ROMUALD GROCKI
Lower Silesian College of Public Services  Asesor
50-051 Wroclaw, Pl. Teatralny 6/7
POLAND
[e-mail]
Quantification of Notions in Crisis Management
Abstract
We often meet with definitions  small ,  big ,  distant ,  sudden and the like,
that is with relative definitions which they can have or have a different
significance, depending on the situation or the state, in which they are used. The
author introduced new definitions concerning time management and proposals
of quantification of such definitions, as the distance in the time (direct, average-
distant and distant) and of level of the threat (small, average, big), which
definitions are connection with term of weight of threat .
Keywords: quantification, crisis management, time management, weight of threat, risk.
Introduction
During analysis of threats, we must determine the weight of the threat and the risk for
the real threat. The weight of the threat is being described by two parameters: distance in the
time and size of losses. The distance in the time determines, whether the event appeared
suddenly, whether in other time period. In practice it means what time we have at it disposal in
order to react to the threat. Comprehending the size of losses is a relative notion and
expressions: small, average or big losses, cannot be a reference for analysis of the real threat.
From here a necessity of the quantification of such notions exists as the direct , average-distant
whether distant in the time and in case of losses of such notions like small, average or big
losses. At determining the risk which is a consequence of two parameters: of the probability
and loss, a quantification of the notion is necessary: small, average or big probability. In case
of loss, these notions will be determined according to the same proposal like for the weight of
the threat.
Relative notions problem in the crisis management
As, having determined data threats the potential level, we can characterize or describe
and was what we regarded in the first moment as the premise of the crisis, it indeed?
It is possible to assess the weight of threat on the basis of the rule included in categories: of the
size and the immediacy of the threat. It is a consequence of two sizes: scale of the threat and the
time which will pass from the moment of the signal about the possibility of the appearance of
the event for his withdrawal. This evaluation can change in very wide range. In existing
deliberations it was included in the presented way in the table 1.
Table 1. The weight of threat, as the relation of the scale of the threat and distance in the time.
Scale of threat
Small Average Big
Distance in the time
Direct Small Average Big
Average-distant Small Small/average Average
Distant Small Small Small
For distance in the time they accepted three gradual scale: direct , average-distant and distant
in the time. Distance in the time determines the possibility of taking action in order to curb
effects of the threat. It is hard however to define, what time is e.g. distant, and which on
average - distant.
Quantification of Notions in Crisis Management
Quantitative time distant (time management).
In the destination of transparent visualising the temporal interrelation, I propose implementing
the following notions: time of the reaction, time of the readiness, rate of the reaction, where:
·ð time of the reaction tr, fixes the time we have which at its disposal from the moment of
the appearance of the event or the information about the possibilities of his appearing,
up to the direct moment of threatening in the determined point of the area,
·ð time of the readiness tg, a time, essential to notify services, alerting the population, the
conduct means the evacuation and other undertakings included in the plan of acting in
the case of the determined event.
Interrelation between the time of the reaction (tr) and with time of the readiness (tg) a
relationship of these times was determined:
A potential step of the threat of a point of view of the crisis management determines the rate of
the wr reaction, would be intentional so that the rate of the wr reaction is larger than
the  1 . I propose, in order to with point of reference in case of comprehending the distance in
the time, there was a rate of the reaction which in the explicit way determines relations between
threatening in the time, but possibilities of reacting during the event . It is possible to accept,
that for the rate smaller than  1 , the threat is direct, however for the rate with the greater value
than "2", it is distant in the time. Time between obtaining information about probability of
danger and its occurrence plays decisive role in effectiveness and efficiency of undertaken
action. The longer time of the readiness there is, the more probable it is to undertaken effective
actions and mitigate possible losses, regarding both human lives and people s belongings and
properties1.
Quantitative loss.
For the scale of the threat, three levels were accepted: small, average and big. For individual
levels however determining the value so far wasn't defined. The same size of losses, not always
means the same size of the problem and doesn't give rise to similar effects. It is easy to notice,
that even larger losses in countries of the rich, than much smaller losses constitute the smaller
strain in poor countries, for which the serious financial load can be a premise to the crisis. The
scale of the threat depends the kind of the event, intensity, the time of lasting and effects.
I propose, in order to classification of the size of losses (in case of the Polish reality) was a
point of reference of the individual up to budget given, and more specifically up to the 0,5% of
the intentional reserve for the accomplishment of own assignments on the scope of the crisis
management (Act about the crisis management). It means that to the size of the 0,5% of budget
however losses, are losses with which an administrative unit is able to advise oneself,
exceeding this value they require supporting from the outside and are understood as "big".
1
GROCKI ROMUALD, Flood safety in the aspect of action in emergency situation, EURO-RIOB Conference,
Wrocław, p.183, 2005
At accepting these suggestions concerning expanding notions "distant in the time" and of
"losses", table 1., would look as follows:
Table 2 The scale of threats including the quantification of notions "distances in the time: direct,
average-distant and distant" and "of losses: small, average, big".
Scale of threat Small Average Big
< 0,5% 0,5 - 2.0% > 2.0%
budget budget budget
Distance in the time
Direct Small Average Big
wr < 1
Average-distant 1 d" wr < 2 Small Small/average Average
Distant wr e" 2 Small Small Small
Using table 2. it is possible to state that the importance of the threat is only great in the
event that threatening in the time is direct and scale of the threat big2. He depends on the
importance of the threat, what action will be taken as well as what powers and centres will be
used.
Quantitative risk assessment.
Risk is taken as a product of probability p and losses L.
R = p*L
Inasmuch as the parameter of losses was already discussed, a need to define the notion exists
concerning the probability, so as: small, average, big.
Quantitative Probability.
I propose assuming the value of the probability p<< 0.001, for this criterion
It results from the assumption, that in Flood Protection Plan, we are drawing up possibilities of
acting for the flood about the probability of exceeding 0.01, and in special cases 0.005. From
here one should conclude that we are prepared to events about such a probability of the
uprising. Since the crisis situation is associated with the improbability of the occurrence of the
determined event, I propose the value lower than the one which we are taking into account for
the flood, as a point of reference of our deliberations. The table of the risk can then be present
the same as fig.1.
2
GROCKI ROMUALD, Crisis situation-threshold values, Natural and civilization disasters-International
Conference, Bełchatów, p.331, 2008
probability p
Average Big Big
big
0,1
Small Average Big
average
0,001
Small Small Average
small
losses L (% budget)
0,5% 2%
small average big
Fig.1 Elements of quantitative risk.
Conclusion
Quantification of above notions, permits for explicit determining in practice both the
risk and the weight of the given threat , considering the both organizational, financial realities
and the possibility of reacting while becoming of the threat . Applying above solutions allows
for drawing up real crisis management plans and standard operating procedures. It allows also
for comparing threats appearing on the analyzed area.
References
1. GROCKI ROMUALD, Flood safety in the aspect of action in emergency situation, EURO-
RIOB Conference, Wrocław, p.183, 2005
2. GROCKI ROMUALD, Crisis situation-threshold values, Natural and civilization disasters-
International Conference, Bełchatów, p.331, 2008