SurvivalBlog.com

In survivaldom there are countless potential crises to consider, ranging from a limited local flood to massive global nuclear conflict, and anything in between.  For the newcomer to the prepper/survivor mindset, as well as for those who have begun the journey to preparedness, the range and scope of calamities to consider can be overwhelming.  How does one weigh the need to keep fresh baby formula or insulin available while recognizing that unprotected electronics could become useless after an EMP event?  What good is frozen food if there is no electricity available?  Countless tradeoffs and prioritization must occur, but how does one evaluate the potential crises and decide where to spend the limited time and money available to prepare?

Human instinct being imperfect, undisciplined prioritization is often based on one’s personal passions and instincts.  The young mother may lovingly focus on supplies for her newborn infant while neglecting other basic needs and the hunter may focus on a defensive armory without regard for a potable water supply.  The individualist may fear a “new world order” tyranny, while the accountant may fear a collapse of the US currency or banking system.  Let’s face it – everyone has biases which creep into our decision making despite our best intentions to be objective.  So how does one begin to prepare for a crisis when its nature is not known and personal biases tend to skew one’s focus? 

Introduction

In the engineering world there is a parallel challenge and a tool has been developed that is now widely used to effectively confront such situations.  The Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA, commonly pronounced “feema”, like FEMA) was first used in military/aerospace industry and its use spread to the automotive and other industries.  A FMEA is a rating system to evaluate a potential design (or manufacturing) failure.  Engineers list potential failures, and then apply ratings (1-10) to those failures in the following categories:  Severity, Occurrence, and Detection.  The three ratings are multiplied together to create the Risk Priority Number (RPN).  A chart is then created listing the identified potential failures, and the associated RPNs are then evaluated to determine which potential failures are to be addressed.  The procedure is typically revisited after design iterations to evaluate the predicted results of design changes to improve a product.  (Wikipedia has a good description of FMEAs)

I would like to propose a variant of this tool for to crisis and emergency preparation: The Crisis Mode and Effects Analysis (CMEA).  To understand a CMEA, visualize a chart with the leftmost column listing potential crises, labeled A,B,C, etc…   The following 3 columns would be severity, occurrence and preparedness, each rated 1-10.  Here is an example CMEA spreadsheet with an example and rating system description.

Methodology

The leftmost column “Crisis” is a list of all potential crises, emergencies, or situations that one would like to prepare for (A,B,C…) and the effects of that crisis (1,2,3…) joined to define items A1, A2, etc…  After listing all of the crises and effects to be considered, the rating process begins.  Each effect is rated for Severity, Occurrence, and Preparedness.  These ratings are then multiplied together to produce the Preparedness Priority Number (PPN).  After all crises and effects are rated, the resulting list of PPN’s provides an assessment of the expected impact of various situations on the group.

Crisis and Effects:  The crises listed should be realistic for the user’s situation, so one living in Southern Florida would not bother to list “ice storm”.  The expected longevity of the crisis should be included in the listing, as it may have a great impact upon one’s state of preparedness.  For example a 2 day power outage has a very different impact than a six month outage.  The scope of the crisis is also relevant:  Local (within approx. 10 mile diameter), regional (100 mile diameter or statewide) or national/international crisis will have different impacts that should be considered.

Severity Ratings:  The severity of each crisis and effect are then to be rated according to the scale shown in the example spreadsheet (“Ratings” tab) – the more severe an effect, the higher the rating.  The longevity of each effect and how widespread it is will affect the severity rating.  The boxes on the left of the severity scale provide guidance to apply a rating based on the scope of each effect (local, regional, etc…).   The severity rating is to be applied based upon the effect as if there were no preparedness in place.  The severity rating scale is as follows:

For Local events (10 mile diameter):
1:  Minor impact on daily life
2:
3:  Moderate impact
4:
5:  Major impact

For Regional events (100 mile dia. or statewide):
1:  Minor impact
2:
3:
4:  Moderate impact
5:
6:
7:  Major impact

For National/International Events:
1:  Minor impact
2:
3:
4:
5:  Moderate impact
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:  Major impact

Occurrence Ratings:  Rate the likelihood of the occurrence of each listed item.  This area will surely be used differently by different people, which is fine because one CMEA is used only for the group that creates it.  The more likely a crisis, the higher the occurrence rating will be.  The time period that is used for the entire CMEA comes into play here.  For example if a group is using a CMEA to prepare for “the next 10 years”, then the likelihood of a 100-year flood event is fairly small.  Conversely, if a family is preparing for the next generation, say the next 60 years perhaps, the likelihood of some of the crises occurring during that time will be greater.  The occurrence rating scale is as follows:

1:  Very unlikely:  It is difficult to conceive that this would happen.
2:  Unlikely:  There is a remote chance that this could happen.
3:  Somewhat Unlikely:  It could happen, but it would be surprising if it did.
4:  Slightly Possible:  It’s believable, but not expected
5:  Possible:  Very conceivable, easy to see the circumstances where this could occur.
6:  Somewhat Probable:  It seems that things are pointed toward this occurring.
7:  Probable:  It seems that this crisis will likely happen unless something changes.
8:  Likely:  Fairly sure that this will happen.
9:  Most Likely:  It seems that this will almost certainly happen.
10: Nearly Certain:  Presumed this will almost certainly happen at some point.  (i.e. Hurricane on Southern Florida coast)

Preparedness Ratings:  How well are you prepared for this?  Using the provided scale, apply a self-evaluated rating to how well your preparedness measures would counteract the effect.  The better prepared, the lower the number to be applied.  The preparedness rating scale is as follows:

1:  Fully prepared:  Our preparations will allow us to live with essentially no impact for the duration of this effect with limited or no outside support.
2:  Very Well Prepared:  We can continue life with only minor inconvenience through the expected duration of this effect.
3:  Well Prepared:  We are prepared to live reasonably comfortably and safely in the event of this effect.
4:  Reasonably Well Prepared:  Our preparations will provide for us to survive and live safely, with some effort and use of our preparations.
5:  Partly Prepared:  We have a medium amount of preparation for this effect.
6:  Modestly Prepared:  We have made preparations that will partly eliminate the need for outside support.
7:  Somewhat Prepared:  Some preparations are in place, but only enough to reduce the amount of outside support required. 
8:  Slightly Prepared:  We have a few preparations to lessen the impact of a short-term (3 days) occurrence of this crisis.
9:  Very slightly prepared:  Almost no preparations have been made that will counteract this effect.
10: No preparations have been made at all.

Preparedness Priority Number (PPN):  The PPN is simply the result of the severity, occurrence, and preparedness ratings multiplied together.  The higher the PPN, the more attention should be given to each situation.  The PPN by itself has no significance, only the comparison of all PPNs to each other is relevant.  The higher numbers deserve attention, the lower numbers do not.  When the PPN’s are developed, find the few highest numbers and then consider what can be done to counteract the effects of each situation.  The way to reduce a PPN is primarily to become more prepared to lower the preparedness rating which will then lower the PPN. 

The concept is to first make a CMEA matrix to identify which areas need priority attention.  Then after preparations are implemented, the CMEA can be revisited to see the results to evaluate the effect of those preparations.  Also the CMEA can be used to evaluate “what-if” assessments of a preparedness measure that may be considered.  For example perhaps a water filtration system may seem like a good idea.  To evaluate its benefit, the CMEA could be revised as if there were a new water filtration system in place to see how many (and which) crises and effects would be mitigated to reduce the impact on the well-being of the group.

It’s reassuring to see the PPN’s become lower as preparations are made.   While preparedness is often its own reward, the mental satisfaction of seeing lower PPN’s is additionally gratifying.

Some Notes about Using the CMEA

The best CMEAs are created with open discussion and input from all of those involved.  If someone creates a CMEA individually, the results will reflect that person’s unfiltered biases.  With involvement of more than one, individual biases will be tempered and the result will be more balanced and objective.  A CMEA may still be useful for an individual, but less so than with a group’s (or couple’s) involvement.   The “group” may be a couple, a family, extended family, friends, or any group that prepares collectively.

The CMEA is not designed to address individual accidents, like car wrecks or house fires.  The CMEA analysis is directed toward crises that affect more than an isolated individual or family.  Nevertheless preparedness itself is of course applicable to individual emergency situations, but the CMEA tool is not geared toward them.

Keep in mind timeframes – both the time span of the CMEA analysis itself (what crises may occur during the next XX years) and also the longevity of each particular crisis and effect.  Some effects that are not problematic for short term effects can become very severe if the effects last for a long time.  (i.e. power outages with frozen food)

The PPN’s are comparative only, and they are only applicable within a given CMEA.  One group may apply severity and occurrence ratings differently than another, therefore the PPN’s from one group’s CMEA cannot be compared to another’s.  The actual PPN values (50, 100, 200, etc…) have no meaning – only the comparison of all of the PPN’s within an individual CMEA are relevant.

CMEAs should be revisited periodically to consider the effects of preparedness efforts and also to consider changes in the estimated likelihood of various crises, and perhaps the addition (or elimination) of crisis to the list.  

The level of specificity of crises analyzed in a CMEA can be very broad or highly detailed to suit the preference of the user.  One user may wish to list the effects of a stock market closure, a gold tax, and usurious taxation rates as individual items, while another may prefer to simply use “financial system chaos” as an effect.  Some may not list “currency controls” as a concern, while others may have international financial interests that need to be considered.  

The rating scales and scope guidelines are not cast in stone.  The user is free to change the scales as desired for his or her situation.  These scales are similar in nature to the “pain” scales commonly displayed on the wall in doctors’ offices – they are rather subjective, but as long as they are applied consistently they will be effective. 

Focus on preparedness.  The severity of a crisis often cannot be affected except with major changes such as moving to higher ground to reduce the effect of a flood, etc…, and similarly the likelihood of occurrence of a crisis cannot expect to be controlled.  Preparedness is the area that one has substantial control over to improve the ability to withstand undesirable circumstances, and therefore preparedness deserves the most attention.

The example CMEA is arbitrary – the effects and ratings listed are not intended to be guidelines, rather they show the methodology and usage of the matrix.

Summary

The CMEA can be used as an effective analysis tool to help the prepper to apply his or her limited resources as effectively as possible to become better prepared.