The traditional emergency management model is a hierarchical, top-down approach which is guided by FEMA’s Incident Command System (ICS). This system gives clear guidelines on how emergency situations should be managed, providing structure and organization while also allowing for flexible responses as needed. One of its major strengths is that it enables quick decision making by isolating authority within certain people or organizations. Additionally, this type of system provides experienced professionals with a framework for crisis management and allows them to use their expertise to respond effectively. However, one weakness of this traditional approach is that it often overlooks input from local communities or other stakeholders who may have firsthand knowledge about what needs to be done in an emergency situation. This can lead to decisions being made without taking into account the broader context of a situation or the needs of those directly affected by it. On the other hand, the collaborative model emphasizes collaboration between government agencies and other key stakeholders when responding to disasters. It recognizes that all levels of response must work together towards common goals in order to achieve success during a crisis. Its primary strength lies in its ability to bring together various perspectives and resources from multiple partners which can help reduce confusion during an event while also bringing greater efficiency and effectiveness overall. Furthermore, engaging affected individuals or communities can give responders valuable insights into what they are facing on ground level which could otherwise go overlooked with more top down approaches such as ICS alone. An example would be volunteer-run initiatives like Mutual Aid Societies whose locally based knowledge makes invaluable contributions towards disaster recovery efforts (e.g., Hurricane Katrina). However, one potential downside of this style is that it requires extensive coordination between multiple parties; something which may not always happen quickly enough depending on how complex a particular disaster situation may be - especially if there are limited resources available at certain points throughout an event's duration . Overall, deciding which approach is most applicable depends largely on each individual scenario’s unique set up such as environmental factors or political considerations amongst others things; however both models should ultimately be viewed as complementary rather than competitive since they each offer distinct advantages when used properly according to their respective strengths & weaknesses outlined here today.. In some cases combining elements from both approaches might even create more efficient results than either would individually - thereby enhancing overall outcomes regardless of how severe any given incident may prove itself out ahead time once fully evaluated after completion too!