MANAGEMENT
Self organization, complex adaptive systems, and intergovernmental coordination need an effective information management and communication system not only to build a common pool of information and knowledge to share between agencies but also to ease the situation of working across jurisdictions of many different government agencies and organizations.
Sufficient information and knowledge exchanged among agencies also help emergency personnel to make more informed decisions and increase the efficiency of their actions under time constraints. Dunn (2003) points out that for emergency managers, problem sensing and structuring are key. The lack of precise information leads to ill or, at best, moderate structuring of the problems. The limitations of decision making for organizations operating under uncertainty have spurred researchers to explore means of reformulating the concept of problem solving capacity (Comfort, 1991). This study also examines the use of information technology
mechanisms to enhance the power of communication and means of facilitating information flow through social networks to help policy makers share knowledge and communicate more effectively in states of emergency.
For organizations to function well, Graber (2003) suggests that they must have structures that are appropriate to organizational goals. “Structures refer to the patterns of information flow inherent in formal organization charts and reflected in work manuals.” These official structures provide a restricted, standardized communication environment that enhances the stability and predictability of organizational behavior (J. March and H. Simon notes the importance of structures). Structure explains how information networks are constructed, and why they are formed. Graber also discusses network analysis, the significance of network positions, and the roles of networks in information management. She notes that the chief goal of networking is “to establish communication links with significant others to share information about mutually relevant situations” while that of network analysis is “to explain the communication roles played by organization members and the consequences for the performance of the organization.’
In public organization, the options for designing organizational structures are to use:
geographical divisions, functional divisions, line and staff functions or client types. Graber addresses the impact of the previous steps on public managers’ ability to use information effectively to make sound decisions. She discusses the four phases of decision making - problem analysis, option exploration, selection of models for decision (rational-choice, incremental-bargaining, aggregative, and garbage can model), and monitoring feedback. Graber also discusses common errors in decision making at the individual, group and organizational level, and suggests strategies that can be used to avoid errors such as enhancing the supply of information, fostering policy coherence and coping with crisis. With regard to the designing of
structures for decision making, she argues that structures can be either top-level (formalistic, competitive and collegial models) or can be formed from external advisors who are authorities in the field.
Cahan and Cresswell emphasize that technology, information, and professional and organizational relationships played critically important roles in government, business, and community responses to the event. Effective use of a variety of information technologies helped government agencies to cope with, and respond to, the multiple crises and ongoing recovery demands resulting from the crises. Meanwhile, the severity of the crisis was exacerbated by damage to critical communications and infrastructure as well as the absence, outdated nature, loss, or inaccessibility of needed information resources. Bardach (1998) states that in his study of a geographically based network of human services agencies that collaborated to match clients with appropriate services, the communications processes among the participants were embedded in interpersonal relationships and also in an infrastructure of various connection mechanisms.
The information system infrastructure needs to be in place to facilitate reporting for emergency situations and give the workforce full information in order for them to make decisions. Communication channels as well as back up systems are required to keep all agencies connected and updated in order to support one another in unexpected events. The content of the information needs to be aggregated into a common knowledgebase for all parties involved in order to support accurate and timely decisions, especially during a state of emergency. Fountain (2001) argues that the use of information technology, such as in internet communication and networks of computing operations, allows networked organizations to extend control and coordination more easily across organizations. Information technology does not by itself create social capital or cooperation, but may enhance trust in the network through ease in
communications. A government that forces network formation but eschews collaboration may increase, rather than decrease, the cost of collaboration. As Holland (1995) states, agents within the organizations represent collections of rules and rule syntaxes that use information as stimuli for response and adaptation, lever points for building the complex adaptive system. Making a transition to an adaptive socio-technical system requires the abilities to search and exchange information through communication channel that facilitates intra and inter organizational learning.
Peha (2005) investigates the effectiveness of communication in emergency response and states that emergency responders depend on reliable ad ubiquitous wireless communications.
Failures in these communication systems can cost lives. He argues that a policy that required each public safety organization to independently make decisions about its communications system without a coherent plan and extensive coordination will produce an infrastructure that is more expensive than necessary. It is obvious that without effective coordination mechanisms, any communications infrastructure designed by many thousands of independent decision makers is prone to producing a tangle of systems that do not interoperate. With coordination, all of the inefficiency can be eliminated. Many public safety agencies would share multiple communications channels as well as costly infrastructure. Unless requiring emergency personnel to carry more than one type of equipment in case it fails, or having all representatives of all involved emergency agencies operate with their communication channels together in a central command center, communication equipment should be interoperable.
The impact of natural hazards upon human communities can be more effectively reduced through informed decisions regarding the location and construction of built environments, informed actions taken by the public exposed to risk, and timely communication and exchange of
information among organizations and jurisdictions that have designated responsibilities for the protection of life and property (Comfort, 2000). In this sense, institutional design and a responsible learning environment provide crucial support. Private sector and citizen communities also need to know the status of risk for the area in which they have their business functions or their families. The information they share will also help organizations to decide how to provide assistance, if their actions change under unexpected situations.