Issue link: https://resources.esri.ca/i/778083
54 ✁ ✂ ✄ ☎ ✆ ✝ ✞ ✟ ✠ ✡ ✟ ✝ ☛ ✠ ✝ ☞ &Z^ƵďƐĐƌŝƉƟŽŶ͗ ✌ ✌ ✌ ✍ ✎ ✏ ✎ ✑ ✒ ✓ ✔ ✑ ✔ ✒ ✕ ✖ ✒ ✗ ✘ ✙ ✕ ✍ ✑ ✗ ✚ management or distribution management systems from their public outage mapping and communications tools. Failure to properly address this risk can expose a utility's critical operational systems to uncontrollable and unanticipated stresses, as extensive public or internal interaction with that information can drain the systems' processing capabilities. Several utilities have unfortunately experienced this avoidable e!ect in recent years. Another key risk to consider is the drive towards elaborate, heavily customized applications and processes. Outage maps can be easily customized and extended to support the speci"c requests of each utility. However, the full impact of those choices is not always fully considered at the time the decisions are made. These kinds of deviations from best practices can strip the utility of the many bene"ts it would realize from an outage mapping solution and actually introduce risk to its processes instead of mitigating it. This occurrence has happened often as the desire for creating a unique end-user experience has usurped the utility's fundamental goal of providing a clear, comprehensive outage communication channel. 130"$5*7&065"(&$0..6/*$"5*0/4 While this dynamic outage map may seem a signi"cant improvement from the traditional static maps, automated voice- #BTFNBQT 'JHVSF5IFJEFBMPVUBHFDPNNVOJDBUJPOTGSBNFXPSLJOUFHSBUFTLFZPQFSBUJPOBMTZTUFNTXJUIDMPVECBTFE (*4DBQBCJMJUJFTUPTVQQPSUBVUPNBUFENBQQJOHQVCMJTIJOHBOEJOGPSNBUJPOEJTUSJCVUJPOXPSLøPXT