EDTF 2.0 Survey Results
These are the survey results of the second EDTF held at Maxwell AFB.
There were 83 total surveys. That is a response rate of 0.44.
Ranking the Briefings
Survey respondents ranked the Track Breakout Panels as their favorite. The least valued briefings were Intermediate Missile Tech and 5G and Implications. However a majority of respondents (76% and up) still reported receiving value from these briefings.
Overall Recommendations from the comments above are for EDTF 3.0 to allow the speakers to have more time to speak, and allow time for Q&A.
| Respondent | Comment |
|---|---|
| 4 | SCENARIO VIDEO PRESCRIBED US WITH THE “10 FOOT TALL RUSSIAN” SCENARIO. RECOMMEND VETTING SCENARIO THROUGH DTRA AND DOE FOR REALISM |
| 8 | NOBODY TRULY COVERED THEIR TOPIC BUT INSTEAD COVERED THEIR AGENDA |
| 9 | PRESENTATIONS WERE CONSTRAINED BY THE TIME ALLOWED FOR EACH PRESENTER |
| 14 | NOT 100% SURE THE PURPOSE OF THE BRIEFERS IN THE MORNING OF DAY 1. SOME OF THE BREIFS/COMMENTS WERE SO TECHNICAL THAT IT DID NOT APPLY TO THE SCENARIO FULLY OR IT WAS CHALLENGING TO PICK OUT. DR. SPALDING HAS A BRIEF THAT MADE SENSE. DIRECT TO THE POINT AND MADE YOU THINK |
| 17 | THE PROBLEM OF WARGAMING A SCI-FI SCENARION IS PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND THE BASICS-IMAGINE DOING PARTIAL DIFFERENTIATIONIF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ALGEBRA. SCENARIOS SHOULD BE BASED ON PLAUSIBILITY NOT IMPOSSIBILITY. EDTF EXCEEDED MY EXPECTATIONS. BE CAUTIOUS OF DOD/AF TRYING TO SOLVE INTERAGENCY/GOVERNMENT ISSUES–OTHER AGENCIES LOOKING AT THIS, DONT GET STOVEPIPED. |
| 20 | EMS ECCT- NEVER DEFINED THE ACRONYM, PLEASE CHECK WITH SPEAKERS BEFORE THEIR PRESENTATION TO ENSURE YOU HAVE THEIR SLIDES |
| 22 | OVERALL VERY EYE OPENING. THIS NEEDS TO BE SHARED MORE AT THE WING/UNIT LEVEL. WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING THIS AS A REALISTIC THREAT RIGHT NOW. PUSH THE MESSAGE DOWN. USE THE AF EMERGENCY MGT COMMUNITY TO COMMUNICATE THE MESSAGE TO ARMEN, LIAISE WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY |
| 33 | PLEASE MAKE PRESENTATIONS AVAILABLE TO PARTICIPANTS |
| 39 | WE NEED TO BETTER FRAMING THE HEMP/EMP PROBLEM. CONFUSION HAS LED TO PARALYSIS |
| 40 | THE BRIEFING TOPICS WERE ALL PERTINENT (MINUS THE MAYORAL SPEECH). HOWEVER, THEY ALL FELT RUSHED AND THE LACK OF Q&A LIMITED THEIR UTILITY. SUGGEST FEWER BRIEFS WITH MORE TIME. ADDITIONALLY, A FEW OF THE BRIEFS FAILED TO PROVIDE HELPFUL CONTEXT, SO I SUGGEST WORKING WITH FEWER BRIEFERS AHREAD OF TIME TO HELP SHAPE THEIR BRIEFINGS (ESPECIALLY SINCE ITS SUCHA NEW TASK FORCE AND WE DONT YET HAVE A SOLID IDENTITY) |
| 41 | THE 5G PRESENTATION WAS PAINFULLY IGNORANT. THE EMP SCENARIO IS TOO FAR FETCHED TO BE OF ANY PRACTICAL USE. THE AF ISNT GOING TO SOLVE A NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEM . TOO TECH FOCUSED W/O ANY MEANINGFUL POLICY FOOTAGE. US POLICY PROCESS WILL NEVER ELEVATE EMP MITIGATION TOWARD A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM AND OUTCOME UNLESS YOU BUILD ON EXISTING (ACQUSITION ) PROGRAMS |
| 49 | INTRODUCTORY BRIEFS WERE INFORMAIVE BUT TOO SHORT. MAYBE SEND MORE TECHNICAL READAHEADS NEXT TIME |
| 51 | QUANTUM COMM: THE BRIEFER SPENT 5-10 MINUTES SAYING QUANTUM COMM WASN’T A THREAT. THEY ENDED. WHAT IS QUANTUM COMM? WHAT ARE POTENTIAL FUTURE THREATS AND CAPES? OVERALL A TEST OF THE SLIDES NEEDS TO BE DONE PRIOR TO THE BRIEFER BEING ON STAGE. PROBABLY BEFORE THE BRIEFERS LEAVE HOME |
| 53 | QUANTUM DISCUSSIONS QUONFUSED ME (lol) |
| 54 | BESIDES SOME PRESENTERS MISSING SLIDES, PRETTY GOOD |
| 59 | I THINK WE GOT SOME THOUGHTS EXPRESSED INSPITE OF A GROUP THAT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY COMPOSED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THE SUBJECT. I QUESTION WHETHER IT IS WORTH MY TIME TO COME AGAIN. I SEE THE NEED BUT I DON’T SE THE VALUE FROM MY INTERACTION. THAT MAY NOT BE THE SAME ACROSS ALL TEAMS. ‘SAM’? |
| 62 |
|
| 66 | THE INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATIONS WERE TOO SHORT TO CONVEY THE NECESSARY TO TACKLE THE ISSUE. THIS COULD BE BETTER ADDRESSED BY INCLUDING PRE-READING FOR THE EVENT. |
| 77 | VALUABLE DISCUSSION, HOWEVER WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE MORE DISCUSSION/SPEAKERS ON HOW WE DEFEND/HARDEN OUR GRID SO THAT WE CAN DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE AND ENSURE TRANSFORMER AND BREAKERS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR BLACK START. WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE FOCUS ON DEFENSE RATHER THAN RECOVERY. |
| 79 | THE EVENT CAME ACROSS AS DISORGANIZED AND OFF. NOT THE LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM NOR PRECISION I WOULD EXPECT FROM THIS GROUP. FOR EXAMPLE, DAY 1 SPEAKER ERRORS CONTINUED IN TO DAY 2. PUBLISHED SCHEDULE NOT FOLLOWED AND AT TIME STAFF APPEARED CONFUSED. I WALK AWAY WORRIED AND DISCOURAGED. |
| 80 | BOOK RECOMMENDATION: DAWN OF THE CODE WAR - JOHN CARLIN. ALSO, SOLAR WEATHER BREAKOUT FOR BLUE TEAM WAS EXCELLENT. |
| 81 | THERE ARE A LOT OF ‘OLD HEADS’ THAT DOMINATE THE DISCUSSIONS, WE NEED TO HEAR FROM YOUNG PEOPLE WHO CAN PUT ON A NEW PERSPECTIVE AND APPROACH. I WOULD CREATE A COUPLE OF PANELS OF YOUNGER PEOPLE ONLY LTS-CAPTS, 30 YRS OR LESS FOR (CIVILNESS?) NEED MORE INFRASTUCTURE PARTICIPATION, POWER COMPANIES, BANKS, TRANSPORTATION, LAW ENFORCEMENT, ETC. |
| 84 | SEE ATTACHED SHEET** |
Ranking the Support Functions
The top support functions were Breakout Room Resources, Facilitators and Scribes, Base Access, Aviator Bar Event, and Computers and Technology. Most of these things improved due to having an EDTF-Dry Run with the SOS students and understanding what they wanted more of (more internet access, more computers, more white boards, more white board markers), and most of the Facilitators and Scribes were active Facilitators and Scribes during the EDTF-Dry Run and had already practiced the same conference questions with an audience. We also reinforced best practices with Facilitators and Scribe training the week prior to the EDTF Event.
The parts that did not go well were Check-in and Badging and Lunch. From my point of view, as the one responsible for making the Name Tags which was the critical path for Check-in and Badging, I know why that went wrong and I own that. However, participants commented more about the large $110 landing fee, the lack of options (ATMS/ability to run a Credit Card), and the lack of quality and quantity of food. Lunch and the cost of lunch was outside of Wargaming’s control, but in the future we will assert more control over this support function, as it is not the first time a Club-run event has run out of food for events in Wargaming, and it damages the Wargame Institute’s image.
Here are some of the responses about what to change next time:| What to do differently next time |
|---|
| PROVIDE A PREPARE LIST TO ATTENDEES OF BOOK AND REPORTS READING LIST TO BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH TOPICS, TERMS, IDEAS (DEFENSE INNOVATION REPORT ON 5G, LEMAY PAPERS, KEY NOTE/PRESENTER BOOKS, NOTES) |
| SEND US TABLETOP EXERCISE QUESTIONS AHEAD OF TIME TO GIVE US TIME TO THINK ABOUT PROBLEM BEFORE SHOWING UP |
| DELIVERABLE TEMPLATE? |
| SEND SUGGESTED READING AHEAD OF TIME |
| PROVIDE UNCLASS SLIDES AFTER EVENT |
| DEVELOP AN EMP ADVISORY COALITION TO ORGANIZE EVENTS IN THE FUTURE COMPRISED OF LARGER LIST OF MORE TYPE GROUP-ROTATE TO OTHER CITIES SUCH AS SAN ANTONIO, TAMPA, ETC |
| START ON TUESDAY INSTEAD OF MONDAY |
| NO |
| REVIEW PRIOR YEARS REPORT |
| EXPAND BEYOND USAF TO DOD/DHS/DOE PROBLEM SETS |
| BREAKFAST/COFFEE MORNING OF DAY 1 |
| $110 IS A LOTTLE STEEP; FOOD TRUCKS OUTSIDE WOULD SUFFICE FOR LUNCH |
| THE WORDING OF THE EVENT INVITATION WAS CONFUSING. MORE NOTICE ON SCHEDULE |
| SEND SCHEDULE PUT EARLIER, SEND SMO CODES EARLIER, GET PRESENTERS SLIDES |
| PROVIDE MEETING INFORMATION EARLIER. STREAMLINE THE CHECK-IN PROCESS |
| THE CHECK IN PROCESS WAS UNCLEAR. THERE COULD HAVE BEEN MORE INSTRUCTIONS AHEAD OF TIME AND SIGNS AT THE CHECK IN TABLES |
| COME UP WITH A WAY TO PREPAY LANDING FEE AND HAVE MORNING COFFEE AND SNACKS |
| DON’T CHANGE ANYTHING |
| AGENDA AND PRESENTATIONS SET AHEAD OF TIME |
| ITERATIVE PROCESS WILL HELP EVEOLVE PROCESS |
| BETTER MANAGE CHECK IN |
| A WHAT TO EXPECT STATEMENT |
| HAVE FOLKS LIKE INL DISCUSS STANDARDS, EQUIPMENT VULNERABILITY TEST THE HAVE DONE, AND DON’T EVER LET UTILITIES COME UP WITH THEIR OWN STANDARDS |
| A BIT MORE PREP WITH PERSONNEL |
| PUT OUT A TENTATIVE SCHEDULE SOONER TO ASSIST BOOKING/PLANNING. END OF FINAL DAY ESPECIALLY |
| MOVE AWAY FROM THE SINGLE LANDING FEE TO MORE A LA CARTE |
| NOTHING |
| CHEAPER LANDING FEE |
| $110 LANDING FEE IS EXCESSIVE; ADVERTISE AS OPTIONAL. DAY 3 APPEARED MANDATORY ?? REGISTRATION OUT WAS NOT |
| MAKE SURE SCHEDULE CHANGES ARE COMMUNICATED CLEARLY |
| I THINK WHAT WAS DONE WAS RIGHT ON TARGET |
| LIGISTICAL INSTRUCTIONS SEEMED SPORADIC. EVENT PLANNING COULD HAVE PROVIDED A ONE PAGE DOCUMENT WITH RELATIVE INFORMATION. DRESS CODE, LOCATIONS, BUS ROUTES, ETC |
| HAVE SOMETHING ON SUNDAY NIGHT FOR THOSE WHO COME EARLY - BREAKFAST/COFFEE OPTION - SOME FOLKS NEED FOOD TO TAKE MEDS |
| ADD PROVIDE RECYCLING, AT A MIN PLASTIC BOTTLES, AND ALUMINUM CANS. PROVIDE A NARRATIVE PARAGRAPH OR TWO ABOUT WHAT ONE COULD EXPECT AT THE CONFERENCE (IN ADDITION TO THE SPREADSHEET!). 3) PROVIDE QUIET TIME (NON-0DISCUSSION) TIME TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO GATHER THEIR THOUGHTS. -HELPFUL FOR INTROVERTS, - ALLOW SPEAKERS A CHANCE TO FORMULATE THEIR THOUGHTS SO THEY MAY BE MORE ACCURATELY CONVEYED TO OTHERS. |
| BREAKOUT ROOMS SHOULD WARGAME COMBATANT COMMANDS (W/REPS) AND THEIR RESPONSES |
| IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO EXPLAIN THOW THE LANDING FEES WOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT DURING THE COURSE OF THIS EVENT |
|
| PROVIDE LUNCH MENY SO PEOPLE CAN DECIDE |
| LOGISTICS INFORMATION DISSEMINATION NEEDS SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT |
| CATERING BY THE BOX - JASON DELI $10 LUNCH |
| WENT VERY SMOOTHLY |
| CREATE A BRIDGE BETWEEN THE TWO OPPOSING SIDES, EMP ACADEMIA AND UTILITIES WHO ARE NOT CONVINVED WE HAVE A PROBLEM. DECLASSIFICATION AND DATA SHARING WILL HELP |
| WHY HAVE MULTIPLE LINES DOING DIFFERENT TASKS IN A SINGLE CHOKE POINT OFF MULTIPLE FULL SERVE LINES IN BETTER LOCATION |
| PROVIDE MORE DETAILED AGENDA/LOGISTICS AT LEAST 3 WEEKS IN ADVANCE. LACK OF INFO MADE AIRLINE PLANNING DIFFICULT |
| NO TRAVEL ON SUNDAY. HAVE ALTERNATIVES TO SALAD ONLY . |
| BETTER COMMUNICATION REGARDING ORGANIZATION OF EVENT AND LOGISTICS |
| SEE ATTACHED SHEET - I THOUGHT THAT OVERALL THIS WAS AN EXCELLENT WORTHWHILE EVENT. |
| What were the support highlights? |
|---|
| TRANSPORTATION FROM VOQ MADE IT EASY TO GET TO MEETING SITE |
| HAD PROCTOR, LT COL SLAUGHTER WHO PARTICIPATED IN EDTF 2.0 BETA FROM SOS WHICH HELPED GREATLY WITH FAMILIARTITY OF THE PROBLEM SET |
| BADGES READY |
| THE INDUSTRY PARTNER IN DISCUSSION WERE AMAZING |
| COMPOSITION OF TEAMS-EXCELLENT REPRESENTATION OF ENLISTED TALENT |
| ALL VERY GOOD |
| JUST NICELY ORGANIZED |
| LUNCH AND SNACKS WERE MOSTLY GOOD ON TUES/WED |
| LOTS OF PEOPLE HELPING TO GUIDE US TO/FROM BUILDING, ETC |
| PEOPLE WERE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND REDIRECT US AS NEEDED |
| INTERCHANGE OF IDEAS WITH OTHERS. GREAT SMALL GROUP FORMAT |
| INTERACTIONS IN THE WORKING GROUPS |
| FACILITATORS |
| THE GROUP/TEM DISCUSSIONS WERE OUTSTANDING |
| PROTOCOL WAS ON IT |
| BREAKOUT SESSIONS |
| PART OF A YES, IF TEAM |
| BUS |
| MY FIRST EVENT-ALL HIGHLIGHT FOR ME |
| MAYOR DISCUSSION WAS GOOD TO LEARN WHATS HAPPENING OUTSIDE MAXWELL AFB |
| GOOD SPEAKERS AND GOOD BREAKOUT DISCUSSIONS |
| PRESENTATIONS AND TABLE TOPS |
| VERY FRIENDLY, HELPFUL, COULDN’T HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT THEM |
| BROAD CROSS SECTION OF GOVERNMENT, MILITARY, AND CIVILIAN ENTITIES. BROUGHT GREAT DIVERSITY OF PERSPECTIVES |
| QUALITY OF FOOD |
| CHECK IN PROCESS, PLASTIC BAGS FOR PHONE STORAGE, RESERVED PARKING, SIGNAGE |
| TALKING IN MY GROUP |
| THE SUBSTANCE AND LOGISTICS WERE GREAT. OUR FACILITATORWAS MAGNIFICIENT |
| THE ENVIRONMENT AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THE VARIETY OF ORGANIZATIONS AND EXPERTS |
| FACILITATORS |
| FACILITATORS DID A GOOD JOB INCLUDING OTHERSWISE UNHEARD VOICES AND NOT CONTROLLING THE CONVERSATION |
| BREAKOUT SESSIONS AND HOTWASH |
| EVENING EVENTS GOOD FOR NETWORKING |
| I THINK HAVING THE SMES COME IN AND BRIEF NICHE AREAS TO CATCH THE ROOM UP TO OTHER VIEWPOINTS WAS COOL |
| TRANSPORTATION TO EVENTS |
| TEAM FACILITATOR AND SCRIBES WERE VERY GOOD - ENABLED VALUABLE DISCUSSION |
| THE KINDNESS FROM THE STAFF |
| GOOD DISCUSION |
| THE LANDING FEE IS TACKY AND COULD BE ELIMINATED BY WORKING WITH KEY PLAYERS WILLING TO COVER COST OF EVENT |
| HONESTLY THIS WAS THE WORST PLANNED AND EXECUTED USAF EVENT IVE SEEN IN 35 YEARS |
| GREAT JOB BY PROTOCOL/SUPPORT STAFF VERY FRIENDLY AND COURTEOUS/PROFESSIONAL |
| LODGING AND SHUTTLES WERE GREAT. ICEBREAKERS/SOCIAL WERE WELL DONE. |
| ALL WAS VERY SATISFACTORY |
| What were the support detractors? |
|---|
| REGISTRATION PACKETS TO DESCRIBE CHECK-IN, REGISTRATION PROCEDURES |
| NEED TO CHECK PRESENTATIONS PRIOR TO MEETING |
| NONE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE |
| COULDN’T ACCESS CELL PHONE DURING BREAK FOR A SCHEDULED CALL. THOUGHT $37 FOR LUNCH AND SNACKS WAS A BIT HIGH BUT THE FOOD WAS GOOD! |
| 2 MIN LATE TO CLASSIFIED SESSION AND WAS DENIED ACCESS |
| NONE |
| LODGING TEMPERATURE-TOO HOT IN ROOM |
| NONE |
| NONE |
| APPEARS TO BE TWO CAMPS TO SEVERITY OF HEMP EVENT….DEPENDS ON ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED MODELS |
| TRACK LEADERS TALKED OVER THE GROUP WHEN PRESENTING |
| DISORGANIZED MORNING SESSION |
| SOMETIMES I WASN’T SURE WHAT BUILDONG THE MEETINGS WERE TAKING PLACE IN |
| COFFEE 1ST AM |
| WELL NO PRIOR SUPPORT DUE TO TMT ASSIGNMENT (LONG STORY…) |
| STARTING BRIEFINGS ON TIME! I MISSED CLASSIFIED BRIEF BECAUSE BADGE WASN’T READY |
| FLOATER WAS DISTRACTING. SOMETIMES IT CAUSED TIME TO BE AN ISSUE |
| NSTR |
| EXCESSIVE LANDING FEE-MANY COMMENTS ABOUT $45 SALAD. FOOD RAN OUT. GIVE PPLOPTION TO GO TO BX OR GOLF COURSE. BOTH FAST AND ECONOMICAL. |
| NONE |
| CLEARANCES FOR INDUSTRY EXPERTS. THESE ARE NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND RELATIVE INTELLEGIENCE AND TRANSLATE INTO INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES AND ?? |
| FOOD (LACK THERE OF), SECURITY UNDERSTANDING (LEAVE BRIEFCASE AND ELECTRONICS IN ROOM), NEED FOR CASH TO CHECK IN, ON BASE FOOD OPTIONS FOR DINNER NOT GOOD. |
| NOISE LEVEL FROM ADJACENT ROOMS DURING THE UNCLASSIFIED BREAKOUT SESSIONS. IT WAS A LITTLE FRUSTRATING TO ME TO HAVE CERTAIN PERSONS DOMINATE THE SPEECH IN THE ROOM PERHAPS WITHOUT A) BEING CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WAS BEING SAID (LOTS OF ANALOGIES, ACRONYMS, ASSUMED UNIVERSAL UNDERSTANDING OF CERTAIN CONCEPTS, OR ASSUMPTIONS) |
| LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF HOW TO SCOPE RESPONSES TO SCENARIO. IN OTHER WORDS, WE NEED PLANNERS (J5, A5, ETC) INVOLVED TO HELP SHAPE RESPONSES |
| LETTING THE PHD LEVEL FOLKS WAX ON WITHOUT GETTING TO DELIVERABLES WAS FRUSTRATING, ALMOST A FULL-TIME EFFORT GUIDING THE DISCUSSION |
| LACK OF COFFEE FIRST MORNING |
|
| INDUSTRY A PART FROM THE GROUPS |
| LIMITED BREADTH OF PARTICIPANTS |
| REGISTRATION PROCESS ON SITE WAS BAD. MORNING DAY 1 BRIEFS ALMOST A WASTE OF TIME. EITHER PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION OR NOT AT ALL. |
| TREATMENT OF ELECTRONICS ON MONDAY WAS UNEXCUSABLE. SENIOR COMMUNITY LEADERS AND SMES ON THEIR KNEES IN THE LEMAY LOBBY DIGGING THROUGH BOXES - REALLY? LACK OF 2 BRIEFINGS ON MONDAY AND BLINDSIDING PRESENTERS ON STAGE WAS ALSO INEXCUSABLE. |
| I DIDN’T EXPERIENCE ANY BIG DISTRACTING EXCEPT NO STARBUCKS CLOSE BY :-) |
| LACK OF COMMUNICATION, I WAS ORIGINALLY TOLD I WOULD BE A DAY ONE SPEAKER, BUT WAS PUSHED TO DAY TWO PANEL AND WAS NEVER INFORMED OF THE CHANGE, AND RECEIVED NO INFO ON WHETHER OR NOT SLIDES HAD BEEN RECEIVED. COMMUNICATION OF AGENDA CHANGES DURING THE SUMMIT WAS NOT DONE WELL EITHER. |
| NONE |
| Checkin and Badging |
|---|
| HAD TO START LATE |
| CAME SAT-BILLETING WAS NOT PREPARED TO ADDRESS PROTOCOL ISSUES |
| CONGESTED AREA |
| SHOULDVE HAD ONE LINE TO PAY AND GET BADGE |
| IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHAT THE CHECK IN PROCESS WAS |
| CASH OR CHECK WITH NO EASY ATM WAS A HASSLE |
| WAS NOT INFORMED PRIOR OF $110 LANDING FEE AND BILLETING |
| DISORGANIZED |
| SEPARATING LANDING FEE AND BADGES WAS A LITLE STRANGE |
| NAME NOT ON LIST BUT AT THE VISITOR CENTER WITH BADGE |
| NEED FOR CASH WAS A BIG PROBLEM |
| BETTER SIGNAGE (BIGGER WITH ARROWS) AND BETTER DIRECTIONS AT GATE |
| SEEMED COMM DARK WEEK BEFORE |
| HAD TO BORROW $110 FROM A GUY NEXT TO ME, CREDIT CARD NOT ACCEPTED |
| Facilitators/Scribes Comments |
|---|
| DANO EXCELLENT |
| KEPT ON TRACK |
| PRACTICE ?? WITH FACILITATORS IN ADVANCE MIGHT HAVE BEEN USEFUL |
| OUTSTANDING |
| STRONG PERSONALITY. TOO INVOLVED. DISTRACTING AT TIMES (THE FLOATER) |
| THEY WERE GREAT |
| GREAT LEADERSHIP AND CAPTURE OF NOTES |
| VERY GOOD! |
| WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE (MPC? MAC?) SEEN PATCHES DRIVING THE TEAMS. |
| VERY PROFESSIONAL AND HELPFUL |
| WELL DONE, ENABLED CONVERSATIONS WITHOUT STEPPING ON TOES |
| Lunch Comments |
|---|
| LAST ~20 PEOPLE DIDN’T GET FOOD |
| RAN OUT OF FOOD ON DAY 1 |
| IT WAS OK TASTE WISE |
| IDK WHERE BRETT HALL PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO GET BREAKFAST |
| 110 |
| MONDAY’S LUNCH WASN’T GREAT |
| NOT WORTH $110 |
| QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF FOOD WAS POOR FOR COST |
| LUNCH AT THE DFAC WOULD BE NICE |
| VERY EXPENSIVE FOR THE OFFEREINGS |
| $110 FOR SALAD?! REALLY? |
| NO SALAD, NO REFILL |
| JUST OK |
| MORE FOOD NEEDED |
| 2ND DAY GREAT, 1ST NOT |
| RAN OUT OF ITEMS DAY 1 |
| 110 |
| BASED ON LANDING FEE, THIS OPTION COULD HAVE BEEN A BIT BETTER |
| THIS MAY BE QUIBBLING BUT KNOWING A LUNCH MENU WILL HELP OTHERS DECIDE TO BRING A LUNCH. DEF NOT LIKE EDTF #1. |
| LESS CARBS, KETO FRIENDLY OPTIONS APPRECIATION. |
| $110 WAS ROBBERY FOR THAT |
| MONDAY - PASSABLE |
| “UGH!” |
| Snacks/Coffee Comments |
|---|
| LACK OF COFFEE ON DAY 1 IN MORNING |
| VERY EXPENSIVE FOR THE OFFERINGS |
| NEED COFFEE/SNACKS IN THE MORNING |
| NO SNACKS PROVIDED THAT I SAW |
| JUST OK |
| 110 |
| MORE VARIETY EACH DAY, CHANGE OPTIONS UP A BIT WOULD HAVE MADE THIS A BETTER EXPERIENCE |
| “3.A.A.?” |
| NEEDED COFFEE IN JONES MONDAY AM |
| WOULD HAVE LIKED COFFEE AT THE START OF DAY |
| UNAVAILABILITY OF COFFEE ON THE FIRST MORNING WAS NOT GOOD |
Content Matters
1. Do the summit topic and deliverable questions support the national effort to prioritize EMP preparation and recovery?
There were 2 respondents who started off with ‘no’, and there were 51 respondents who started off with ‘yes’. Here are those responses:
| Respondent | Comment |
|---|---|
| 1 | THEY DO YET NEED TO BECOME MORE STRUCTURES (TIERED) AND FOCUSED TO CERTAIN INDUSTRIES (POWER, STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT) |
| 3 | YES, BUT THIS IS NOT AN AIR FORCE-CENTRIC ISSUE NOR ARE THE SOLUTIONS AF-CENTRIC. NEED MORE DISCUSSION AND FOCUS ON JOINT AND INTER-AGENCY ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM. |
| 4 | YES |
| 6 | YES |
| 7 | YES |
| 8 | YES BUT LIMITED TO JOINT. I WISH THE TOPIC WAS HOW TO PREPARE/RECOVER AS A NATION |
| 9 | SOME CONFUSION EXISTED REGARDING THE FOCUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL BREAKOUT PANELS–SOME THOUGHT THE FOCUS WAS … |
| 10 | YES |
| 11 | VERY WELL |
| 12 | YES HOWEVER ONE ABILITY TO EXECUTE EFFECTIVELY IS PROBLEMATIC |
| 13 | NEW TO ME BUT THEY SEEM TO DO SO |
| 14 | YES. GREAT DISCUSSION FROM ALL INVOLVED |
| 16 | THE QUESTIONS SUCCESSFULLY STIMULATED VERY GOOD CONVERSATIONS AMONG THE GROUP. I BELIEVE THESE RESULTED IN MANY BENEFICIAL COMMENTS |
| 17 | SURE |
| 18 | YES I BELIEVE THE SCENARIO TO INFLICT AS MUCH PAIN AS POSSIBLE ALTHOUGH IMPROBABLE WAS NEEDED AND ACCURATELY ASSESS ?? RECOVERY AND HARDENING/PROTECTION EFFORTS |
| 20 | IT DOES FOR MILITARY. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES NEED TO BE PROTECTED. ?? POWER AND COMMS NEED TO BE PROTECTED |
| 21 | YES |
| 22 | YES |
| 23 | YES BUT GOING STRAIGHT TO FULL MONTY HEMP IGNORES “BOILING FROG” HPM OR COMBO SCENARIO AND THOSE COMPLICATIONS |
| 24 | YES THROUGH MORE FOCUS SHOULD BE PLACED ON QUANTIFYING THE PROBLEM AND ON PUTTING NEAR TERM ACTION PLANS IN PLACE |
| 25 | YES, QUESTIONS WERE WELL CRAFTED |
| 26 | YES |
| 27 | YES |
| 29 | YES |
| 30 | YES |
| 31 | YES BUT THE SCENARIO WAS A BIT EXAGGERATED |
| 32 | THE TOPIC DOES CLEARLY SUPPORT THE NATIONAL EFFORT TO PRIORITIZE EMP PREPARATION AND RECOVERY. IT FOCUSED ON COMM RECOVERY AND ISSUES THAT MAY SUPPORT THAT |
| 33 | YES. I THINK THE EDTF 2.0 DOCUMENT WILL ADD TO COA FOR EMP PROBLEM SOLVING |
| 34 | MORE AFRL REPRESENTATION |
| 35 | YES NEED TO ENSURE THERE IS A CHAMPION AND FUNDING METHOD |
| 36 | YES-THINK TEAM DID WELL |
| 37 | YES |
| 38 | YES EXCELLENT TRACK BREAKOUT PANEL |
| 39 | YES |
| 41 | NO |
| 42 | YES TO A POINT BUT THEY PRESUPPOSE A FULL EFFECT EVENT RATHER THAN ALLOWING TECH EXPERTS TO SAY WHERE DEGRADATION/ DISRUPTION WOULD OCCUR |
| 43 | DELIVERABLE FROM BREAKOUT NOT CLEAR. CURRENT ACTIONS OR PREPARATION |
| 44 | YES BUT WE NEED ACTION NOW! |
| 45 | YES |
| 46 | YES |
| 47 | YES I THINK SOME OF THE TOPIC QUESTIONS WERE OFF AS 5G AND QUANTUM ARE NOT FULLY IMPLEMENTED SO IT WAS UNCLEAR IF IT WAS SURVIVABLE BUT ENABLED US TO SHAPE THE CONVERSATION |
| 48 | YES |
| 49 | YES |
| 50 | YES |
| 51 | YES I THINK MORE FOCUSED QUESTIONS THAT FORWARD THE PREVIOUS EDTF FINDINGS OR THAT REDIRECT THE CONFERENCE TO DIFFERENT RESULTS |
| 52 | TOPIC BRIEFINGS VERY SHORT, NEED TO FOCUS ON KEY ISSUE FOR DISCUSSION OR GIVE MORE TIME , VERY INTERESTING. AT A HIGH LEVEL, YES FOR QUESTIONS BUT ISSUES IN THE ?? |
| 53 | DIALOUGUE/QUESTIONS JUST GOT ME A PLACE TO START |
| 54 | YES. IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO BUILD NATIONAL CONSENSUS AND MOMENTUM ON THIS ISSUE |
| 55 | VERY DEFINITELY |
| 56 | MOSTLY. 5G AND QUANTUM ARE STILL NEW OR FUTURISTIC BUT THE ECONOMIC THREAT AS WELL AS THE COMMUNICATION THREAT IS RELATIVE TO SIMILAR IMPACT OF EMP RECOVERY. SUPPLY CHAIN NEEDED TO BE MORE PROMINENT |
| 57 | YES–THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION REGARDING JUST WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF AN EMP IS |
| 59 | Too undefined. No common definition of 5G or understanding of what an EMP attack would mean |
| 60 | YES |
| 61 | YES |
| 62 | YES |
| 63 | YES. THE EFFORTS PRODUCED HERE WILL BE IMPORTANT TO FURTHER EFFORTS AS WE TACKLE THIS PROBLEM |
| 64 | BROADLY YES |
| 65 | IT SEEMS TO ASK FOR SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS INSTEAD OF BROAD STRATEGIES |
| 66 | PARTIALLY. THE ASSUMPTIONS AND DEPTH OF INFORMATION PROVIDED MADE PROVIDEING THE PRIORITIZATION OF PREP AND RECOVERY DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE. |
| 67 | I THINK SO BUT THERE IS MORE WORK AHEAD |
| 68 | CAN THE NATIONAL EFFEORT RELLY BE EQUATED TO THE MILITARY EFFORT |
| 69 | YES |
| 70 | MORE EDUCATION ON EMP TO PROVIDE A BEST EDUCATED ANSWER |
| 72 | YES, SCENARIO WAS RATHER SPECIFIC, BUT PANEL DISCUSSIONS BROUGHT A MUCH BROADER CONVERSATION AND INFORMATION TO THE GROUP |
| 73 | YES GENERALLY - IN SOME CASES THEY MAY HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC THAN THE LEVEL OF CERTAINTY ON THE TOPIC SUPPORTED |
| 74 | YES SOME WAS LEFT TOO MUCH GUESS WORK, BUT I GUESS THAT WAS A MAJOR PART OF THE QUESTION/PROBLEM. EG: WHAT SATELLITES ARE AVAILABLE? WHAT TYPE? |
| 75 | YES |
| 76 | YES. DIABOLICAL SCENARIO THAT MAKES MIL FOLKS REALLY THINK ABOUT PREP AND RECOVERY |
| 77 | 90% WAS FOCUSED ON RECOVERY AND VERY LITTLE DEFENSE/PREPARATION/PREVENTION |
| 78 | YES |
| 79 | YES BYT NEED TO BALANCE WORST CASE WITH MOST LIKELY CASE SCENARIOS |
| 80 | NO, GOING TO THE EXTREME DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO ACTUALLY SOLVING THE CONUNDRUM OF RESOURCE PRIORITIZATION/ALLOCATION. ONCE THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE ADDRESSED, WE HAVE AN ARGUMENT BEFORE US. A BETTER PROBLEM SET WOULD BE THE MORE LIKELY COMBINATION OF CYBER + TERROR ATTACKS TIMED WITH A GMD EVENT. |
| 81 | YES THE QUESTIONS WERE SPOT ON |
| 83 | YES |
| 84 | YES |
2. Please ID organizations not represented that should be invited in the future:
Here are those responses:| Respondent | Comment |
|---|---|
| 3 | AFRL/RI, INTEL COMMUNITY (ESP NSA), DHS(FEMA) |
| 4 | WE NEED LG TYPES, INCLUDING DEPOT, WHO WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR RECONSTITUTION (DIA, CIVIL AIR PATROL) |
| 6 | MORE INDUSTRY PARTNERS AND ACADEMIA PARTNERS |
| 7 | MILITARY ENERGY PLANNERS (SECRETARIAT LEVEL, SERVICE HQ) |
| 8 | TACTICAL EXPERTS. SMALLEST POPULATION IN THE AUDIENCE WERE CAPTAINS. IF THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED WE MISS OUT ON CURRENT TACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AND INSTEAD RELY ON AN O-6 TO TALK ABOUT HIS TACTICAL KNOWLEDGE WHICH MIGHT BE DATED |
| 9 | AFRC- EXPLAIN TECHNOLOGIES IN DEVELOPMENTNON-DOD FIRST RESPONDERS, FINANCIAL COMPANIES |
| 10 | NOT SURE HOW MUCH OF AFACADEMIC WAS HERE (AFIT, USAFA INSTRUCTORS, ETC) BUT THEY SHOULD BE…A MASTERS OR PHD SHOULD PROBABLY BE SPONSORED AND THAT MEMBER INVITED. |
| 11 | ANG/AFR/DHS/DIA |
| 12 | ALL MILITARY CITIES/COMMUNITIES WITH FEW CORRESPONDING MILITARY CONTACTS |
| 13 | OSD/EMERGING TECH CARES ABOUT SPECTRUM ISSUES |
| 18 | DOE I DIDN’T SEE ANY BUT DIDN’T TALK TO ALL EITHER NOR IC PARRTNERS ALTHOUGH CLASSIFICATION DID HINDER SOME CONVERSATION. AFRL/RD THEY UNDERSTAND SUSCEPTIBILITIES VERY WELL |
| 20 | DHS, FEMA, NORTHCOM |
| 21 | MAYBE OTHER SERVICES (ARMY, NAVY) REPS DALING WITH HIS. REPS FROM DHS, FERC, NERC |
| 22 | A4 (CE) |
| 23 | NTIC/JAEC, NORTHCOM, EMERGENCY MANAGEMETN SMES FROM CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT (CITY, STATE, LOCAL) |
| 25 | IEEE/CE |
| 26 | MORE DHS, STATE GOVERNMENTS, FEMA |
| 27 | FEMA AND DHS DEFINITELY, AFRL/RD |
| 28 | FEMA |
| 29 | MORE REPRESENTATION FROM INFRASTRUCTURES/POWER GRID/UTILITY ORGANIZATIONS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FBI |
| 30 | MORE DISA REPS |
| 32 | FEMA, POWER AND TELECOM COMPANIES |
| 33 | DHS,NSA,CIA,DIA,NASIC |
| 35 | FEMA, NORAD |
| 37 | EPRI, NEI, DRE |
| 38 | 557TH WX WING (SOLAR FLARES EFFECTS ON THE EMS) |
| 39 | AFNWC,AF/AIO,SAF/IE |
| 40 | POWER GRID INDUSTRY (SYSTEM ENGINEERS) |
| 42 | INTEL, LOCAL GOVERNMENT |
| 43 | FERC, BANKING |
| 45 | MORE STATE AGENCIES |
| 46 | APPLE |
| 47 | DEPT OF STATE, DHS, FBI, CIA, NSA |
| 48 | 91 COS FOR 5G |
| 49 | FEMA, DHS, MORE STATE AND LOCAL REPS |
| 50 | FEMA |
| 51 | DARPA, DEPT OF STATE-PUSH TTPS TO ALLIES, DHS |
| 52 | EPRI-NEED TO VET DISAGREEMENTS |
| 53 | MORE REPRESENTATION FROM SOCIALISTS/PSYCHOLOGISTS ON HUMAN DYNAMIC POST EVENT; WILL HAVE HUGE IMPACT |
| 54 | ENERGY INDUSTRY, CANADA, MEDIA |
| 55 | I THINK THE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE NUMBERS WERE JUST RIGHT. EVERYONE I TALKED WITH LEARNED A LOT. |
| 56 | TELECOM, CIRCUIT BOARD AND CHIP MANUFACTURERS |
| 57 | AT&T, SAN ANTONIO |
| 59 | telecom from natrual gas pipelines, API, INGAA, AGA, NERC |
| 60 | EPRI, BATTELLE, NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY |
| 62 | NORTHCOM PLANNERS |
| 64 | FEMA |
| 65 | CIA, DOE, SANDIA, LOS ALAMOS |
| 66 | INTERNATIONAL UTILITIES AND STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. |
| 67 | NATIONAL ENERGY RELIABILITY CORPORTATION, ELECTRIC POWER RELIABILITY INITIATIVE |
| 68 | COMMUNICATION PROVIDERS - EQUIPMENT AS WELL AS SERVICES. MUST ASSURE COMPATIABILITY BETWEEN DEVICES |
| 69 | FVEY NATIONAL BOTH MIL AND CIVILIAN (POLICY + UTILITIES) |
| 70 | NOT SURE: NRO, DOE, HAM RADIO, NORAD/NORTHCOM, DHS?, FEMA, MORE DTRA/EMP EXPERTS |
| 71 | EPRI, PJM, NYISO, MISO, SPP, ERCDT, CAISO, SOUTHERN CO, DUKE ENERGY, OPERATING AND PLANNING FUNCTIONS. |
| 72 | DHS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES |
| 73 | I WOULD LIKE TO SEE INDUSTRY ORGS, EEI, E-ISAC, NERC, ET AL |
| 74 | WE NEEDED ELECTRONIC COMPONENT SMES TO DISCUSS EQUIPMENT HARDENING. MAYBE AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST |
| 75 | NUKE REG COMMITTEE. DOE. |
| 76 | NC3 THINKERS OR PLANNERS OF OLD (GRAYBEARDS) |
| 77 | PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS WITH HARDENING SOLUTIONS FOR GMD + EMP. NEED TO GET THESE COMPONENTS IN THE SAME ROOM AS ACADEMIA AND UTILITIES. |
| 78 | HEALTH |
| 79 | NEED ALL ELECTRIC PROVIDER PLAYERS IN ROOM TOGETHER DUE TO DEPENDENCIES ON EACH OTHER. |
| 80 | AFIMSC, A1S, A4C, AFCEC, OSD SUSTAINMENT, OSD OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WATER UTILITIES, TELECOMS, WALL STREET, PRIVATE ELECTRONIC UTILITIES, SAF/AQC *EXPERTS ON OTA AND FAR SHORTCUTS, SAF/IC |
| 81 | THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY PRESENCE SEEMED VERY LIGHT AND MANY OF THE GROUPS STRUGGLED WITH ADVERSARY CAPABILITIES/INTENT |
| 82 | USGS, NOAA/SWPC, NPS, NRL, MDA |
| 84 | INDIVIDUALS/ORGANIZATIONS WITH DIRECT EXPERIENCE ON SUCCESSFUL STEP-OUT PROJECTS EG MEMBERS OF THE LOCKHEED SKUNKWORKS |
Here are the above results as a word cloud. 
FEMA and DHS were common answers across participants.
3. Regarding Read-Ahead Materials, were you sufficiently prepared to participate in this event fully?
There were 17 respondents who started off with ‘no’, and there were 31 respondents who started off with ‘yes’. (We were told not to provide the scenario to participants) Here are those responses:
| Respondent | Comment |
|---|---|
| 3 | NO. I DID NOT RECEIVE AN AGENDA OR A READ AHEAD PACKAGE PRIOR TO THE EVENT. ALMOST CANCELLED MY TDY DUE TO A LACK OF AN AGENDA/READ AHEAD PRIOR TO THE EVENT. |
| 4 | YES |
| 6 | YES! GREAT! |
| 7 | SOMEWHAT |
| 8 | NO |
| 9 | GOOD READ AHEADS |
| 10 | ONLY PROVIDED VERY BASIC INFORMATION. IT WOULD HAVE HELPED TO HAVE TOPIC PRIMERS/PAPERS SENT. |
| 11 | YES |
| 12 | YES |
| 13 | REASONABLY WELL |
| 14 | YES |
| 16 | NO. I RECEIVED NO READ AHEADS |
| 17 | DIDN’T RECEIVE ANY |
| 18 | SLIGHTLY, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE READAHEADS BASED ON 2ND PARTY INVITE |
| 20 | YES- LAST YEARS REPORT AND THE WORK. ?? INVESTED IN MAKE ME SUFFICIENTLY PREPARED TO PARTICIPATE |
| 21 | YES |
| 22 | YES |
| 23 | YES |
| 24 | ALMOST- I DID NOT RECEIVE THE SCHEDULE UNTIL 4 DAYS BEFOREHAND WHICH WAS VERY SHORT NOTICE |
| 25 | YES |
| 26 | NO. ANY MATERIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD. A CLASSIFIED EMAIL WITH THE TOPIC WOULD HAVE ALLOWED ME TO REVIEW RELEVANT PAPERS AND BRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL |
| 27 | YES |
| 29 | NO. THE CHECK IN AND READ AHEAD MATERIALS DID NOT PREPARE ME FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE EVENT |
| 30 | I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY |
| 31 | YES |
| 32 | NO, IT WOULD HAVE HELPED TO HAVE A EMP EFFECTS PAPER BEFOREHAND |
| 33 | YES DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED CLEARLY DIVIDED THE PROBLEM SPACE AND SUGGESTED SOUTIONS |
| 35 | DID NOT RECEIVE ANY |
| 36 | YES |
| 37 | YES |
| 38 | NO ATTENDED VIA TMT ASSIGNMENT; REQUESTED READ AHEADS AND DID NOT GET ANY. DID NOT LEARN OF BUSING, BILLETING, ETC |
| 39 | YES |
| 41 | NO-JUST SAYING EO EXISTS ISNT A GOOD POLICY START |
| 43 | ONLY RECEIVED BIOS-INTERESTING BUT DIDN’T PREPARE FOR ACTIVITY. EXERCISE IS VERY OPEN TO RAMBLING |
| 44 | YES |
| 45 | YES |
| 46 | YES! WELL I WISH I HAD RESEARCHED QUANTUM BECAUSE I THOUGHT I KNEW WHAT I NEEDED BUT FOUND I WAS A BIT BEHIND |
| 47 | NO I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO RECEIVE MORE BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ON 5G AND QUANTUM BEFORE I ARRIVED |
| 48 | SOMEWHAT THE EMAIL THAT WENT OUT FROM THE SATURDAY BEFORE FROM AN ATTENDEE WAS VERY INFORMATIVE |
| 49 | NEED MORE TECHNICAL READ AHEADS |
| 50 | YES |
| 51 | YES MAYBE MAKE THE CONGRESSIONAL EMP REPORT REQUIRED READING |
| 52 | REPEAT FROM LAST YEAR GOOD, OVERVIEW OF ADDITIONAL INFO WOULD HAVE BEEN USEFUL |
| 53 | RECOMMEND ADD ?? ONE SECOND AFTER AND EMP COMISSION WORK |
| 54 | NO. NEED MORE ADVANCED INFO ON 5G SPECIFICS |
| 55 | I WAS NOT BUT I WAS A LATE ADD |
| 56 | I WAS INFORMED BUT DID NOT FEEL PREPARED. THERE WERE SEVERAL RESEARCH PAPERS AND RESOURCES REFERENCED I HAD NOT HEARD OF |
| 57 | YESBUT OUR READ AHEAD INFO DID NOT APPEAR TO BE WELL USED IN THE SEMINAR |
| 59 | NO |
| 60 | NO ALTHOUGH THE REPORT FROM LAST YEAR WAS HELPFUL BACKGROUND READING |
| 61 | YES |
| 62 | WOULD LIKE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT EMP/CME EFFECTS |
| 63 | YES, THE READING MATERIALS WERE HELPFUL IN PREPARATION |
| 64 | YES, HOWEVER HAVIBNG SCENARIO DETAILS WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY USEFUL. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WERE ASKED TO EXAMINE. |
| 65 | NO, HPM IS A BROAD WAY TO DISCUSS A VARIETY OF THINGS |
| 66 | NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE SCENARIO WOULD HAVE BEEN USEFUL TO FRAME DISCUSSION EARLY. |
| 67 | I DO NOT KNOW IF I WAS FULLY PREPARED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS EVENT BUT IT CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO READ-AHEAD MATERIALS |
| 68 | YES - VERY GENEROUS DISSEMINATION OF RELEVANT MATERIAL |
| 69 | WOULD SUGGEST MORE EMPHASIS ON THE PRE-READING |
| 70 | IF THE QUESTION IS FORMED AROUND EMP, THEN MORE PRE-READING MATERIAL ON EMP SO WE DON’T ENVISION DOOMS DAY |
| 71 | NO. A CONCISE TOPICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL. |
| 72 | MATERIALS WERE ADEQUATE FOR MY BASE KNOWLEDGE |
| 73 | I DON’T RECALL RECEIVING MUCH BEYOND THE AGENDA AND SOME HIGH LEVEL THEMES. THAT WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE MOST PART. |
| 74 | YES, I WAS AS PREPARED AS MY MENTAL HISTORY WAS GOING TO ALLOW. |
| 75 | YES |
| 76 | YES |
| 77 | NO |
| 78 | YES |
| 79 | PROVIDE UNCLASSIFIED SCENARIO WELL IN ADVANCE TO ALLOW REPS TO DISCUSS WITH LARGER BASE |
| 80 | NO, SCENARIO SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED, AND ENTIRE READ AHEAD SHOULD HAVE BEEEN SENT OUT AT LEAST A FULL WEEK IN ADVANCE. OVERALL ADVANCE COMMS ON THIS EVENT WAS POOR. |
| 81 | PERFECT |
| 83 | SOMEWHAT. UNDERSTANDING THE SCENARIO AHEAD OF TIME AND THE SPECIFC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED |
| 84 | YES |
4. In addition to those briefed on Day 1, what other topics would you have liked presented?
| Respondent | Comment |
|---|---|
| 4 | TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR MITIGATING WEAPON EFFECTS |
| 6 | NONE FOR THIS PURPOSE |
| 8 | FOR THE SCENARIO: DISCUSS THE LIKELY ITEMS/ELECTRONICS THAT WOULD NOT FUCTION OR BE DEGRADED |
| 9 | POTENTIAL MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES. COMMERCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACHES |
| 11 | RECAP OF EDTF 1 |
| 12 | FIND A WAY TO CREATE AWARENESS TO CLASSIFIED INFO AT CERTAIN LEVEL |
| 13 | EXISTING TESTING FACILITIES |
| 14 | NO |
| 16 | POWER STATION DESIGN, SCADA DESIGN, INFRASTRUCTURE DETAILS |
| 17 | INVITE DOE TO TALK ABOUT THE GRID |
| 18 | DEW UNCLASS AND CLASS |
| 20 | REVIEW LAST YEARS RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS. DISCUSS WHAT WE ARE ?? PUBLISHED RESERCH |
| 21 | AN OVERVIEW OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE TO PROTECT FACILITIES/COMPONENTS |
| 23 | EVENTUALLY, OUTBRIEFS FROM EM/OSCA EXERCISES THAT EXERCISE THOSE SCENARIOS |
| 24 | HPM |
| 26 | BETTER OVERVIEW OF HEMP, EMP, EFFECTS |
| 27 | THREAT EW CAPABILITIES |
| 28 | STATE/LOCAL EFFORTS IN THE EMS DOMAIN WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY |
| 29 | NC3-SPECIFIC BRIEFINGS |
| 32 | NONE |
| 33 | SPACE, SIGINT(LIKELY TO REQUIRE SCI SESSIONS) |
| 36 | MORE ON PREVIOUS ACTIONS/REPORT AS A STARTING POINT FOR DISCUSSIONS |
| 37 | A FULLER THREAT BRIEF |
| 38 | 557TH WX WING |
| 39 | MORE THREAT BRIEFINGS THAT ADEQUATELY SCOPE THE EMP PROBLEM |
| 42 | INTEL/THREAT ASSESSMENT (WHAT ARE THE THREATS, LIKELIHOOD OF THE THREAT TYPE) |
| 43 | BORDER SECURITY, EMP PHYSICS- ACTUAL MECHANISM, 5G RISKS |
| 44 | HOW CAN WE GET DOD/GOVT TO PAY FOR HARDENING THE GRID |
| 45 | MORE DATA ON RESEARCH AMD MODELLING |
| 47 | MORE INFORMATIONON 5G UPFRONT IN THE BEGINNING AND THE CURRENT THREATS TO |
| 48 | INTEL BRIEF ON 5G/QUANTUM REGARDING FOREIGN DEVELOPMENT |
| 49 | NSTR |
| 53 | PSYCHOLOGY OF NATURAL CRISIS/MASS CASULATY EVENTS; RECOMMEND JONATHAN FROM GRID DOWN CORP AS FORMER SERE INSTRUCTOR |
| 54 | 5G CYBERSECURITY-MUCH MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR |
| 55 | I THINK THE NUMBER OF TOPICS AND THE DEPTH WERE JUST RIGHT |
| 56 | ?? PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE RELATIVE TO THE TOPIC. ENGINEERING AND MARKET ANALYSIS OF GAPS |
| 57 | WHAT ARE THE PRESUPPOSITIONS THAT CAME TOGETHER TO RESULT IN THE EVENT WITH EMPHASIS ON THOSE ECONOMY, CIVILIAN COMMUNITY |
| 59 | BETTER DEFINITIONS OF OBJECTIVES AND KEY RESULTS |
| 62 | REMINDER/REFRESHER ON REGIONAL COMMANDS (CONUS), BRIEF ON FEMA RESPONSES, RED CROSS, ETC |
| 65 | MORE QUANTUM, FASCINATING! |
| 67 | I AM STILL LEARNING, BUT MAYBE GMD AND HPEM |
| 68 | POTENTIAL DEFINITIEION OF WHAT LEVEL TO HARDEN VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE |
| 69 | MORE BRIEFS ON ANY CURENT PLANS (EMERGENCY RESPONSE) THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE |
| 70 | I WISH 5G WAS MORE IN DEPTH |
| 72 | SPECIFIC MATERIALS/PRACTICES OR OPTIONS TO BEING IMPLEMENTATION/BUSINESS CASE PRESENTATIONS |
| 73 | AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE COULD HAVE BEEN VALUEABLE |
| 74 | A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF EMP RESISTANT MATERIALS/MODALITIES |
| 75 | NRC PRESENTATION ON POWER PLANT PROTECTION AND RECOVERY. |
| 76 | NONE |
| 77 | TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS TO PROTECT OUR GRID |
| 79 | WHAT EFFORTS ALREADY BEING TAKEN TO PROTECT AT NATIONAL LEVEL |
| 80 | KNOWN, WORKABLE, REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN STUDIED. |
| 81 | KEEP THE VIDEO/IT ROCKED! MAYBE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON PRESIDENTIAL ORDER. WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY DOING OUTSIDE THE SERVICES? THREAT/INTEL BRIEFING. |
| 82 | JUST AS A RECAP WAS SCHEDULED FOR DAY 2, THE UMMIT SHOULD HAVE BEGUN WITH A RECAP OF 1.0/SPARTACUS. WE COVERED A BIT OF THE SAME GROUND, AT LEAST EARLY ON. |
| 83 | THE SCENARIO WAS VERY WELL DONE. BUT IT DIDN’T REALLY LEAD TO DISCUSSIONS ON THE QUESTIONS ASKED. THE DISCUSSIONS/QUESTIONS FOCUSED ON HOW TO PREVENT THE SCENARIO; NOT ON WHAT TO DO AFTER THE SCENARIO. |
| 84 | PLANS TO PULL TOGETHER ALL THE INDIVIDUAL SOLUTIONS. DIFFERENT PLANS AND DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES WOULD HELP GET TO A CONSOLIDATED APPROACH. |
5. Has discussing the EMP problem across communities altered your perspective of the issue?
There were 20 respondents who started off with ‘no’, and there were 34 respondents who started off with ‘yes’. Here are those responses:
| Respondent | Comment |
|---|---|
| 3 | YES. VERY EYE OPENING DISCUSSION OF THE THREAT AND EFFECTS |
| 4 | YES. HAVE BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE TARGET SET |
| 5 | NO I ALREADY KNEW IT WAS AN ISSUE NEEDING ADDRESSED |
| 6 | YES! VERY IMPORTANT! URGENT! CAN NO LONGER IGNORE |
| 7 | YES |
| 9 | VERY USEFUL DISCUSSION…NOW HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING |
| 11 | GREATLY-MORE PUBLIC DISSEMINATION IS NEEDED |
| 12 | NO-A REAL PROBLEM |
| 13 | YES MOSTLY FROM SEEING POSSIBLE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY |
| 14 | YES |
| 16 | MY UNDERSTANDING OF TECHNOLOGIES TO MITIGATE EMP HAS IMPROVED, BUT I STILL NEED A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF INFRASTRAUCTURE COMPONENTS |
| 17 | NO, KNOWLEDGEABLE ALREADY |
| 18 | NOT MUCH PHONE BEEN FOLLOWING DEW FOR SOMETIME AND WAS AWARE OF SCADA SUSCEPTIBILITIES |
| 20 | NOT REALLY. THE ISSUE IS BIG AND YWIR IS LITTLE FIELDING TO DEAL WITH MATERIAL ISSUES. POWER AND ?? ARE CRITICAL TO BRINGING BACK ALL OTHER CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES |
| 21 | NO |
| 22 | 1 |
| 23 | YES |
| 24 | YES IMPROVED GREATLY |
| 25 | IT HAS REFINED IT IN A POSITIVE WAY |
| 26 | NOT REALLY. ALREADY WAS CONCERNED |
| 27 | YES |
| 29 | YES. A LOT OF THESE ISSUES ARE BEING BORUGHT UP IVE NEVER THOUGHT OF |
| 30 | YES |
| 31 | NO |
| 32 | ABSOLUTLELY . COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUE ARE REALLY ENLIGHTENING |
| 33 | NO, UNDERSTAND ITS GRAVE IMPLICATION |
| 35 | YES I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND PERSPECTIVE ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND GRID OPERATION |
| 36 | NOT GREATLY |
| 37 | YES |
| 38 | DEFINITELY BROADENED MY UNDERSTANDING |
| 39 | YES I LIKED FRAMING EMP RISK INTO AN EQUATION (R(emp)=THREATVULNIMPACT). DRIVE ANYONE TO ZERO TO REDUCE RISK |
| 41 | NO |
| 42 | YES, OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVES HAS RESHAPED MY THOUGHT TO REFRAME MY QUESTIONS/REQUIREMENTS |
| 43 | YES- GREATLY MODIFIED NEED FOR NUCLEAR AND HYDROPOWER |
| 44 | JUST REINFORCED MY PERSPECTIVE |
| 45 | YES |
| 46 | NO. ITS INLINE WITH WHAT I TEACH IN OUST |
| 47 | YES I FEEL THAT WE ARE VERY UNDER PREPARED FOR AN EVENT LIKE THIS |
| 48 | SIGNIFICANTLY, I FEEL THAT THERE ARE MANY MORE VENUE FOR DEFENSE THAN I PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED |
| 49 | YES |
| 50 | YES |
| 51 | YES. ESTABLISHED A BETTER BASELINE ABOUT THE CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE |
| 52 | YES MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF ISSUE |
| 53 | CLASSIFIED NOT ALTERED |
| 54 | YES. CROSS POLLINATION IS ESSENTIAL |
| 55 | IT WAS VERY HELPFUL. I THINK A MORE SIMPLISTIC DEFINITION TO START WOULD HAVE HELPED AS WE ADDED TO IT |
| 56 | YES. VASTLY |
| 57 | ENLIGHTENMENT WOUL DBE THE KEY WORD |
| 59 | NOT REALLY |
| 60 | IN OUT GROUP IT SEEMED LIKE 5G OWNED/CONTROLLED BY CHINESE IS A MUCH BIGGER (MORE LIKELY) THREAT THAN SEVERAL NUCLEAR WARHEADS DETONATED ABOVE OUR KEY CITIES. |
| 61 | YES. DEFINITELY, UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES AND HOW DETERRENCE IS SO CRITICAL. |
| 62 | ENHANCED IT. I NEED TO READ MORE. |
| 63 | YES, THIS EVENT ? HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR CURRENT ENTERPRISE TO SEE IF THERE ARE VULNERABILITIES TO BE ADDRESSED |
| 64 | NO |
| 65 | YES, I WAS VERY IGNORANT ABOUT EMP EFFECTS OUTSIDE OF E1 |
| 66 | YES, I CAN SEE THE PROBLEM AS MORE COMPLEX THEN PRESENTLY THOUGHT. |
| 67 | YES I AGREE! HOWEVER MORE SHARING OF INFORMATION ACROSS THE AFFECTED COMMUNITIES IS CRITICAL |
| 68 | STRENGTHEN MY RESOLVE TO ACT SOONERS AND WITH MORE SPECIFIC SOLUTION |
| 69 | YES - REIGNITED AWARENESS |
| 70 | AFTER TALKING TO A DTRA EXPERT, IT MAY NOT BE AS DIRE AS THE SCENARIO SAYS |
| 71 | NOT SIGNIFICANTLY |
| 72 | YES NEED TO PUSH PLANNING FORWARE AVOID POPULATED AREAS |
| 73 | YES ABSOLUTELY. THE MILITARY PERSPECTIVE WAS NEW TO ME AND SOME OF THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE WAS VALUABLE AS WELL. |
| 74 | THE EXERCISE GAVE ME A GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUNDREDS(?) OF SMALL ISSUES THA TBUBBLE UP TO GREAT CATASTROPHES FOR THE US |
| 75 | NO IT IS A PROBLEM. |
| 76 | NO - ALREADY HAD A SUFFICIENTLY BLEAK OUTLOOK ON HOW BAD SCENARIO COULD BE |
| 77 | NO |
| 78 | YES |
| 79 | NO, HIGHLIGHTS THE ISSUES ALREADY PRESENT |
| 80 | NO, BUT IT HS ENRICHED MY UNDERSTANDING |
| 81 | ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT |
| 83 | YES, PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS REGARDING EMP WOULD HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL. |
| 84 | IT REINFORCED MY VIEW THAT HARDENING OF THE GRID AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURES IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AND URGENT. |
6. How will the discussion change/not change the way you do business?
| Respondent | Comment |
|---|---|
| 4 | I WILL KEEP A SLIDE RULE OUT AT MY DESK IN CASE MY COMPUTER NO LONGER WORKS. |
| 6 | MORE/CONTINUED COLLABORATION OF ALL ENTITIES (STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY,MILITARY,ACADEMIA) |
| 7 | YES |
| 9 | WORK IN RESILIENCY AREA…THIS WILL AFFECT MY APPROACH AND THOSE OF MY COLLEAGUES. |
| 11 | SPREAD THE WORD |
| 12 | WE NEED TO DO MORE |
| 13 | I AM MORE LIKELY TO TALK IT UP OPENLY |
| 14 | UNTIL THERE IS A POLICY TO PRIORITIZE AND MAKE A MISSION REQUIREMENT UNABLE TO MAKE CHANGES AT THE TACTICAL LEVEL |
| 16 | ON A DAY TO DAY BUSINESS IT WONT BECAUSE THAT IS NOT MY MANDATE |
| 18 | NOT MUCH IS PART OF WHAT I DO |
| 20 | NC3 IS PRETTY GOOD FOR THIS –THAT IS M BUSINESS. MRES AND MORE WATER STORED AR HOME IS A GOOD IDEA. ?? SOMETHING ABOUT |
| 21 | REINFORCE MY CURRENT EFFORTS |
| 22 | I WILL BRING THIS BACK TO M WING AND TRY TO INCORPORATE THESE CONCEPTS INTO FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT PROTECTION |
| 23 | INTERNAL WING EMPEX TO ID OUR CRITICAL NODES AND VULNERABILITIES |
| 25 | BETTER ARGUMENTS/KNOWLEDGE AND CONTACTS FOR SOME OF THE HARD QUESTIONS |
| 26 | VERY LITTLE. TRYING TO FIND CONNECTION WORK IN PROGRESS. |
| 27 | WILL DO MORE TO PREPARE MY FAMILY FOR CRITICAL FAILURE |
| 29 | ILL DEFINITELY BE MORE AWARE OF EMS/EMP CONCERNS AND SCENARIOS |
| 30 | THINKING AHEAD |
| 31 | NO FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE |
| 32 | I WILL LOOK AR HOW NASA CAPABILITIES COULD IMPACT THIS ISSUE |
| 33 | OPENED UP POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR GREATER COLLABORATION WITH AETC |
| 34 | WILL INFORM COMPANY OF THREAT |
| 36 | CLEAR PRIORITY IDEAS MAY HELP IN ASSURING BUILT INTO NEXT EDITION OF PONDERING THROUGH |
| 37 | IMPLEMENTING THE EO |
| 38 | CHANGE WAY OF CONSIDERING THREATS TO ACQUISITION |
| 39 | I DON’T THINK THE EMP PROBLEM HAS BEEN CLEARLY ARTICUALTED ENOUGH TO GET DECISION MAKERS TO DO ANYTHING |
| 41 | NOTHING WILL CHANGE EMP SPECIFIC |
| 42 | YES |
| 44 | NEW SUGGESTIONS WERE DISCUSSED TO MOVE EMP PROTECTION AHEAD. HAVE INL, NOT UTLITIES TEST EQUIPMENT AND GIVE STANDARDS |
| 45 | MORE DETERMINED |
| 46 | KEEP TALKING ABOUT 5G AND VULNERABILITIES. FACILITATE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS STUFF IN THE SCIF |
| 47 | THE DISCUSSIONS WILL SHIFT HOW I WORK TO SHAPE CYBERCOM TESTING |
| 49 | NSTR |
| 50 | IT WONT |
| 51 | NONE. JOB TO EDUCATE UNITS ON NUKE WEAPON EFFECTS |
| 52 | WILL CHANGE CONSIDERATION BUT NEED STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, OTHER DRIVEN TO MAKE MITIGATION INVESTMENTS |
| 53 | RECOMMEND ALL DISCUSSION GROUPS 14-16 PPL IN SIZE OPTIMUM FOR GROUP DISCUSSION/INTERACTION |
| 54 | DISCUSS EMP POSSIBILITIES WITH THOSE I MEEET |
| 55 | THE DISCUSSIONS WILL CHANGE THE WAY I DO BUSINESS AS I HAVE A GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF EMP |
| 56 | I WILL TAKE WHAT I LEARNED BACK TO MY ORGANIZATIONS AND DETERMINE HOW WE CAN COLLABORATE MORE EFFECTIVELY |
| 57 | NONE |
| 59 | QUESTIONABLE WHETHER I WILL PARTICIPATE IN EDTF 3.0 |
| 61 | WORK ON EDUCATING OTHERS |
| 62 | I AM MORE AWARE. |
| 63 | IT WILL HELP US REFINE OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR DOD CAPABILITIES IN THE FUTURE |
| 65 | DEFINITELY RE-DEFINES RESILIENCY NEEDS GOING FORWARD |
| 66 | WOULD NOT. THE GROUP WAS FOCUSED ON A NON-MILITARY RESPONSE , OUTSIDE OF MY LANE |
| 67 | WE WILL DEFINITELY EVALUATE HOW WE CURRENTLY DO BUSINESS. WE NEED TO WORK TOWARDS SOLUTIONS THAT HELPS TO MITIGATE AND DEFEND AGAINST THE EFFECTS OF EMS. |
| 68 | PROVEN PROCESS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO QUANTIFY COST EFFECTIVE PROCESSES |
| 69 | ALTERED THOUGHT PROCESS ON THE SCOPE OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE |
| 70 | OURS WERE GEARED TO DO WORK FOR EW ECCT MINDSET |
| 71 | EMPHASIZE THE NEED/VALUE OF TAKING SOME ACTION |
| 72 | PRIMARILY AWARENESS AND DIRECTION TO CONSIDER |
| 73 | I SEE LOTS OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE GROUPS REPRESENTED TO BE BETTER INFORMED ABOUT ONE ANOTHERS ACTIVITIES AND PRIORITIES |
| 76 | NO CHANGE |
| 77 | UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX PROCUREMENT PROCESS. WE HAVE A UTILITIE? WILLING TO INSTALL TECHNOLOGY BUT WORKING WITH GOVERNMENT HAS DELAYED PROJECT BY YEARS. |
| 78 | DRAMATICALLY |
| 79 | NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIONS WITH PLANNING AND MODERNIZATION EFFORTS |
| 80 | REINFORCE PUSH FOR BASE OF THE FUTURE INFRASTRUCUTRE ASSET MANAGEMENT APPROACH WITH ALL SERVICES, ADVOCATE FOR MORE P3/P4 AUTHORITIES THAT GET THE FARS OUT OF THE WAY, EDUCATE INSTALLATION MANAGERS ON HOW TO EFFICIENTLY USE P3/P4 AUTHORITIES TO ACHIEVE RESILIENCE |
| 81 | PERSONALLY, I WILL CONTINUE TO PRESS THIS WITH ANY AF, JOINT, AND IC INTELLIGENCE COUNTERPARTS |
| 83 | I WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH AWARENESS OF SPACE WEATHER IMPACTS ON EMS |
| 84 | THE DISCUSSIONS INCREASED MY RESOLVE TO WORK TOWARDS GETTING A PRACTICAL GRID-HARDENING PROKJECT AGREED AND IMPLMENENTED. |
Was one Track more prone to having a good or bad experience?
The below graphic is a “Parallel-Coordinate Plot” - I did this because I wanted to make sure it wasn’t one track/one group that had a bad experience. I picked out some of the functions that got rated poorly (5G Brief, Check in Process and Lunch) and compared that to the responses across the same participants. This graph is dynamic so you can pick data and see how it relates to other data. Some of the smartest people I know have missed this point when looking at a ParCoor plot, so discuss with me if you feel like you’re missing something below. If viewing on a mobile device you may have limited interactivity. From the ParCoord plot you can tell that those that Strongly Disagreed of the value in receiving the 5G Brief were only from the HPEM/DE track. However this isn’t an overwhelming data relationship and is just an example. You can see the bad and good experiences were relatively spread out over the tracks.