We help organizations strengthen emergency preparedness through planning, procedures, and coordination strategies that support both daily operations and effective response to emergencies. This includes emergency action planning and preparation for a wide range of risks—from routine incidents and disruptions to natural disasters and complex events like active threats.

We design and lead exercises that help teams practice how they would respond during an emergency. Beyond facilitation, we help organizations turn lessons learned into actionable improvements, with clear recommendations and implementation plans that strengthen day-to-day operations and emergency response.

We work with organizations to review and improve programs, policies, and day-to-day operations. This includes identifying what’s working, where gaps exist, and implementing practical changes to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability.

Reunification and Recovery
Assistance Center
Plan Development and Operational
Alignment Project

Designing Processes That Work
Using Process Mapping in Emergency PlanningBLUF: Emergency plans need to be designed around how people actually work and how support is delivered under pressure—not just how organizations are structured.Posted June 2026

• Read More

Bottom Line Up Front

Emergency plans need to be designed around how work actually happens and how support is delivered under pressure—not just how organizations are structured—so teams can act quickly and with clarity when it matters most.

Key Takeaways

1. Design the process first; roles and ownership should follow2. Plan for real conditions, not ideal scenarios3. Make actions clear, simple, and usable under pressure

Rethinking Where Planning Starts

Emergency planning often begins with roles and responsibilities—who does what, which department leads, and how functions are assigned.That approach works on paper. But in practice, especially during a fast moving incident, it often breaks down.In those moments, people aren’t thinking in terms of departments. They’re trying to figure out:
• Where do I go to get help?
• Who is responsible?
• What happens next?And staff are doing the same—stepping into roles that aren’t part of their day to day work, making decisions under pressure, and trying to coordinate across teams in real time.That gap between structure and reality is something I’ve been thinking more about, especially in how to bring process mapping and user-centered design into emergency planning. Recently, I had the opportunity to apply this approach in a university planning effort focused on reunification and immediate recovery operations, and it reinforced a few key ideas.

Start With the Process, Not the Org Chart

This approach starts with something deceptively simple: mapping the process. Not how departments are organized. Not who “owns” what.But what actually happens—step by step—when someone needs help.What happens first? What happens next? Who is involved at each step?Walking through that sequence creates a shared understanding of how work actually flows across functions.It also shifts the conversation from “this is what my department does” to “this is what needs to be done.”This is a very subtle shift, but the change allows the process to be designed first, with roles and ownership following.In my experience, this is not how most emergency planning discussions are structured, but it creates a much clearer and more coordinated foundation for how work actually gets done.

What Process Mapping Reveals

When you map the process (literally on a whiteboard) and walk through it under realistic conditions, issues start to emerge. The planning team can visualize (again, literally, with colored sticky notes):
• Where steps become harder to maintain as volume increases
• Where coordination depends on a few key individuals
• Where lag time makes it harder to get operations up and running quickly
• Where tools could reduce real time decision makingThese are the kinds of challenges that don’t always show up in planning documents, but they surface quickly when you focus on how work actually unfolds.

Designing for Real Conditions

Another shift that happens through this approach is recognizing the difference between ideal plans and real conditions.Most plans are written assuming:
• Full staffing
• Clear information
• Readily available resources
• Stable operationsReal incidents rarely provide these ideal conditions. Planning needs to account for competing priorities, limited staff, after hours operations, incomplete or conflicting information, and unpredictable demand.

From Process to Action

Mapping the process is only the first step. The next is ensuring it is usable.One of the most practical ways to do that is by translating the process into clear, actionable checklists that teams can follow during an incident.Instead of long narrative plans, the focus becomes checklists of critical considerations, such as:
• What needs to happen immediately, what starts in the first hour, what must continue through the first 24 hours, etc.
• How and where the work gets done
• Critical considerations and remindersThis isn’t about adding more detail. It’s about making the work clearer.
Because in a real incident, staff need simple, practical guidance to step into unfamiliar roles and carry out critical tasks without hesitation.

The Next Step: Designing for the Experience

If process mapping helps define how work gets done, the next phase is testing how that process is experienced.The critical next step is walking the process from the perspective of people seeking help in the immediate aftermath of a crisis—many of whom may not yet know what they need or how to ask for it.This is where user-centered design comes in.This raises questions like:
• Would someone know where to go first?
• Would they know what to ask?
• Would they get information?
• Would they feel like someone is responsible for helping them?
• Where might they get stuck, redirected, or overlooked?
• And (most importantly) how many times are they telling their story at each redirection?I’ve found real value in bringing these principles into emergency planning—not as a separate layer, but as a natural extension of process design.Because even a well coordinated process can fall apart if it doesn’t make sense to the people navigating it.

Why This Work Matters

Incidents are fast-moving, high-stress, and unpredictable. But that unpredictability doesn’t have to result in unclear roles, disjointed actions, or inconsistent support.Starting the process by understanding how work actually happens, designing for real conditions, and translating that into clear action creates a stronger, more coordinated response.It also highlights an important gap in many planning efforts: the need to think beyond immediate response and intentional threat neutralization, and to be equally deliberate about how people are supported in the hours and days that follow.If you’re working through similar challenges or thinking about how to strengthen coordination during recovery, I’d welcome the opportunity to connect and learn how you and others are approaching this work.

Leigh Middleton
Founder & Principal Consultant

• Read Bio