Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Conclusion:
The TWCs' warning products could be much more effective if their content
and their delivery incorporated the social science on composing effective warning
messages and were compatible with current software, hardware, and social media.
Conclusion:
Based on the latest science the committee reviewed, the greatest likelihood
for achieving appropriate response before and during an impending disaster results from
a consistent warning message from multiple sources. However, the current division in AOR
between the two centers and the different products issued by the two centers has resulted
in confusion in the past (see case study on June 14) and has great potential to cause
confusion again in the future. Despite improvements after the June 14 event, there are still
inconsistencies
in warning products from the two TWCs; and the current division of AORs
results in messages that do not clearly communicate who needs to take protective actions
and who does not.
Recommendation:
NOAA/NWS should harmonize and standardize checklists, tsunami
warning products, and decision support tools, and standard TWC software tools and
applications should be used in the TWCs, following current software engineering practices
and taking advantage of current programming language best practices.
Recommendation:
The TWCs should consider alternative warning message composition
software (considering software technology and product generation that result in current
generation software and web products [e.g., XML, SMS formats]) and should improve
protocols by undertaking an external review by IT specialists in the area of communication
technology to identify the latest technology in message composition software and
formats, and to ensure compatibility with current and next generation information and
communication (web and cell-phone) technology for message dissemination.
TECHNOLOGY NEEDS
The TWC technological infrastructure needs to support all of the tsunami warning system
functions, including detection, decision support, product and warning message generation,
and dissemination and community outreach. As mentioned in previous sections, each TWC
has different, non-interoperable hardware platforms and software suites. These choices, made
without consultation between the TWCs, are a result of the historical evolution of these centers
and appear to be based on skill sets of each center's available personnel rather than on any
systemwide architecture plan. Although IT development, support, and maintenance activities
are critical to support the TWCs' functions, the activities are often ad hoc and informal and are
carried out as a collateral duty by geoscientists. Little IT planning has taken place at either TWC,
and planning activities are not articulated in a systemwide enterprise or system architecture.
TWC staff maintains and develops software in their spare time or when there are no press-
ing operational requirements. Staff is not formally trained in technology life cycle processes
