ISO 22392:2020
(Main)Security and resilience — Community resilience — Guidelines for conducting peer reviews
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
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: +41 22 749 01 11
Fax: +41 22 749 09 47
Email: copyright@iso.org
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 co
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.