1 / 22

Disaster Planning Facing the "Smoke and Rubble"

Disaster Planning Facing the "Smoke and Rubble". CLAC 2006 – Hamilton College. Gene Spencer – Bucknell Mike Osterman - Whitman. aka “Oh #%*&@, now what?". CLAC 2006 – Hamilton College. Gene Spencer – Bucknell Mike Osterman - Whitman. Disaster Planning - Facing the "Smoke and Rubble".

genna
Download Presentation

Disaster Planning Facing the "Smoke and Rubble"

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Disaster Planning Facing the "Smoke and Rubble" CLAC 2006 – Hamilton College Gene Spencer – Bucknell Mike Osterman - Whitman

  2. aka“Oh #%*&@, now what?" CLAC 2006 – Hamilton College Gene Spencer – Bucknell Mike Osterman - Whitman

  3. Disaster Planning - Facing the "Smoke and Rubble" Abstract: When it comes to addressing systems continuity in the event of an emergency or disaster, it's tempting to cite a tight budget and move on. While we may indeed not have the resources locally, we can address these needs by looking to one another. Please join us to discuss strategies for establishing a network of reciprocal arrangements that will help us all to be better prepared in our emergency response planning. We will also present the findings of a recent survey of what several institutions currently have in place and where they would like to be.

  4. Getting Our Attention! Also got the attention of Auditors and Trustees 9/11 got our attention

  5. At Institutions Our Size? Which compete with other PRIORITIES for staff time and budgets! Really investments in “Insurance”

  6. Big part of your plan too?

  7. Things We’ve Done @Bucknell • Two Server Rooms (only 100 yards apart - one above ground, one below ground) • Growing redundancy of servers/functions • Plans for a third server room - .5 miles away • Diverse paths for Internet Connectivity • Backup media stored in redundant locations • Monthly archive stored at Susquehanna University (14 miles away) • Discussions on Disaster Recovery & Business Continuity Scenarios

  8. If Disaster Strikes We must depend on enough people figuring out what to do next!!!

  9. When a Disaster Strikes… • We count on all of our staff being available quickly • Some may not be • Other people will likely want to help (Katrina experience) – but how? • Need people “on the ground” quickly • Even our entire staff won’t be enough

  10. Where Might We Get Help? Shared Services Consortium: • Bryn Mawr • Bucknell • Dickinson • Franklin & Marshall • Gettysburg • Haverford Existing relationship with Presidential commitment. Maximum 3 hour driving distance (<150 miles)! http://www.ssc-ucic.com

  11. Stealing a Page from Volunteer Fire Companies

  12. Mutual Aid Agreements When the job is too big for one organization They count on other Fire Companies to help

  13. Mutual Aid Agreements Key Elements: • Negotiated in advance • Cut through the “red tape” beforehand • Understand the limitations and rules • Endorsed by the necessary authorities • Create the “command and control” structure required for an emergency • Information sharing & joint training

  14. Avoid “Being Alone!” There is Strength in Numbers! There is Hope in Help!

  15. SSC as a Source of Help? Shared Services Consortium: • Bryn Mawr • Bucknell • Dickinson • Franklin & Marshall • Gettysburg • Haverford Overlap of technologies Compatible skills Strength of our combined staff http://www.ssc-ucic.com

  16. SSC Disaster Recovery Work How did our efforts develop? • Six Presidents expressed mutual interest • SSC called a meeting of CIOs and CTOs • Discussed our “current state” of Disaster Planning and Disaster Recovery • Each institution had different approaches and different challenges/opportunities • Funding/time limited for all of us • Focused on POSSIBILITIES

  17. Consortial Approach • Developing a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) signed by presidents • IT Mutual Assistance and Cooperation • Non-binding pledge to support each other • Does not require commitment of resources in any specific situation • Each situation will be dealt with in context • Hopefully we’ll never need to invoke it

  18. MOU Features • CIO is defined as “official representative” • “Requesting Institution” calls for aid • “Providing Institution” decides if it can help • Request includes: • Description of emergency • Amounts/types of assistance needed • Estimated length of time needed • Staging information • Official points of contact

  19. MOU Features • Staff participation is voluntary (reciprocity) • Requesting Institution pays expenses • Staff continue to be employees of Providing Institution and are governed by its policies and practices • Staff supervised by Providing Institution • All activities related to the emergency are still the full responsibility of the Requesting Institution

  20. Work in Progress • MOU still under development • A lot still to figure out: • What does this mean for training across institutions? • How will we share enough information about our infrastructure? • How will we resolve liability issues? • Will we need to encourage staff $$$?

  21. Region-Wide Emergency? Probably does little to help with: • Nuclear or Chemical Explosion • Hurricane or Tsunami • Volcano or Earthquake • Meteor • Avian flu • Hellfire & brimstone

  22. Discussion and Questions

More Related