ISO 22392:2020 download free.Security and resilience – Community resilience – Guidelines for conducting peer reviews.
A peer review to enhance community resilience is a unique and privileged opportunity for a host country, region, city or community to engage in a constructive process to reflect on its activities with a team of independent professionals, e.g. on disaster risk reduction (DRR). It encourages conversations, promotes the exchange of good practice, and examines the performance of the entity being reviewed to enhance mutual learning and so can be of value to those who seek to further develop their practices. It can enhance preparedness for an incident and support learning from incidents and exercises. It is different to an audit in that a peer review may be optional, and an organization can design it according to its needs.
A peer review can be a catalyst for change and can enrich learning through bringing together a multidisciplinary panel of trusted and competent experts from a range of technical, political and cultural backgrounds to concentrate on the host’s situation. In the most beneficial peer reviews, both the host and the reviewers benefit by collecting and analysing the latest intelligence (understanding and information about the context), discussing the current situation, generating ideas, and exploring new opportunities to further strengthen activities in their own context. Mutual learning is facilitated by sharing good practice, identilying alternative approaches to policy and operations, and exploring critical questioning to consider how similar challenges are confronted elsewhere. Trusted relationships can form that can facilitate the development of innovative solutions to challenges.
These benefits are one reason why conducting peer reviews is consistent with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030ll and its global target to have more countries with national and local strategies for DRR by 2020. Conducting peer reviews to enhance DRR also complements the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 11 to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’41, as It seeks to align entities through an integrated approach and sharing learning and benchmark information between hosts and reviewers. The guidelines in this document can also contribute to enhancing resilience and risk reduction.
The entities that can benefit from peer reviews include national, regional, local and organizational levels of governance, which may voluntarily engage with a peer review, or do so as part of a wider initiative of Improvement. The peer review process for enhancing community resilience described in this document is not intended to be used as means for comparing one entity with another. Instead, it encourages crossborder cooperation to understand and improve performance. Since every host and team of reviewers are different, the outcome of each review will be too. The key to success is having one question at the forefront of the peer review: What will most help us all to enhance our performance?
Figure 1 provides an overview of how to conduct a peer review.
1 Scope
ISO 22392 gives guidelines for organizations to design, organize, conduct, receive feedback from and learn from a peer review of their disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies and practices. It is also applicable to other community resilience activities. It is intended for use by organizations with the responsibility for, or involvement in, managing such activities including policy and preparedness, response and recovery operations, and designing preventative measures (e.g. for the effects of environmental changes such as those from climate change).
It is applicable to all types, structures and sizes of organizations, such as local, regional and national governments, statutory bodies, non-governmental organizations, businesses, and public and community groups. It is applicable before or after an incident or exercise.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
ISO 22300, Security and resilience — Vocabulary
4.2 Decide the level of administration to be peer reviewed
Peer reviews can be an effective approach to reflect on the activities being conducted at any level of administration. The host should decide whether the peer review should focus on the national, regional, local or organizational levels.
More than one level of administration may be the focus of the peer review, in which case, the amount of time available for the peer review should be increased to reflect the added complexity.
4.3 Agree the expected benefits of the peer review
The peer review should have expected benefits for the host and for reviewers and these should be agreed before organizing the peer review to provide clear expected impacts from the outcomes of the review.
There should be expected benefits for each selected analysis area (see L9) to ensure clarity of the measurable improvement being sought.
The host and reviewers should define each of their expected benefits. This should:
— agree with their interested parties the benefits they expect from participating in the review (e.g. benefits to their performance, analysis areas, or other benefits such as learning or networking);
— describe each benefit and identify the benefit owner who is responsible for it (i.e. who will: plan the timing of changes to deliver the benefit; prepare the context for the changes; implement the changes; manage the changes to avoid negative side-effects);
— define the objectives (see 4A) that support each benefit;
— identify a measure of each benefit, Including a current value for the measure and a target change in the value as a result of the peer review; if a benefit is not measurable directly, then a proxy measure should be identified;
— communicate information on benefits to each other (i.e. the reviewers should communicate their expectations to the host, and vice versa);
— consider these expectations when planning the peer review process (see 5.3) to ensure all expectations are addressed.
5.5.2 InformatIon on the strategy, vision and leadership for each analysis area
This analysis system focuses on the strategy of the analysis area and the strategic leadership that governs the host in the delivery of its vision. This includes activities around strategy development processes and establishing leadership focus.
For this analysis system, information that should be available to the reviewers about the analysis area includes:
— alms, objectives and strategies;
— governing documents and policies;
— long-term financial, environmental and political aspects;
— governance and decision-making structures.
5.5.3 Information on the collection and use of Intelligence for each analysEs area
This analysis system focuses on how leaders and managers make informed decisions about the analysis area by interpreting the intelligence collected. This includes activities around exploring the social and physical environment, analysing external data and information, and engaging with strategic collaborations.
For this analysis system, information that should be available to the reviewers about the analysis area includes:
— important information that is collected and made available to the organization;
— how that information is used by the organization;
— information gaps and consequences of these gaps;
— external legislation, frameworks, reports and research that support performance;
— descriptions of relationships with external entities (e.g. partnerships, memoranda of understanding, challenging relationships).
— inclusive of relevant interested parties;
— able to access best practice;
— able to support knowledge exchange and learning:
— encouraging of generating change to enhance performance;
— complementary of existing approaches to enhance performance.
These improvements should be used in future peer reviews that involve the host, reviewers or other interested parties. Each part of Claus4 to 6 should be considered to identify, for the next peer review:
— what should be done the same;
— what should be done differently;
— what is missing from Clauses 4 to 6 that should be included;
— what is included in C1us4 to 6 that should be removed.
7.3 Identify improvements to how the impact of the peer review process is assessed
The host and reviewers should evaluate the methodology to assess the impact of the peer review (see 62). This evaluation should consider whether the methodology delivers a consolidated view from the reviewers (see 53) on changes to achieve the expected benefits (see 4.3). The host and reviewer should reflect on how they:
— assessed the potential impact of the peer review during the peer review process;
— assessed the impact of the peer review after the peer review process, including how they:
— assessed the impact of the peer review on their thinking;
— used a quantitative approach to assess the impact of the peer review on their practice;
— used a qualitative approach to assess the impact of the peer review on their practice;
— identified improvements to the peer review process.