The two methods that will be used to define the Katrina Hurricane problem are “Histogram” and “Pareto Analysis”. These two techniques are particularly effective in dealing with Katrina Hurricane problem analysis. For instance, “Histogram” method may be applied to define some of the most important issues of the problem as outlined and depicted in the Los Angeles Times article, “Scathing Katrina Report”. This type of measure can help build the graph showing the frequency of data in the uni-dimensional format. In other words, one is able to draw a diagram that will illustrate the effectiveness of the government’s response to the disaster (e.g. number of military and rescue units involved, time that it took the government to respond to the issue, efficiency of work on evacuation and subsequent housing of the victims, number of dead, etc.) The difficulty of using this type of evaluation is that one would have to draw a number of histograms in order to analyze such situation as the one depicted above. The histogram only records the data on one dimension, but they do not indicate the time trends.
Hence, a separate histogram has to be constructed for every process or event that needs to be appraised.
“Pareto Analysis” is another method that may be applied to define the illustrated above problem. The power of a Pareto analysis lies in the application of the principle rather than a strict adherence to a particular form. Tool platforms, such as spreadsheets, charts, and graphs, can all be used to capture and analyze the results of a Pareto analysis. In our situation, the Pareto analysis can be applied to determine whether the government provided an adequate response to the Katrina Hurricane disaster. For instance, the first chart may show the amount of money spent by the Federal and local governments to combat the disaster. The second chart may more clearly illustrate how exactly this money helped or failed to help rescue people and provide essential housing to the victims of the hurricane. By applying this method it might be discovered that 20% of the money spent on clearing up the aftermaths of the hurricane produced positive results to 80% of victims.
By acknowledging such facts, the government may learn to bring their service levels more in line with urgency of the situation and cost effectiveness requirements. Pareto analysis differs from other types of analyses in its insistence on identifying the vital few. If an analysis is conducted and there does not appear to be any clearly defined 80-20 breakpoint, then it is most likely that the categories need to be reexamined and the data stratified in a different way.
1. The list of possible problems outlined in the article may include the following matters. First, the government failed to adequately assess the seriousness of the hurricane and its consequences. Second, by placing the priority on terrorism-related emergencies, the Federal government limited its responsiveness and effectiveness in other types of problems such as Katrina hurricane. Third, the general response of the government is seen to be slow and inadequate (people spend two days in isolation before any real help was offered; this situation increased the number of victims).
Next, it is not only federal but the local government that failed to mobilize the available resources to deal with the problem. What is more, the inadequate attention has been given to the problem not only at the time of the immediate threat but also ever since the hurricane took place (a number of people are still living in the hotels, yet the government does little to resolve this issue).
2. This problem falls into the category 2 because, even though the nation encounters disaster such as this one from time to time, each emergency situation is unique and unpredictable in its effects and outcomes. Generally, the problem that is presented in the article may be defined as follows: Problem: inadequate level of response to Katrina hurricane (both before and after) on the government’s part. Organization: the problem is evaluated by a number of federal and private agencies.
Individual: the officials and their actions are evaluated in order to determine the faults. Stakeholders: public who is concerned with the slow and inefficient response of the government.
3. Cause: slow response by the federal and local governments. Effect: increased number of dead, great number of people requiring immediate housing. This, in turn, leads to greater dissatisfaction with the government and its politics, which may present additional challenges to the candidates at the times of the next elections.
4. The topics requiring further study are whether President made a conscious decision to provide inadequate support to the victims of the hurricane or whether his actions were moved by simple recklessness and non-deliberate faultiness.
5. The overall problem solving plans must include two things. First, a new plan outlining ways and methods dealing with emergencies and disasters must be constructed. Second, an independent committee has to be formed that will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the response and following of the guidelines specified in the emergency plan.