Emergency preparedness has come a long way, thanks in part to structured frameworks like FEMA’s Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). This framework offers a consistent methodology for planning, conducting, and evaluating exercises. It also standardizes reporting through After Action Reports (AARs) and Improvement Plans (IPs), helping organizations close capability gaps and improve performance over time.
But while HSEEP is excellent at answering the question, "Did we follow the plan?", it falls short in answering a far more critical one: "Did we make the right decisions as a team—when it mattered most?"
The HSEEP doctrine focuses heavily on process:
Establishing objectives
Designing realistic scenarios
Conducting and controlling exercises
Evaluating outcomes
Documenting lessons learned
This structured approach has elevated the professionalism and effectiveness of emergency management exercises across public and private sectors. But despite its depth, HSEEP doesn’t define standardized metrics for evaluating decision-making quality, especially at the team level, where the most impactful choices are made in real time.
In real-world emergencies—whether a cyberattack, natural disaster, or critical infrastructure failure, decision-making under pressure is the single most important determinant of outcomes.
A team may follow procedures perfectly but still fail to achieve operational objectives if their decisions are:
Too slow
Based on incomplete information
Disconnected from risk realities
Poorly communicated
Not adapted to dynamic conditions
Exercises that don’t measure how decisions were made, only what actions were taken, miss a vital part of performance.
To improve the quality of team-based crisis exercises, we need core metrics for evaluating team decision-making. These metrics could include:
| Metric | Definition |
|---|---|
| Clarity | Were decisions clearly articulated and understood by all team members? |
| Speed | Was the decision made in a timely manner appropriate to the situation? |
| Alignment | Did the team reach consensus, or were decisions fragmented or contested? |
| Situational Awareness | Was the decision informed by an accurate interpretation of available information? |
| Risk Consideration | Were potential consequences and trade-offs weighed appropriately? |
| Adaptability | Was the decision updated as new information emerged? |
| Outcome Linkage | Did the decision directly contribute to (or hinder) mission objectives? |
These indicators would allow evaluators to move beyond binary pass/fail criteria and toward a nuanced understanding of performance under uncertainty.
We’re at a tipping point. Organizations are starting to adopt AI-driven simulations, virtual tabletop exercises, and digital twin environments for training. These platforms offer unprecedented opportunities for:
Capturing detailed behavioral data
Analyzing decision paths
Replaying scenarios for coaching and feedback
But without a shared language and structure for measuring decision quality, we risk leaving these powerful tools underutilized—or worse, using them to reinforce flawed assumptions.
The shift to virtual and AI-supported preparedness should be matched by a shift in evaluation standards. It's time to integrate decision-making metrics into the exercise lifecycle.
If we want exercises to build true resilience, we need to evaluate not just what teams did, but how they thought.
This means expanding current frameworks like HSEEP to include:
Decision-quality KPIs
Behavioral analytics
Real-time feedback loops
Post-exercise decision audits
Whether you're designing internal crisis drills, regional preparedness exercises, or cross-sector simulations, start asking:
It’s a shift in mindset—and one that will separate the truly prepared from the merely practiced.
Want to integrate decision-making metrics into your next crisis exercise?
Learn how our AI-driven tabletop tools work