Quake3World

What we Do diagram, by FEMA:
http://www.fema.gov/about/what.shtm

Starts with disaster, ends with disaster.


You can't make this stuff up.

Holy shit thats amazing

LOL

I guess it would make atleast some sense if the arrows were going in, but not even that

I'm also especially impressed with the washing-powder star they found in a clipart collection. You don't just use that stuff by chance, they had to have looked hard for it.

Actually, if you really consider it, it's an ouline for learning from mistakes. It's not all that outrageous

you and your logic

I can't help the fact that I'm the rational one

Dave wrote:Actually, if you really consider it, it's an ouline for learning from mistakes. It's not all that outrageous

The problem is that it's designed as somewhat of a flow diagram. The format for all of the entities on the diagram is 'what we do', with the single exception of 'Disaster'.

Trouble is, if you take it as a basic flow diagram, it would appear that Fema starts with and ends in: Disaster.

Aside from it being a pretty childish graphic for a government agency to be touting, the potential ambiguity in it is humorous. Also, the fact that despite the best efforts of Response, Recovery, Mitigation, Risk Reduction, Prevention and Preparedness, all the arrows point right back to (notably, the same) disaster.

There, you made me spell it out. Can I have some muffins?

only cookies around here

It clearly means that a disaster strikes, we handle it, evaluate the response and apply that evaluation to the inevitable future disaster

stop ruining the fun

By the way, I'm not going to defend FEMA because it's "stuck on stupid," and notwithstanding the B-movie production value of the graphic, it's meaning is clear. If FEMA is smart, they will study it closely.

Dave wrote:It clearly means that a disaster strikes, we handle it, evaluate the response and apply that evaluation to the inevitable future disaster

Surely as these are just regular cacti.

Grudge wrote:stop ruining the fun

That's my job

---- read the title

Dave wrote:It clearly means that a disaster strikes, we handle it, evaluate the response and apply that evaluation to the inevitable future disaster

There is not a single thing in that diagram about evaluating response, or about applying any evaluation to any other response.

And you're claiming it's obvious? What in hell are you on, Dave?

edit: And mitigation, risk reduction and preparedness are not related to evaluating response either. I could see if you had cited those as obvious parts of the flow chart, but response evaluation? That's just not in there anywhere.

dave for president

R00k wrote:

Dave wrote:It clearly means that a disaster strikes, we handle it, evaluate the response and apply that evaluation to the inevitable future disaster

There is not a single thing in that diagram about evaluating response, or about applying any evaluation to any other response.

And you're claiming it's obvious? What in hell are you on, Dave?

edit: And mitigation, risk reduction and preparedness are not related to evaluating response either. I could see if you had cited those as obvious parts of the flow chart, but response evaluation? That's just not in there anywhere.

Mitigation, Risk Reduction, Prevention, and Preparedness. All 4 of these steps are processes of evaluation that arise out of what people fucked up during the Response and Recovery phases

Of course I just got through reading a book about a series of floods in Mozambique in early 2000 where the authors outline each of the steps in the FEMA graphic. It's clear that its something that "developed" and "developing" nations both face.

R00k wrote:

Dave wrote:It clearly means that a disaster strikes, we handle it, evaluate the response and apply that evaluation to the inevitable future disaster

There is not a single thing in that diagram about evaluating response, or about applying any evaluation to any other response.

And you're claiming it's obvious? What in hell are you on, Dave?

edit: And mitigation, risk reduction and preparedness are not related to evaluating response either. I could see if you had cited those as obvious parts of the flow chart, but response evaluation? That's just not in there anywhere.

It can be seen as ending in disaster, or it can be seen that disaster is inevitable and this "cycle" leads to "preparedness" (the last arrow in line) before the next disaster. Still, it's pretty funny that after all the effort put into the "cycle", one can interpret that as it all just ends in disaster again.

Foo wrote:

Dave wrote:It clearly means that a disaster strikes, we handle it, evaluate the response and apply that evaluation to the inevitable future disaster

Surely as these are just regular cacti.

What sort of cacti are those?....and if you say something on the order of "dick-cacti" or "cockti" i'll reach through the internet and smack you.

old...i saw this on daily show like years ago...

Dave wrote:

R00k wrote:

Dave wrote:It clearly means that a disaster strikes, we handle it, evaluate the response and apply that evaluation to the inevitable future disaster

There is not a single thing in that diagram about evaluating response, or about applying any evaluation to any other response.

And you're claiming it's obvious? What in hell are you on, Dave?

edit: And mitigation, risk reduction and preparedness are not related to evaluating response either. I could see if you had cited those as obvious parts of the flow chart, but response evaluation? That's just not in there anywhere.

Mitigation, Risk Reduction, Prevention, and Preparedness. All 4 of these steps are processes of evaluation that arise out of what people fucked up during the Response and Recovery phases

That's not represented in the graphic at all, certainly not clearly.

I've had a lot of professional experience in project management and implementing workflow designs for quality control and streamlining critical business processes.

In other words, this thread was intended as a joke. But if, for some unknown reason, you genuinely want to defend this ridiculous graphic as a competent approach to improving the Agency's performance, you should at least know that "Evaluation of Performance" is an important enough part of the process to be listed as a major deliverable in any workflow chart -- not least of all when poor performance is - ostensibly - the main reason for the graphic being created to begin with.

If this workflow chart was used as a working model, it could be strictly adhered to without ever evaluating or making any improvement in performance whatsoever.

IT'S JUST A GRAPHIC