow-moving events (e.g., a parade

or marathon) as well as no-notice, small and faster-moving incidents (e.g., house fire, commercial

building fire, or hazardous material spill). Participants pointed out that the scale of the event also

impacted the types of personnel who respond and their respective IMS requirements.

Participants discussed the need for a single IMS that would either encompass all required functions

or allow for seamless integration with other software and tools their organizations also use during

emergencies. Participants noted that during a single incident their organizations currently use

multiple solutions (including pencil and paper) for functions such as tracking resource requests,

sharing information between the emergency operations center (EOC) and responders, personnel

tracking, and asset tracking.

Finally, participants highlighted the need for scalability. Emergencies, especially those involving an

EOC response, may require ad-hoc inclusion of personnel with different backgrounds from multiple

units and agencies. Participants voiced the importance of having an IMS that can quickly

accommodate the addition of new users with relatively little set-up or training. One focus group

participant recalled an instance of switching to free software that is widely used by the public in non-

emergency settings (e.g., Discord and Google Forms) in order to take advantage of its easy

deployabililty and the familiarity to new users.

During the introductory video conference, the project lead outlined four sets of recommendations

needed to plan an assessment that would be requested from the focus group participants:

1. Evaluation criteria recommendations—Product features that are important to consider when

making operational or procurement decisions

2. Assessment scenario recommendations—Operational settings and activities that reflect

responders’ experiences and would provide evaluators with appropriate conditions to assess

the products

3. Product specification recommendations—Features, attributes, or characteristics a product

should possess to be considered for assessment

4. Product recommendations—Specific brands or models that are relevant to the emergency

responder community and should be candidates for inclusion in the assessment

Figure 2-1 highlights the process followed to gather these recommendations.

Figure 2-1 Focus Group Process

Define and

group

evaluation

criteria by

SAVER category

Identify

technology uses

and evaluation

criteria

Assign weights

to the

evaluation

criteria

Prioritize

and assign

percentages

to the

SAVER

categories

Recommend

assessment

scenarios

Recommend

product

selection

criteria and

products to

assess

Approved for Public Release

In this virtual focus group, technology usage was discussed during the introductory video conference.

Over the course of the following three days, project team members contacted focus group

participants for individual interviews to gather, define, and group evaluation criteria by SAVER

category. The SAVER Program uses five criteria categories:

• Affordability criteria relate to the total cost of ownership over the life of the product. This

includes purchase price, training costs, warranty costs, recurring costs, and maintenance costs.

• Capability criteria relate to product features or functions needed to perform responder relevant

tasks.

• Deployability criteria relate to preparing to use the product, including transport, set up, training,

and operational or deployment restrictions.

• Maintainability criteria relate to the routine maintenance, storage, calibration, and minor

repairs performed by responders, as well as included warranty terms, duration, and coverage.

• Usability criteria relate to ergonomics and the relative ease of use when performing responder

relevant tasks.

The focus group participants also recommended whether the criteria should be assessed

operationally through hands-on experience or by reviewing manufacturer-provided specifications.

All individual feedback on evaluation criteria and categories was then consolidated and presented to

the focus group during the second group videoconference. Focus group members reviewed,

modified, and agreed upon the list of evaluation criteria and associated SAVER category. Next, focus

group participants assigned a weight for each criterion’s level of importance on a 1 to 5 scale as a

group, where “1” is of minor importance and “5” is of utmost importance. Table 2-1 highlights the

evaluation criteria weighting scale.

Table 2-1 Evaluation Criteria Weighting Scale

Weight Definition

This evaluation criterion is

of utmost importance:

“I

would never

consider purchasing a product that does not meet my expectations of this

criterion or does not have this feature.”

This evaluation criterion is

very important:

“I

would be hesitant

to purchase a product that does not meet my expectations of this

criterion or does not have this feature.”

This evaluation criterion is

important:

“Meeting my expectations of this criterion or having this feature

would strongly influence

decision to purchase this product.”

This evaluation criterion is

somewhat important:

“Meeting my expectations of this criterion or having this feature

would slightly influence

decision to purchase this product.”

This evaluation criterion is

of minor importance:

“Other things being equal, meeting my expectations of this criterion or having this

feature

may influence

my decision to purchase this product.”

Approved for Public Release

Next, the focus group ranked the SAVER categories in order of importance for the IMS assessment.

Based on those rankings, a percentage was assigned to each category to represent its level of

importance.

After ranking the SAVER categories, focus group participants identified product selection criteria and

products that should be considered for the assessment and suggested operational scenarios for the

assessment.

3.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS

The focus group identified 31 evaluation criteria and concluded that “capability” was the most

important SAVER category relevant to IMS used for emergency response, followed by “usability,”

“deployability,” “maintainability,” then “affordability,” respectively. Table 3-1 presents the category

weights, the evaluation criteria sorted into the SAVER categories, and evaluation criteria weights.

Table 3-1 Evaluation Criteria

SAVER CATEGORIES

Capability Usability Deployability Maintainability Affordability

Overall Weight

40%

Overall Weight

25%

Overall Weight

15%

Overall Weight

15%

Overall Weight

Evaluation Criteria

GIS Files Handling

Intuitiveness of

User Interface

Scalability

Technical Support

Availability

Cost to Scale

Weight: 5 Weight: 5 Weight: 5 Weight: 5 Weight: 4

Personnel Tasking

and Accountability

Reliability Offline Usability Forensics Logging Ongoing Costs

Weight: 5 Weight: 5 Weight: 4 Weight: 3 Weight: 4

Information

Sharing

Customizability

User-level Access

Control

Autosave Feature Initial Cost

Weight: 5 Weight: 4 Weight: 4 Weight: 3 Weight: 3

Interoperability

Training Resource

Accessibility

Deployment

Options

Data

Synchronization

blank

Weight: 4 Weight: 4 Weight: 4 Weight: 3

blank

Asset Tracking

Interface

Readability

Client Cross-

Platform

Compatibility

Map Updating

blank

Weight: 4 Weight: 3 Weight: 4 Weight: 3

blank

Location Tracking

blank

Mobile Platforms

Availability

Software Updates

blank

Weight: 4

blank

Weight: 3 Weight: 3

blank

Approved for Public Release

Record Keeping

blank blank blank blank

Weight: 4

blank blank blank blank

Incident Report

Integration

blank blank blank blank

Weight: 3

blank blank blank blank

Messaging Feature

blank blank blank blank

Weight: 3

blank blank blank blank

Sensitive

Information

Handling

blank blank blank blank

Weight: 3

blank blank blank blank

Pre-planning tools

blank blank blank blank

Weight: 3

blank blank blank blank

3.1 Capability

The eleven capability criteria identified and defined by the focus group listed in order of

importance are:

GIS Files Handling refers to a software’s ability to read standard geographic information system

(GIS) file formats such as KML, GeoJSON, GeoPackage, ESRI shapefile, and geodatabase files.

Personnel Tasking and Accountability refers to the ability to manage staff tasks and assignments

and provide alerts for staff rotations or reassignments.

Information Sharing is the ability to share incident-specific information with field personnel or

other agencies, and--in certain situations—to collaborate across multiple counties (e.g., mutual

aid).

Interoperability refers to the software’s ability to integrate with a variety of other software products

or sensors with no manual data import required. Examples of software with which the IMS might

integrate include computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems, body-worn sensors, and data services

(e.g., weather, traffic, location-based services, Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking).

Asset Tracking is the ability to view the status (i.e., “available” or “in use”) of physical assets.

Location Tracking is the ability to view and update a map-based location for dispatched and

available resources. This includes automatic vehicle location tracking that broadcasts GPS

locations of vehicles in real-time.

Record Keeping refers to the software’s ability to create an audit trail, (i.e., to capture and recall

time-stamped records of the actions taken for real-time information and post-event assessment).

Approved for Public Release

The software should also have the ability to generate reports using custom or integrated Incident

Command System forms.

Incident Report Integration refers to the software’s ability to integrate and view all local incident

reports in one dashboard to avoid duplicate incident notifications.

Messaging Feature refers to the ability for real-time message exchange with other personnel who

are in the field or an EOC.

Sensitive Information Handling refers to the software being appropriately secure and having

protocols to handle information that is categorized as Classified, For Official Use Only, Law

Enforcement Sensitive, Protected Critical Infrastructure Information, or other similar designations.

Pre-planning Tools refers to the capability to preload site-specific features into the software. Site

features may include building maps, environmental features like ponds and streams, and

locations of hydrants, building standpipes, and building emergency exits.

3.2 Usability

The five usability criteria identified and defined by the focus group listed in order of importance

are:

Intuitiveness of User Interface refers to the relative ease or difficulty of using the software

interface, particularly that use of its standard features is obvious and requires minimal training,

searching, or number of steps to execute a function.

Reliability refers to the software’s stability and functionality in the operating environments

required by emergency responder missions.

Customizability is the modifiability of software features to a particular user’s needs and the ease

of making modifications within the software. Customizability includes having filterable items,

editable user roles, modifiable rendering order of map data, adjustability of icons and other visual

elements; and changeable map type and size.

Training Resource Accessibility is the availability of various formats for training such as quick start

guides, video tutorials, and technical manuals and their ease of use.

Interface Readability refers to the clarity and legibility of the user interface including font size,

screen colors, and notification visibility.

3.3 Deployability

The six deployability criteria identified and defined by the focus group listed in order of importance

are:

Scalability is the ability to quickly add users on an ad-hoc basis, as well as to handle sudden or

planned increase in the number of concurrent users or data being exchanged.

Offline Usability refers to the software’s capability to operate when disconnected from a network.

It includes the ability to access vital reference data that may reside on a local device when offline

along with the ability to automatically update and synchronize any data logged in offline mode

once the data connection is restored.

Approved for Public Release

User-level Access Control refers to the capability for and ease of assigning different levels of

access for different users depending on their role.

Deployment Options refers to the software delivery channels available, such as on-premises,

Software as a Service or a hybrid solution.

Client Cross-Platform Compatibility refers to the software’s ability to work across different

computing platforms that may be used by different entities involved in a response. Interoperability

with different systems from different agencies improves coordinated communication and

response.

Mobile Platforms Availability is the ability to operate on mobile hardware (e.g., laptops, tablets).

3.4 Maintainability

The six maintainability criteria identified and defined by the focus group listed in order of

importance are:

Technical Support Availability refers to the availability of expedited, 24/7 technical support

offered by the software vendor at times when the software is in use (e.g. while responding to an

emergency). One participant noted that the presence of a software user community is helpful and

that agencies must select service level agreements that match their mission needs.

Forensics Logging refers to the software’s audit trail and error logging capabilities that can be

analyzed in case of software or hardware failure.

Autosave Feature refers to the software’s ability to save data such that data is accurate in the

event of a software or device failure.

Data Synchronization refers to how data is synchronized from a source; (i.e., whether

synchronization is automated or requires a restart or action by the user).

Map Updating is the ease by which new map views and data can be added.

Software Updates refers to the frequency of and method by which updates are made to the

software; for example, manual or automatic, mass or individual. One participant noted that

updates should be transparent to the user.

3.5 Affordability

The three affordability criteria identified and defined by the focus group listed in order of

importance are:

Cost to Scale refers to the cost of adding users, including costs of additional required equipment.

Ongoing Costs refers to costs associated with software maintenance fees, data storage, training,

and professional services required to maintain use of the software.

Initial Cost refers to the initial price to buy or license the software and factors in the availability of

General Services Administration pricing or state contracts and grants.

Approved for Public Release

4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The focus group and SAVER team made recommendations on whether each evaluation criterion

should be assessed operationally or according to manufacturer-provided specifications. In an

operational assessment, evaluators assess criteria based on the hands-on experience using the

product. In a specification assessment, evaluators assess criteria based on product information

provided by the manufacturer. In some cases, criteria may be assessed both operationally and

according to manufacturer-provided specifications.

Also, some evaluation criteria were categorized as “information only.” These criteria will not be

scored by evaluators during the assessment, but will be included as relevant specifications (i.e.,

price, warranty information) in the assessment report. Table 4-1 presents the focus group’s

assessment recommendations for the evaluation criteria.

Table 4-1 Evaluation Criteria Assessment Recommendations

Category Criteria Operational Specification

Information

Only

Capability

GIS Files Handling blank



blank

Personnel Tasking and Accountability



blank blank

Information Sharing



blank blank

Interoperability

  

Asset Tracking



blank blank

Location Tracking



blank blank

Record Keeping

 

blank

Incident Report Integration



blank blank

Messaging Feature



blank blank

Sensitive Information Handling



blank

Pre-planning Tools



blank blank

Usability

Intuitiveness of User Interface



blank blank

Reliability



blank blank

Customizability



blank blank

Training Resource Accessibility



blank blank

Interface Readability



blank blank

Deployability

Scalability



blank blank

Offline Usability



blank blank

User-level Access Control blank



blank

Deployment Options

 

blank

Client Cross-Platform Compatibility blank



blank

Mobile Platform Availability blank



blank

Capability

sability

Usability

Deployability

Approved for Public Release

5.0 ASSESSMENT SCENARIO RECOMMENDATIONS

The focus group participants identified use-cases for incident management software as pre-planned

events such as protests, fast-moving no-notice incidents (e.g., flash floods, earthquakes, and

wildfires), and small, no-notice incidents like house fires. Based on these use-cases, the focus group

participants recommended scenarios in which products could be assessed using the evaluation

criteria recommended for operational assessment. Participants suggested using exercises from the

Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency Management Institute All-Hazards Position

Specific Training Program curriculum as models for each scenario. Focus group participants

recommended that evaluators assess two products per day, in teams of two, and that SAVER

conduct after-action activities following each operational scenario.

5.1 Pre-planned Event - Protest

IMS will be used in a scenario simulating the planning and response to a protest. The software will

be used to generate action and resource plans, identify and deploy resources based on

assessment of threats and vulnerabilities, track and manage equipment and personnel, and to

share information with other entities.

Evaluation criteria assessed during this scenario will include information sharing, interoperability,

asset tracking, location tracking, record keeping, messaging features, incident report integration,

pre-planning tools, reliability, training resources, deployment options, and cross-platform

compatibility. After-action capabilities such as report generation will also be evaluated.

5.2 Fast-moving No-notice Incident – Scenario TBD

IMS will be used in a scenario simulating a response to an incident that evolves quickly, is

resource-intensive, and takes place over multiple operational periods. The software will be used to

quickly deploy and track numerous resources, track assets over multiple operational periods,

incorporate tactical dispatch, communicate with field personnel both on and offline, and establish

mutual aid agreements with other agencies and jurisdictions.

Category Criteria Operational Specification

Information

Only

Maintainability

Technical Support Availability



blank blank

Forensics Logging



blank blank

Autosave Feature



blank blank

Data Synchronization



blank blank

Map Updating



blank blank

Software Updates blank blank



Affordability

Cost to Scale blank blank



Ongoing Costs blank



blank

Initial Cost blank



blank

Maintainability

Affordability

Approved for Public Release

Evaluation criteria assessed during this scenario will include personnel tasking and accountability,

information sharing, asset tracking, location tracking, record keeping, messaging feature, incident

report integration, pre-planning tools, reliability, scalability, offline usability, deployment options,

and cross-platform compatibility.

5.3 Small No-notice Incident – House Fire

Incident management software will be used in a simulated response to a house fire. The software

will be used to quickly assess the types of resources needed, deploy and track necessary

resources, communicate with field personnel and share and handle sensitive information with

various agencies and utility companies.

Evaluation criteria assessed during this scenario will include personnel tasking and accountability,

information sharing, asset tracking, location tracking, record keeping, incident report integration,

sensitive information handling, reliability, and deployment options.

6.0 PRODUCT SELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS

During product selection discussions, focus group participants stated they would be interested in

software that covered multiple aspects of incident response and management, rather than products

meant for narrow applications. Participants requested products that can be used on laptops, tablets,

and cellphones, as well as across operating platforms.

The focus group participants recommended selecting from the following manufacturers and their

products for inclusion in the assessment:

• ESI Acquisition Inc: WebEOC

• Grey Wall Software: Veoci Emergency Management

• CORVENA: COR

• Dynamis Inc: COBRA

• Intterra Group: Intterra

• ESRI: ArcGIS Suite (Survey123, Workforce, and Collector)

• Adashi Systems: C&C Incident Command Software

• Noggin IT Inc: Noggin 2.0 Integrated Safety and Security Platform

• Hangar 14 Solutions: StreetWise CADLink

• Incident Response Technologies: Rhodium

• Tablet Command Inc: Tablet Command

Vendors responding to a request for information posted on SAMS.gov in July 2020 will also have

their products considered for assessment.

7.0 SUMMARY

The focus group, consisting of seven emergency responders with at least two years of experience,

identified 31 evaluation criteria for incident management software. “Capability” and “usability” were

deemed the most important SAVER categories. These eight focus group-generated criteria were

identified as being of utmost importance to first responders:

Approved for Public Release

• Ability to handle standard GIS files

• Tracking personnel tasking and accountability

• Information sharing capability across personnel and other agencies

• Interoperability with other software and sensors

• Intuitive interface for users

• Software reliability

• Technical support availability

• Scalability of users and data traffic

The focus group participants recommended several scenarios and products to be considered for

inclusion in the assessment. These recommendations will be used to plan the IMS for emergency

response assessment.

8.0 FUTURE ACTIONS

The focus group’s recommendations will be used to guide the development of the Incident

Management Software for Emergency Response Assessment Plan, as well as the selection of

products to evaluate in the assessment.

Once the assessment is complete, the results will be published to the SAVER document library,

www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/saver-documents-library.

9.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

NUSTL thanks the IMS focus group participants for their valuable time and expertise. Their insights

and recommendations will guide the planning and execution of the assessment as well as future

SAVER projects. Appreciation is also extended to the participants’ agencies for allowing them to

participate in the SAVER Program.