ISO 22392:2020

Security and resilience - Community resilience - Guidelines for conducting peer reviews

This document 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.

Sécurité et résilience — Résilience des communautés — Lignes directrices pour mener des examens par des pairs

General Information

• Status: Published
• Publication Date: 27-Feb-2020
• ICS: 03.100.01 - Company organization and management in general
• Technical Committee: ISO/TC 292 - Security and resilience
• Drafting Committee: ISO/TC 292/WG 5 - Community resilience
• Current Stage: 9060 - Close of review
• Completion Date: 02-Sep-2030

Overview

ISO 22392:2020 - Security and resilience - Community resilience - Guidelines for conducting peer reviews provides practical guidance for organisations to design, organise, conduct and learn from peer reviews of disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies and community resilience activities. Published in 2020 by ISO/TC 292, it supports mutual learning and improvement rather than formal compliance auditing. The standard is applicable to all types, structures and sizes of organisations (local, regional, national governments, NGOs, businesses, community groups) and can be used before or after incidents and exercises.

Key topics and technical requirements

ISO 22392 details a structured peer review process and includes requirements and recommendations for:

• Planning the peer review: defining scope, level of administration, objectives, timeline, cost/benefit, stakeholders, and whether to use a self-assessment.
• Selecting analysis areas: choosing subject matters to review (examples include governance, risk assessment, infrastructure, public health, recovery and climate adaptation).
• Roles and governance: appointing a coordinating organisation, host personnel and independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
• Conducting the review: preparing reviewers and host personnel, gathering and presenting information, using structured questions on strategy, intelligence, process management, coordination and operational delivery.
• Recording and analysing findings: documenting observations, forming opinions on each analysis area, and delivering consolidated feedback.
• Assessing impact: methods for evaluating short- and long-term benefits using quantitative and qualitative approaches.
• Continuous improvement: identifying improvements to both the host’s practices and the peer review process itself.
• Supporting materials: informative annexes with example tasks, evidence-recording templates, visit timetables and sample discussion points.

Practical applications

ISO 22392 is used to:

• Improve DRR policy, preparedness, response and recovery operations through independent peer feedback.
• Facilitate knowledge exchange and benchmarking across jurisdictions and organisations.
• Support post-incident and post-exercise learning and capability development.
• Strengthen community resilience initiatives and align them with international frameworks (e.g., Sendai Framework, SDG 11).

Who should use this standard

• Emergency management agencies, resilience officers and DRR practitioners
• Local, regional and national governments and statutory bodies
• NGOs, community groups and private-sector organisations involved in continuity and risk reduction
• Organisations seeking a non-audit, collaborative review to inform strategic and operational improvements

Related standards and references

• ISO 22300 (Security and resilience - Vocabulary) - referenced for terminology.
• Aligns with international DRR goals such as the Sendai Framework and UN Sustainable Development Goal 11 for resilient cities.

Keywords: ISO 22392:2020, peer review, community resilience, disaster risk reduction, DRR guidelines, resilience peer review, preparedness, recovery.

Standards Content (Sample)

INTERNATIONAL ISO
STANDARD 22392
First edition
2020-02
Security and resilience — Community
resilience — Guidelines for conducting
peer reviews
Sécurité et résilience — Résilience des communautés — Lignes
directrices pour mener des examens par des pairs
Reference number
©
ISO 2020
© ISO 2020
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may
be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting
on the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address
below or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website: www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO 2020 – All rights reserved

Contents Page
Foreword .v
Introduction .vi
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Plan the peer review . 2
4.1 General . 2
4.2 Decide the level of administration to be peer reviewed. 3
4.3 Agree the expected benefits of the peer review . 3
4.4 Agree the objectives of the peer review . 3
4.5 Agree the high-level timeline for the peer review . 4
4.6 Decide whether a self-assessment will be completed before the peer review . 4
4.7 Consider the cost/benefit of hosting the peer review . 4
4.8 Identify parties who are interested in the peer review . 5
4.9 Select the analysis areas to be peer reviewed . 5
4.10 Appoint an organization to coordinate the peer review . 5
4.11 Agree the terms of the peer review . 5
4.12 Select personnel from the host to provide information to the reviewers . 6
4.13 Appoint reviewers . 6
5 Conduct the peer review . 7
5.1 General . 7
5.2 Identify the attributes of conducting the peer review . 7
5.3 Plan the peer review process . 8
5.4 Prepare personnel to provide information to reviewers. 9
5.5 Provide information to reviewers about each analysis area . 9
5.5.1 General. 9
5.5.2 Information on the strategy, vision and leadership for each analysis area .10
5.5.3 Information on the collection and use of intelligence for each analysis area .10
5.5.4 Information on the management of processes, systems, planning and
audits for each analysis area .10
5.5.5 Information on the coordination and communication of operations for
each analysis area .11
5.5.6 Information on the delivery of operations for each analysis area .11
5.6 Prepare and ask questions about each analysis area .11
5.7 Record observations and views about each analysis area .11
5.8 Analyse the information and form an opinion about each analysis area .12
5.9 Deliver consolidated feedback on each analysis area .12
6 Assess the impact of the peer review .12
6.1 General .12
6.2 Assess impact during the peer review .13
6.3 Assess impact after the peer review.13
6.3.1 General.13
6.3.2 Assess impact on practice using a quantitative approach .13
6.3.3 Assess impact on practice using a qualitative approach .14
7 Improve the process of the peer review .14
7.1 General .14
7.2 Identify improvements to the peer review process .14
7.3 Identify improvements to how the impact of the peer review process is assessed .15
Annex A (informative) Example tasks to be conducted before, during and after the peer
review visit .16
Annex B (informative) Descriptions of analysis areas to be peer reviewed .17
Annex C (informative) Example of an evidence-recording template .25
Annex D (informative) Example peer review visit timetable .31
Annex E (informative) Generic discussion points and questions to ask about each analysis area .33
Annex F (informative) Example form for reviewer to record information .34
Bibliography .35
iv © ISO 2020 – All rights reserved

Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www .iso .org/ directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www .iso .org/ patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation of the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and
expressions related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO’s adherence to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), see www .iso .org/
iso/ foreword .html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 292, Security and resilience.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found at www .iso .org/ members .html.
Introduction
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 multi-
disciplinary 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, identifying 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
[7]
for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 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,
[4]
resilient and sustainable , 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 cross-
border 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.
vi © ISO 2020 – All rights reserved

Figure 1 — Overview of the process to conduct a peer review
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO 22392:2020(E)
Security and resilience — Community resilience —
Guidelines for conducting peer reviews
1 Scope
This document 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
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO 22300 and the following apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https:// www .iso .org/ obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at http:// www .electropedia .org/
3.1
peer review
process used by a reviewer (3.3) to examine the performance of a host (3.2), provide feedback on an
analysis area (3.4) and learn lessons that are transferable to its own context
Note 1 to entry: A peer review may cover multiple analysis areas.
Note 2 to entry: The host may replace “review” with a synonym such as “assessment”, “appraisal” or “analysis” to
better describe the activity.
3.2
host
entity that receives feedback from a reviewer (3.3) as part of a peer review (3.1)
Note 1 to entry: The entity may be an organization, partnership, community, city, region, country or other body.
3.3
reviewer
entity that provides feedback as part of a peer review (3.1) with expert knowledge and experience in the
analysis area (3.4)
Note 1 to entry: The entity may be an organization, partnership, community, city, region, country or other body.
3.4
analysis area
subject matter that has been selected to be peer reviewed (3.1)
EXAMPLE Governance of risk management, assessment of risk, financial capacity, urban development,
climate change adaptation and ecosystem protection, institutional capacity, community and societal capacity,
economic and business continuity, infrastructure, public health, recovering and rebuilding.
3.5
analysis system
set of interconnecting parts that work together to form and deliver an analysis area (3.4)
3.6
review visit
participation by reviewers (3.3) in peer review (3.1) activities at the host (3.2) location(s)
Note 1 to entry: Review visit activities include presentations, individual interviews, focus groups, site visits, and
the observation of live and table-top exercises.
3.7
benefit
measurable improvement resulting from the changes introduced as a result of a peer review (3.1)
Note 1 to entry: Benefits can be tangible or intangible, quantifiable or non-quantifiable, and financial or non-
financial.
4 Plan the peer review
4.1 General
It is important that the host plans effectively for the peer review so that its delivery (see Clause 5) is
successful. Planning the peer review will put in place the arrangements so that the reviewers have a
maximum clarity of purpose from the host, and vice versa.
This clause describes planning for the peer review, including to:
— decide the level of administration to be peer reviewed (see 4.2);
— agree the expected benefits of the peer review (see 4.3);
— agree the objectives of the peer review (see 4.4);
— agree the high-level timeline for the peer review (see 4.5);
— decide whether a self-assessment will be completed before the peer review (see 4.6);
— consider the cost/benefit of hosting the peer review (see 4.7);
— identify parties who are interested in the peer review (see 4.8);
— select the analysis areas to be peer reviewed (see 4.9);
— appoint an organization to coordinate the peer review (see 4.10);
— agree the terms of the peer review (see 4.11);
2 © ISO 2020 – All rights reserved

— select personnel from the host to provide information to the reviewers (see 4.12);
— appoint reviewers (4.13).
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 4.9) 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 4.4) 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.
4.4 Agree the objectives of the peer review
The host should agree clear objectives for the peer review in terms of how it will deliver the benefits
(see 4.3) and strengthen its performance in selected analysis areas (see 4.9). Objectives should include
how the peer review should enhance analysis areas in terms of:
— strategy, vision and leadership; this should include developing the culture and strategies;
— collection and use of information; this should include developing the analyses of external and
internal data and information, building strategic collaborations, exploring the wider environment,
and foreseeing future risks;
— management of systems, processes, planning and audits; this should include developing the
management structure, planning processes, sustainable resource management, analysing corporate
risks, functions that support operational delivery, business continuity, performance measurement,
external audits, and learning from itself and others;
— coordination of, and communication with, operations; this should include developing the coordination
of resources and partners, sharing information effectively internally and externally, and notifying
senior leaders when situations change with significant implications;
— delivery of operations; this should include developing the structure of delivering operations,
managing effective and efficient on-site delivery, autonomy of delivery units, and adapting to
feedback from beneficiaries and other interested parties during operational delivery.
These elements are the five analysis systems, which are used in 5.5.1 to review the performance of each
analysis area.
4.5 Agree the high-level timeline for the peer review
To enable initial planning, the host should agree an anticipated timeline for the delivery of the peer
review, including:
— the official start date of the peer review period;
— when the review visit should take place;
— the delivery date of the consolidated report from the reviewers (see 5.9).
A detailed timeline should be developed in the delivery phase of the peer review, see Annex A.
4.6 Decide whether a self-assessment will be completed before the peer review
The host should consider whether they will complete a self-assessment as a preparation for the peer
review. Options for a self-assessment include a document review (e.g. of risk register, strategy, plans),
internal dialogues (e.g. discussions between staff and interested parties), and self-evaluation of current
performance and costs.
A self-assessment takes time and effort, but its potential benefits include:
— enabling the host to gather evidence of activities in a structured way;
— enabling the host to establish its own view of its activities;
— providing benchmarks for the peer review;
— informing the selection of benefits and measures of the peer review (see 4.3);
— assisting in selecting analysis areas that would be most beneficial to be peer reviewed;
— providing additional information to reviewers as part of background information.
[6]
An option for self-assessment is the UNISDR Preliminary Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities .
4.7 Consider the cost/benefit of hosting the peer review
The host should consider the cost of conducting the peer review (e.g. travel costs, meeting costs,
administration costs, opportunity costs). As the initiator of the review and the major beneficiary, the
host should expect to pay all costs associated with the review unless another source of funding is
available.
Using information on the costs and the benefits (see 4.3) of the review, the host should assess if there is
a sufficient return on investment from conducting the peer review. The assessment should be used to:
— judge the case for conducting the peer review;
— judge the case for the scale of the peer review;
— calibrate the breadth and depth of the peer review to ensure a sufficient return on investment.
4 © ISO 2020 – All rights reserved

4.8 Identify parties who are interested in the peer review
The host should identify organizations and individuals, groups and partners with an interest in the
process or outcome of the peer review to consider if they should be involved in the design and delivery
of the review. The host should:
— identify parties with an interest in enhancing performance (e.g. elected officials, those indirectly
or directly affected by the review, those wishing to learn from the review, citizens and their
representatives);
— consider the implications of involving or not involving interested parties in the peer review process;
— decide if and how interested parties should be involved in the peer review process;
— review who are the important interested parties once the analysis areas have been selected (see 4.9).
Examples of interested party groups include government officials, responders, private sector staff,
academics, citizens, citizen representatives and elected officials.
4.9 Select the analysis areas to be peer reviewed
With the influential interested parties (see 4.8) and, potentially, the reviewers (see 4.13) and, if
conducted, using the results of the self-assessment (see 4.6), the host should select the analysis areas to
be reviewed according to its preferences and the agreed objectives (see 4.4). See Annex B for potential
analysis areas. As each analysis area is estimated to take one day of a review visit (plus activities
before the visit), the host should decide on the number, depth and specificity of the analysis areas to be
reviewed.
Risk management and assessment of risk are two important analysis areas that should be included in
every peer review to provide sufficient background information to reviewers. If these two analysis
areas are not included, then information of sufficient detail on these topics should be provided to
reviewers.
The host should select the analysis areas to be reviewed. Descriptions of the options are provided in
Annex B. The selection of analysis areas will depend on the duration of the review visit. Some analysis
areas are of a strategic nature while others are operational.
Not every peer review should cover all the analysis areas in Annex B. In addition to those in Annex B,
the host should consider if there are any other analysis areas that should be reviewed. The design of
those should follow those outlined in Annex B.
4.10 Appoint an organization to coordinate the peer review
Once the interested parties (see 4.8), benefits (see 4.3) and objectives (see 4.4) have been identified, the
host should appoint an organization to coordinate the peer review, including to:
— project-manage the delivery of the peer review to achieve the objectives of the review and support
the benefit owners;
— conduct the administrative arrangements of the peer review for the host and reviewers.
4.11 Agree the terms of the peer review
Before appointing reviewers, the host and reviewers should clarify the expectations and process of the
review including the details in 4.2 to 4.10.
It can be necessary to record the terms in a formal contract that has been developed with legal support.
This can include:
— agreed terms of the peer review;
— expectations of the host and reviewers;
— confidentiality;
— intellectual property rights;
— who bears responsibility for information in publications produced as part of the peer review;
— dissemination limitations, including the inclusion of information that is deemed sensitive or
confidential.
4.12 Select personnel from the host to provide information to the reviewers
The host should ensure that relevant personnel are available to answer questions that reviewers have
and provide additional information to them during the review. The host should select a broad team
(potentially 5 to 50 personnel) to represent all analysis areas, including:
— a range of personnel who have sufficient breadth and depth of knowledge (e.g. technical specialists,
support functions, community representatives);
— interested parties who could be affected by the outcome of the review;
— personnel from outside of its geographical location if their expertise is required.
4.13 Appoint reviewers
It is important for the host to have confidence that the reviewers are trusted to conduct a peer review
and will help to achieve its objectives. The following criteria can be used when selecting a reviewer:
— context in which the reviewer normally works and its relevance to the review (e.g. level of
administration to be peer reviewed, risks and hazards, or the political, economic, social, technical,
environmental or legal context);
— breadth and depth of technical knowledge and experience needed to conduct the peer review;
— capacity to be released from regular duties to participate in the peer review and review visit;
— characteristics of the reviewer, including:
— being open to appreciating contexts that are different to their own;
— management skills to conduct the peer review effectively;
— analytical and verbal/written communication skills to report their findings;
— ability to deliver the desired style of the review (e.g. developmental, supportive, direct,
challenging, critical);
— ability to cognitively process large volumes of information and reach conclusions from those;
— availability of administrative capacity to conduct the peer review processes effectively, including
the preparation, analysis of information and production of findings;
— language(s) spoken by the reviewer and whether sharing the same language is important or whether
a translation service (for documents and discussion) is sufficient;
— ability to deliver the benefits (see 4.3) and objectives (see 4.4) within the terms of the peer review
(see 4.11);
— ability to satisfy relevant background checks (e.g. security clearance).
Interviewing potential reviewers could help to further understand their suitability.
6 © ISO 2020 – All rights reserved

Reviewers should be assembled into a small review team (potentially of 2 to 5 persons). The team may
come from one entity or be assembled from different entities from different countries. The team should
include:
— reviewers who have sufficient domain knowledge of the analysis areas that are to be peer reviewed;
— a suitable mix of reviewers to bring different perspectives (e.g. local and national government
officials, private sector, civil society, academia);
— reviewers who can liaise with each other to adequately prepare for the peer review;
— a lead reviewer.
5 Conduct the peer review
5.1 General
The host will have selected the analysis areas to be peer reviewed (see 4.9) to accomplish the agreed
objectives (see 4.4). A process to review these analysis areas should be adopted to ensure the peer
review is conducted smoothly and to manage the expectations of the host and reviewers. This clause
describes that, to conduct the peer review, the host should:
— identify the attributes of conducting the peer review (see 5.2);
— plan the peer review process (see 5.3);
— prepare personnel to provide information to the reviewers (see 5.4);
— provide information to reviewers about each analysis area (see 5.5);
and that the reviewer should:
— prepare and ask questions about each analysis area (see 5.6);
— record observations and views about each analysis area (see 5.7);
— analyse the information and form an opinion about each analysis area (see 5.8);
— deliver consolidated feedback on each analysis area (see 5.9).
5.2 Identify the attributes of conducting the peer review
The following attributes should underpin the design of the peer review process:
— a straightforward process:
— to understand analysis areas that are important to the host;
— that is efficient so that each analysis area can be reviewed via documentation and a one-day
review visit;
— that can combine several analysis areas during a review visit lasting several days;
— that feeds conclusions from reviewers back to the host;
— an evidence-based approach so that understanding of analysis areas:
— relies on respected sources of information and expertise;
— acknowledges the context as an explanation behind policies and practices;
— is recorded in a substantial audit trail of discussions;
— can identify actions in which the host and reviewers have confidence;
— based on appropriate benchmarks available to assess its performance against similar organizations;
— includes a triangulation of information to increase confidence in feedback, including:
— each analysis area reviewed as a document review as well as a review visit at the host site;
— a variety of types of information (e.g. qualitative and quantitative, visual and audio, written,
spoken) presented in different ways (e.g. host documents and presentations, individual
interviews, focus groups, site visits, observing live or table-top exercises);
— opportunity for reviewers to check the on-the-ground reality against the documentation;
— providing time to reflect on information at the end of each analysis area and the review as a whole;
— identifies clear recommendations to further enhance performance that:
— are evidence-based;
— are triangulated across difference sources of information;
— are feasible in the context;
— avoids the misapprehension that a review can lead to a league table on how a city compares to
others undertaking a peer review.
These attributes should be used when designing an agenda for the review visit (see 5.3).
5.3 Plan the peer review process
The host and the reviewers should use the attributes of the peer review process (see 5.2) to design
the peer review process. The process should include a review of documentation facilitated by the host
sending appropriate documents about the analysis areas to reviewers (see 5.5). The process should also
include a review visit (typically after the document review) where reviewers meet personnel from the
host to ask questions and receive more information.
The agenda for the review visit should enable the reviewers to fill the gaps in their knowledge of
analysis areas and should advise them on the number, duration and content of activities to be organized
by the host. This may involve the following activities:
— introductory presentations on governance structures, risks, capabilities, challenges, and key aspects
of the host’s territory that are relevant to the review (e.g. its geography, hydrology, hypsometry,
meteorology, demography);
— individual interviews with personnel from the host to gather information on specialist topics;
— focus groups with personnel chosen by the host (see 4.12) to gather information on generalist and
specialist topics;
— site visits of relevance to the analysis areas;
— observing live or table-top exercises to witness a demonstration of the host’s capabilities and
visualize the application and coordination of resources;
— reflection sessions for the team of reviewers (alone and with the host) to provide opportunity to:
— discuss observations and views;
— develop consensus on initial findings to feedback to the host at the end of the review meeting;
— initiate the writing of the feedback report.
8 © ISO 2020 – All rights reserved

The host should identify and plan the major tasks to be conducted before, during and after the review
visit to deliver the peer review process smoothly. Some major tasks are presented in Annex A.
Annex C offers a form for reviewers to record the important evidence that they are provided with
during the review. Annex D offers a sample agenda for the review visit.
5.4 Prepare personnel to provide information to reviewers
The host should prepare the personnel (see 4.12) who will provide information to the reviewers. The
personnel should be provided with information on:
— the objectives and expected benefits of the peer review;
— why they have been selected to provide information to the reviewers;
— the review process and the expectations of them during that process;
— what information they should prepare for the reviewers and how much time they have to share it
with the reviewers;
— queries from the reviewers to which they could be asked to respond;
— the agenda and logistics for the review visit;
— brief biography of each reviewer.
5.5 Provide information to reviewers about each analysis area
5.5.1 General
The host should provide information to reviewers about each analysis area that has been selected for
review. Some of this information will already exist and should be provided as part of the document
review (see 5.3), while other information will be more suitable to provide in person during the review
visit. Irrespective of when the information is provided, reviewers should receive information for each
analysis area pertaining to the following analysis systems:
— strategy, vision and leadership (see 5.5.2);
— collection and use of intelligence (see 5.5.3);
— management of processes, systems, planning and audits (see 5.5.4);
— coordination and communication of operations (see 5.5.5);
— delivery of operations (see 5.5.6).
NOTE These five analysis systems are the highest level at which an analysis area can be detailed and they
govern the structure of how: information is provided to reviewers (this subclause), questions are prepared by
reviewers (see Annex E), observations and views are recorded by reviewers (see Annex C), reviewers analyse
information and provide feedback to the host (see 5.8), and the impact of the peer review (see 6.3.3).
To contextualize this information, the host should provide an overview of its entity, territory (e.g. its
geography, hydrology, hypsometry, meteorology, demography), and historic, cultural and political
context.
The information should be provided in a language mutually agreed by the host and reviewers at least
three months before the review visit.
The reviewers should use this information to analyse the host’s policies and practices. Each analysis
system contains elements on which reviewers need information to review the analysis area. The quality
of the review will be improved by all available relevant information being included.
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:
— aims, 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 analysis 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).
5.5.4 Information on the management of processes, systems, planning and audits for each
analysis area
This analysis system focuses on how managers organize resources and follow effective processes to
deliver operations for the analysis area. This includes activities around the management structure,
planning operations, sustainable resource management, managing corporate risks, effective support
functions, ensuring continuity of service and managing performance (e.g. regular performance
monitoring, ad hoc audits, learning from itself and others).
For this analysis system, information that should be available to the reviewers about the analysis area
include:
— people available to manage the system (e.g. management structure, number of staff, core roles and
responsibilities);
— processes used to manage the system (e.g. for planning operations, corporate risk management,
performance management, business continuity, exercising and training);
— resources available and the sustainability of those (e.g. budgets, partnership resources, mutual aid
arrangements);
— affordability of response and recovery operations;
— gaps in people, processes, resources and affordability that would benefit from being addressed.
10 © ISO 2020 – All rights reserved

5.5.5 Information on the coordination and communication of operations for each analysis area
This analysis system focuses on ensuring that operations for the analysis area are coordinated to
deliver what management requests. This includes activities around coordinating resources and
partners’ activities, communicating eff
...