Designing, Managing, and Sustaining Functionally ... Designing...Designing, Managing, and Sustaining...
Transcript of Designing, Managing, and Sustaining Functionally ... Designing...Designing, Managing, and Sustaining...
Designing, Managing, and Sustaining Functionally Collaborative
Emergency Management Networks
Contact: Naim Kapucu, Ph.D. Department of Public Administration, University of Central Florida
HPA II Suite 238M, Orlando, FL 32816-1395 Phone: 407-823-6096; Fax: 407-823-5651
E-mail: [email protected]
Naim Kapucu, Ph.D., is an associate professor and director of the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management (CPNM) in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. His main research interests are emergency and crisis management, decision-making in complex environment, collaborative governance, and organizational learning and design. His work has been published in Public Administration Review (PAR), Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART), Administration & Society, the American Review of Public Administration (ARPA), Public Administration, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, and Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy, and Management. He teaches public and nonprofit management, emergency and crisis management, and analytic techniques for public administration courses. He can be reached at [email protected].
Vener Garayev, PhD Candidate is a Public Administration Track Ph.D. Candidate in Public Affairs program, and research analyst at the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. He received his MPA in 2008 from UCF. He can be reached at [email protected].
The manuscript prepared for the Public Management Research Conference, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, June 2-4, 2011, New York. This research is funded by National Science Foundation (Award #: 0943208)
Designing, Managing, and Sustaining Functionally Collaborative
Emergency Management Networks
Abstract: The success of networked governance in emergency management is dependent on
structural, spatial and temporal issues embedded to inter-organizational relationships. Network
sustainability is one of such issues that requires due attention by scholars and practitioners in the
field. This paper examines how network sustainability, namely, the extent to which network
relationships are maintained and nurtured over time, is affected by interdependent network
relationships, network complexity, and information-communication technology utilization at the
local level. Based on 118 responses from a self-administered survey distributed to four county-
based metropolitan regions in the State of Florida, this study provides regression analysis
analyzing above-mentioned relationships. Using UCINET social network analysis software,
additional analysis of network structure and dynamics in the four counties is provided for further
insight. The findings suggest positive and statistically significant relationships between network
relationships and information-communication technology utilization, and no statistically
significant impact of network complexity as well as control variables of sector type, number of
full-time employees, and yearly budget. Network analysis, on the other hand, suggests different
patterns between friendship network, on the one hand, and advice networks during preparedness
and response, on the other. This study contributes to the literature on networked governance
applied to the field of emergency management.
Keywords: Emergency management, networks, functionally collaboration, network
development, network sustainability, Information communication technology, complexity
1
Designing, Managing, and Sustaining Functionally Collaborative
Emergency Management Networks
Introduction
Emergency management is one of the fields under the realm of public affairs that has
extensively utilized networks to deal with public issues over the past decades. The complex
nature and substantive impacts of the emergency management issues proved inability of single
organizations to tackle disasters and emergencies on their own, leading them to accept a
collaborative approach (Kapucu & Garayev, 2011; Kapucu, Arslan, & Demiroz, 2010) as the
main solution to the problem. Focusing on the all-hazard approach as the main strategy to deal
with disasters, organizations responsible for emergency management find them themselves quite
often involved in the midst of networked governance that envisions shared goals and
responsibilities as well as a coordinated and unified action to produce a commonly-owned result
(Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000).
Networked governance, on the other hand, is a combination of inter-organizational
interactions spread across timeline, the nature of which depends on the network structure and
relationships, the contextual factors and the issue to be addressed. Disasters are focusing events
requiring immediate response as well as actions before and after it strikes (Birkland, 1997). The
major disasters of the past few years showed that having organizations ready to respond is not
enough provide for effective emergency response. One of the issues to be addressed in this
regard is network sustainability – the extent to which inter-organizational relationships are
maintained especially in the absence of disasters when it is deemed unnecessary the most.
Focusing on the four metropolitan regions in the State of Florida, this study analyzes how
organizations responsible for emergency management in respective counties understand network
2
relationships they are involved in. The study specifically looks at how network sustainability is
affected by inter-organizational relationships, network complexity, and information-
communication technology utilization as perceived by organizations involved in those networks.
The study seeks to find answers to the following questions: Is there any relationship between
inter-organizational relationships, network complexity, and information-communication
technology utilization as predictor variables on the one hand, and network sustainability as
outcome variable on the other? What are the structural and relational aspects of inter-
organizational networks involved in disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery?
To answer the research questions, a self-administered survey was electronically mailed to
some 300 organizations responsible for emergency management as specified in respective
counties’ comprehensive emergency management plans (CEMP). Based on the 120 responses
received, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify statistical relationships among
dependent and independent variables. The results of the regression analysis was further discussed
in light of the design network structures derived from CEMPs and network structures derived
from responses to network-related questions in the survey. Responses to open-ended questions
were also included to provide additional insight. Along with contribution to the literature on
network theory, this study intends to provide managerial and policy implications with the
purpose to improve emergency response and recovery. Directions for further research are also
discussed.
Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
The nature of emergencies and disasters today forces for emergency response and
recovery organizations to collaborate in order to be effective (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006;
Callahan & Holzer, 1994; Vangen & Huxham, 2003). Organizations with limited capacity and
3
capabilities tend to create partnerships sharing resources, information, personnel, finance and
expertise (McDonald, 2008). These partnerships are often multi-organizational and cross-
jurisdictional resulting in a network approach to emergency management(Weber, 2003).
Networks have been already widely utilized in the field, though excellence in related sphere has
not been achieved yet(Kapucu & Van Wart, 2006). Networks are dynamic structure comprising
multiple organizations often located in geographically different sites (Snow, Lipnack, & Stamps,
1999). They are multisite groups of organizations with shared preferences, norms and values
coming together for a common goal and relying mainly on information-communication
technologies for their operations and communication (Grabowski & Roberts, 1999).
Networks are generally characterized by flexible and non-rigid administrative structure, and non-
hierarchical mode of governance, which might be considered as the positive attributes. They are
often criticized, however, on the grounds of slow decision-making, leadership, trust,
accountability and performance measurement issues (Ward & Wamsley, 2007).
Nevertheless, inter-organizational and inter-governmental policy-making in emergency
management is useful especially in the field of emergency management where tackling
emergency incidents is almost impossible without involvement of other parties including
nonprofit and for-profit sectors, and community and individuals (Mushkatel & Weschler, 1985).
The way networks utilized, however, is a crucial factor that would impact the ultimate success
(Trotter, Briody, Sengir, & Meerwarth, 2008). More specifically, networks in emergency
management have a higher chance of success if maintained and sustained over time e (Ansell &
Gash, 2007; Milward & Provan, 2000). Gillespie et al. (1993) state that network sustainability
can be achieved through continuous professional personal relationship and interactions to
address a continuously present and active problem. While the literature abounds on the factors
4
affecting network sustainability, this study focuses on three of them, namely network
relationships, network complexity, and information-communication technology utilization.
Being a group of several actors working together to achieve a common goal in the
broadest sense (Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007), networks are highly dependent on inter-
organizational relationships and interactions(Vangen & Huxham, 2003). This means that what
makes networks work is their main characteristics. Accordingly, network sustainability is
dependent upon the interdependency of organizational goals and overall preferences (DeSanctis,
Staudenmayer, & Wong, 1999). It is also organizations’ interdependency in terms of resources
and assets (Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999) that are shared to minimize cost and increase organizational
success and productivity(Ansell & Gash, 2007; Fiszben & Lowden, 1999). The network
relationships characterized by specific asset interdependencies, thus, are the cornerstone of
networks. Once this multiagency perspective (Davies, 2003) is dissolved, it is needless as well as
impossible for a group of organizations to sustain their relationships in the long run. Emergency
management is a specific case, in which organizations’ limited capabilities and capacities often
force them to collaborate with others(Jordan, 2010) in order to deal with disasters of unexpected
nature, scope and severity (Thurmaier & Wood, 2002). Therefore, emergency management
extensively relies upon a multiagency collaborative approach (Drabek, Tamminga, Kilijanek, &
Adams, 1981), the success of which is parallel with the nature and the level of interdependency
among network actors. In light of the literature, thus, the first hypothesis to be tested in this
article is as follows:
H1: Interdependent network relationships are positively associated with network
sustainability.
5
One of the factors closely related to interdependent network relationships is the concept
of network complexity. Broadly speaking, network complexity is the sum of increased,
multifaceted, and multidirectional relationships(Kapucu, 2009). The literature also emphasizes
network complexity as the factor to impact network sustainability. Jassawalla and Sashittal
(1999) argue that network complexity is the natural phenomenon pertaining to collaborative
practices. While being natural, though, complexity characterized by interactions among multiple
actors with different goals and expectations is a factor that might negatively affect network
performance, and, thus, sustainability (DeSanctis, Staudenmayer, & Wong, 1999). It is
imperative that network actors understand the advantages and disadvantages of network
complexity, and utilize it beneficially. This article assumes that network complexity, if not
managed properly especially in the context of emergencies and disasters, would result in
decreased network sustainability. In other words, if organizations consider multiplicity of actors,
interactions and goals as an opportunity for more successful network results, network
sustainability is a higher chance; otherwise, network complexity is a hindrance that should be
managed wisely. The hypothesis to be tested in regard to network complexity is as follows:
H2: Network complexity is negatively associated with network sustainability.
The literature also links network sustainability to technical and structural factors. One of
the mostly cited factors to impact network sustainability is the utilization of information-
communication technologies (ICT). Technological innovations, social media, and electronic
opportunities today are inevitable parts of creating, developing and maintaining networks
(Mowshowitz, 1997). Utilization of ICT especially for communication and information exchange
is of practical benefit in network context(Dawes & Eglene, 2004). The ICT utilized for network
purposes generally minimizes transaction costs, saves time, increases network efficiency, and
6
speeds the overall process of decision-making and implementation (den Hengst & Sol, 2001).
Though not a completely sufficient factor, information-communication technologies, thus,
contribute to the overall effectiveness of collaborative networks (Cohen & Mankin, 1999). The
main contribution of the ICT is engendered in the fastened, enhanced, facilitated, coordinated,
and streamlined network operations (Kelly & Stark, 2002). Network sustainability is far from
seamless in the absence of technological tools making networks viable in today’s conditions. The
third and last hypothesis of this article, therefore, is as follows:
H3: Utilization of information-communication technologies (ICT) is positively associated
with network sustainability.
While many other structural and relational factors contribute to network sustainability,
this study takes a modest approach to test the impact of tree factors, namely interdependent
network relationships, network complexity, and information-communication technology (ICT)
utilization on network sustainability. These factors are being tested in the context of emergency
management field, which is further explained in the following section.
In addition to the main constructs of the study, three control variables were included in
the model for testing. These variables are the agency sector (SEC), the number of full-time
employees in the agency (EMP), and the budget allocated for specific agency in respective fiscal
year (BDG). The main intent in adding these control variables in the model is to test whether
these attributes of the organizations in this or another way affect their relationships with the
overall network of agencies. The overall conceptual model of the study is shown below in Figure
1:
F
A
complexi
independ
sustainab
sector (S
budget of
C
T
novelty a
severity o
respond t
acknowle
Figure 1: Co
According to
ity (COM), a
dent variable
bility (SUS).
EC), the num
f the agency
Context of th
The fact that
anymore. Th
of disasters a
to disasters e
edgment by
onceptual M
the Figure 1
and informat
es whose rela
These relati
mber of full-
y (BDG).
he Study
emergency m
he field has a
as well as to
experienced
government
Map of the St
1, inter-depe
tion-commu
ationship is t
ionships are
-time employ
management
adapted itself
o the need for
over past de
ts at all level
7
tudy
endent netwo
unication tech
tested in rega
tested while
yees in the a
t relies on co
f to emergin
r reforms in
ecades. One
ls for the urg
ork relationsh
hnology util
ard to the de
e controlling
agency (EMP
ollaborative
ng threats of
light of the
of the drama
gency to desi
hips (NET),
lization (ICT
ependent var
g for the type
P), and the o
approaches
increasing s
failures to e
atic changes
ign more eff
network
T) are
riable of netw
e of agency o
overall yearly
today is not
scope and
effectively
s has been th
fective
work
or its
y
t a
he
8
emergency response systems that would address previous failures. The desired systems would
bring more flexibility and horizontality in terms of intra-organizational and inter-organizational
relationships, as well as a strong emphasis on coordination, collaboration and communication.
The establishment of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1978 was a basis for
such evolution (Schroeder, Wamsley, & Ward, 2001). FEMA absorbed several agencies aiming
at provision of unified and coordinated national response. The natural disasters and the non-
inclusive civil defense approach up to the end of the Cold War in late 1980s signaled for
additional reforms, one of the most important of which was the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (Sylves, 2007).
The Stafford Act embodied principles and mechanisms to assist state and local
communities in times of disasters, which was supposed to be implemented through Federal
Response Plan (FRP) created along with the Act. The FRP established an all-hazard and
function-based approach in emergency management that aimed for a coordinated and efficient
use of resources during disasters. The Plan enlisted twelve emergency support functions (ESF) –
a measure to group organizations based on their responsibilities, capabilities, capacity and
expertise. This approach established not only a framework of coordination, but also collaboration
among agencies representing different sectors and levels of government. The FRP proved
ineffective during disasters of 1990s, and especially during the terrorist attacks on September 11,
2001. Subsequent reforms were of paradigmatic and consequential nature. In 2003 the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created absorbing 22 federal agencies, which put
FEMA a peripheral role of managing natural disasters with lessened authority and budget over
emergency management policies.
9
Focusing more on the notion of homeland security, the DHS created the National
Response Plan (NRP) that was based on existing plans with the emphasis on all-hazard, all-
discipline and collaborative approach to emergency management (Kapucu & Garayev, 2011;
Bullock, Haddow, & Coppola, 2005). The Plan envisioned better communication as well as
increased partnerships among all stakeholders in emergency management. The twelve-function
framework of the FRP was expanded with three additional ESFs to fifteen, thus providing a more
inclusive and comprehensive approach to tackle disasters. The years after 2003, and specifically
disasters like Hurricane Katrina of 2005, showed the deficiencies in the existing system urging
for additional changes and reforms (Kamarck, 2003). The federal government took relevant steps
to appreciate FEMA’s previous role and capacity; which resulted in the creation of the National
Response Framework (NRF) in 2008. Having similarly fifteen ESFs, the NRF asserted the need
for enhanced collaboration, coordination and communication among emergency management
stakeholders and emphasized the importance of disaster-resilient communities structured around
the all-hazard and inter-disciplinary approach to prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response
and recovery(Kapucu, 2009).
The historical evolution at the national level was similarly applied to and adopted at the
state and local levels over time. The NRP came along with the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) that proposed a nation-wide template to address disasters. The NIMS also
provided the Incident Command System (ICS) that described the mechanism to provide
emergency response and recovery. The local governments across the United States are expected
to adopt and implement similar structures. Being the focus of the study, the county governments
design their emergency management systems accordingly with slight variations due to regional,
geographic, demographic, financial and administrative issues. This study specifically analyzes
10
four counties in the State of Florida, which have emergency management systems adjusted to the
national-level expectations.
The collaborative and coordinative approach at the federal level is similarly practiced at
the county-level with counties having comprehensive emergency management plans (CEMP)
with the number of ESFs ranging from 15 to 20 in most instances.
This study specifically focuses on the four metropolitan areas in the State of Florida (Orange,
Hillsborough, Duval, and Miami-Dade Counties). The four counties were chosen based on the
size of the county and population they serve, which are also major metropolitan regions in the
State of Florida. These are also the counties chosen as part of the project funded by the National
Science Foundation (NSF). As in the case of many other counties within the State, these four
counties have independent Emergency Operation Centers (EOC) that are relatively larger in size
with 5 to 10 employees. Each of these counties collaborates with 60 to 90 public, for-profit, and
nonprofit organizations in times of disasters. These organizations constitute an informal network
of collaborators who come together based on the scope and severity of emergencies, with
significant disasters resulting mostly in full activation of the network. The following section
elaborates on the methodology utilized for this study related to the four metropolitan regions.
Methodology
This study employs data derived from responses to a self-administered survey that was
electronically mailed to all agencies responsible for emergency response and recovery in the four
metropolitan areas in the State of Florida. The agencies comprise primary and support agencies
from public, for-profit and non-profit sectors in the four counties (Orange County, Hillsborough
County, Duval County, and Miami-Dade County). The list of agencies was obtained from
respective counties’ Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans (CEMP) that specify which
11
agencies are responsible for which ESFs during emergency response and recovery. The process
of data collection took approximately 3-4 months due to difficulty to reach some 300 agencies
for survey completion. Some 150 responses were collected, among which only 118 were eligible
for analysis after data clearance. A total of 93, 69, 66, and 84 (312 totally) organizations were
identified to be contacted and 40, 35, 23, and 20 responses (118 totally) were received for the
Orange County, Hillsborough County, Duval County, and Miami-Dade County respectively.
The survey consisted of blocks of questions regarding the main variables of this study
along with open-ended questions with the aim to get additional qualitative insight about the
responses provided. The blocks of questions were combined into index variables and utilized for
multiple regression analysis. The ultimate index constructs utilized in the study have the
following Cronbach Alpha reliability values: Interdependent Network Relationships (NET) –
.880; Network Complexity – .801 (COM); Information-Communication Technology Utilization
(ICT) – .708; Network Sustainability (SUS) – .742 (See Appendix A for index items of each
construct).
In addition to regression analysis, this study also utilized a network approach to analyze
the structures of the networks as specified by the respondents to the survey. The analysis presents
an overview of networks as perceived by the respondents to the survey questions targeting inter-
organization relationships. These analyses are utilized to understand and interpret the findings
from regression analysis. Additional insight on the benefits of sustainable network relationships
for emergency management field is derived from qualitative responses through open-ended
questions in the survey. The next section presents findings of multiple regression analysis in light
of the network analysis to support the regression results.
12
Findings and Results
Despite the relatively small sample size, the normality assumptions for multiple
regression analysis were mostly met. The results of the analysis of the impact of interdependent
network relationships, network complexity, and information-communication technology (ICT)
utilization on network sustainability specify an R-square value of .197 (R=.443), accounting for
around 20% of the variation in network sustainability dependent variable. The model is also
statistically significant at the level of .001, namely there is less that 0.1% probability that the
calculated F-value of 4.526 would happen by chance.
In addition, it was found that control variables do not have any statistically significant
explanation for the variance in the dependent variables caused by independent variables. In other
words, the control variables of sector, number of employees, and budget don’t provide any
additional explanation in the model beyond independent variables. Neither the first model
composed of control variables, neither the coefficients of the control variables in the combined
model were found to be statistically significant.
The coefficients of the combined model with control variables included, namely the
impacts of independent and control variables in the model, are shown below in Table 1 below.
According to the table, interdependent network relationships and utilization of information-
communication technologies (ICT) are statistically significant contributors to network
sustainability. Network complexity is excluded from the model, and, thus, does not seem to
contribute to network sustainability based on the data obtained for this study.
13
Table 1: Coefficients of Regression Model
Model Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 2 (Constant) 2.276 .443 5.136 .000
DEM4 -.020 .084 -.021 -.243 .809
DEM5 .028 .043 .089 .662 .510
DEM6 -.014 .049 -.037 -.282 .778
INDEX_NET .223 .069 .277 3.226 .002**
INDEX_COM .053 .047 .097 1.134 .259
INDEX_ICT .217 .072 .268 2.996 .003**
a. Dependent Variable: INDEX_SUS Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
The regression analysis results are not surprising especially in terms of the network
relationships and ICT affecting network sustainability. These assumptions were strongly
supported by different scholars in the literature. The Figure 2 below displays network
relationships at the network level of each county studied. The Figure might shed light on the two
factors in the regression model, namely network relationships inter-dependence and network
complexity. The figure shows that in terms of friendship network – who knows whom – counties
seem to be comparatively complete, meaning that county-wide every agency has a sense of what
other agencies are responsible for in the whole emergency management network, and this might
be not a surprise. The friendship networks, in turn, are transmitted to a lower-density
collaborative preparedness (advice during preparedness) and collaborative response (advice
during response) networks, with some isolate nodes especially in the case of Miami-Dade, the
county with the lowest response rate as a possible explanation. In other words, the network
sustainability in each county case is fostered through these highly connected nodes before and
after emergencies. The literature likewise emphasizes the importance of pre and post-disaster
14
collaborations for longer and more productive relationships leading to sustainable networks. The
regression results are also supported by qualitative comments of the respondents.
The surprising finding is related to network complexity that has been found statistically
insignificant to have impact on network sustainability. This result poses a questions about the
perception of network complexity by emergency management practitioners, who might or might
not view multiplicity of network relationship and interaction among organizations from different
sectors and levels of government and, thus, having different goals, as hindrance to network
sustainability. Again, as in the case of network relationships inter-dependence, the network
complexity characterized by multiplicity of interactions among actors representing diverse
backgrounds and organizational goals seems to have been supported by visual diagrams;
statistical results, however, lead to rejection of the assumption. These might be due to the fact
that different organizations interpret network complexity in different ways, some seeing it as an
advantage and some as disadvantage, despite the fact that they are supposed to work together
according to the CEMPs.
Lastly, in terms of information-communication technology (ICT) utilization, the network
analysis presents highly connected networks, which is possible only through sophisticated
technical capacity of organizations involved in the network. While the high level of network
connectedness can be also attributed to several other factors, it is the strong belief of the authors
that ICT is the main factor making it possible. In other words, ICT is a mandatory but not
sufficient factor to explain the density and multiplicity of interactions and relationships in the
networks in the Figure 2. This is especially true for the collaborative preparedness and
collaborative response networks that are highly dependent on ICT in today’s complex
environment of emergencies.
Figure 2Counties
Ora
nge
Hil
lsbo
roug
h D
uval
M
iam
i-D
ade
Friendship
2. Friendshs
p
ip, Advice
AdvPre
Preparedne
15
vice During eparedness
ess and Addvice Respo
Advice Du
onse Networ
uring Respon
rks of the
nse
Four
16
Table 2, on the other hand, provides a list of top three agencies with degree, closeness,
and betweenness centrality measures for friendship, advice during preparedness and advice
during response networks in four counties.
17
Table 2: Centrality Measures for Friendship, Advice during Preparedness and Advice during Response Networks in Four Counties Orange County
Degree Closeness BetweennessI know this organization 1 Orange County Human Resources United Way Orange County Communications
2 Orange County Health Services Progress Energy American Red Cross3 Orange County Animal Services Florida Highway Patrol Orange County Office of EM
I collaborate during preparedness 1 Orange County Communications Lynx Orange County Communications2 Orange County Fiscal & Business Brighthouse American Red Cross3 Orange County Business Develop. Area Agency on Aging Orange County Sheriff’s Office
I collaborate during response 1 Orange County Communications Hospitals Orange County Communications2 Orange County Fiscal & Business Orlando Police Department American Red Cross3 Orange County Human Resources Orange County Admin. Services Orange County Sheriff's Office
Hillsborough County
Degree Closeness BetweennessI know this organization 1 HC Hazard Mitigation HC Geographic Info. System (GIS) HC Management & Budget
2 HC Building Services HC Emergency Dispatch Center HC Emergency Management3 Tampa Fire Rescue Department HC Library Services American Red Cross
I collaborate during preparedness 1 HC Emergency Management Tampa Emergency Management HC Emergency Management2 American Red Cross HC Sheriff's Office American Red Cross3 HC Damage Assessment HC Communications Tampa Fire Rescue Department
I collaborate during response 1 HC Emergency Management Florida National Guard HC Emergency Management2 American Red Cross Tampa Emergency Management American Red Cross3 HC Damage Assessment HC Sheriff's Office HC Fire Rescue
Duval County
Degree Closeness BetweennessI know this organization 1 JEA Utilities Atlantic Beach Police Department Jacksonville Housing & Neighborhoods
2 Duval County Health Department Atlantic Beach Animal Control Jacksonville Planning & Development3 Jacksonville Recr. & Comm. Services Jacksonville Port Authority Florida Department of Transportation
I collaborate during preparedness 1 Jacksonville Recr. & Comm. Services Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Jacksonville Emergency Preparedness2 Northeast Florida Regional Council Jacksonville Fire & Rescue JEA Utilities3 Jacksonville Environ. & Compliance American Red Cross Northeast Florida Regional Council
I collaborate during response 1 Jacksonville Emergency Preparedness Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Jacksonville Emergency Preparedness2 Jacksonville Recr. & Comm. Services Jacksonville Fire & Rescue FL Department of Law Enforcement3 Jacksonville Econ. Dev. Commission American Red Cross Jacksonville Aviation Authority
Miami-Dade County
Degree Closeness BetweennessI know this organization 1 Florida Power and Light Fl Dept. of Transportation Florida Power and Light
2 MDC Solid Waste Management MDC Seaport Department Coral Gables Fire Rescue3 Miami Beach Fire Rescue MDC Building Department Fl Dept. of Environmental Protection
I collaborate during preparedness 1 MDC Dept. of Emergency Manag. Salvation Army MDC Dept. of Emergency Manag.2 MDC Solid Waste Management American Red Cross Miami Beach Fire Rescue3 Miami Beach Fire Rescue FEMA MDC Police Department
I collaborate during response 1 MDC Aviation Department FEMA MDC Dept. of Emergency Manag.2 MDC Solid Waste Management American Red Cross MDC Solid Waste Management3 MDC Dept. of Emergency Manag. Fl Dept. of Transportation Miami Beach Fire Rescue
18
The survey also included two open-ended questions asking about how sustainable
emergency management network partnerships/collaborations (1) would help enhance, and (2)
would not benefit emergency management field. The responses to the former question can be
summarized in the form of emphasis on the importance of emergency management partnerships
for time efficiency, for better distribution of resources, for better coordination of operations, for
clearer and better communication, and for better ultimate results with least damages to human
lives and property. Specifically, most of the responses concentrate around enhanced coordination
of emergency operations that relieves the overall burden on functionally inter-related actors. A
sample answer to the first question is as follows: “Setting up a common framework helps people
from disparate organizations better understand what their roles are and how they fit towards the
overall objectives.”
The responses to the latter question, on the other hand, can be summarized in the form of
agreement on the collaborative partnerships’ seamlessness with minor concerns. For example, a
respondent says that “partnerships "for the sake of" partnerships would waste time and funding,”
while another respondent argues that conflicting priorities might be a hindrance for effective
collaborations. Yet another argues that organizations that are not equally trained or aware of
NIMS-based structure, guidelines, and operations system may lead to inefficient and ineffective
collaboration. A sample answer to the second question is as follows: “It's beneficial if both know
their roles and perform them and not try to either take command or fail to support the event.”
Discussion and Lessons Learned
While emergency management organizations do practice collaborative networks in
today’s conditions, not all of them are aware of the benefits of sustaining those collaborative
relationships across time, especially in the absence of disasters. What is more, not all
organizations are equipped with tools and information to enhance the network they are part of.
19
This study presents several lessons to enhance collaborative networks for better and more
effective results in the emergency management field.
Lesson 1: Emergency management networks are effective to the extent inter-actor
relationships are enhanced for more sustainable relationships.
The actors involved in emergency management collaborative networks should take
partnerships serious. It is not one-way request of information or provision of service in
collaborative networks that makes network work; rather, it is constantly nurtured, enhanced and
increased two-way interactions among functionally inter-related actors to increase organizational
capacity and preparedness for disasters. Network actors that are isolated and disconnected from
the whole might be ineffective, insufficiently prepared, unhelpful and even detrimental to the
whole network especially during the response stage. Thus, network relationships among actors
responsible for emergency management, including mitigation, preparedness, response and
recovery stages, should be constantly increased and enhanced through sustained contact and
interaction for the purposes of synchronization of information, capacity and expectations.
Lesson 2: Emergency management networks should be cautious about the nature of
relationships, specifically against complexity that would damage, rather than contribute to,
overall emergency preparedness and response operations.
Due the fact that collaboration involves multiple actors from different sectors and levels
of government, the collaborative network relationships in emergency management are prone to
be diverse and multi-faceted. This diversity may be reflected in the strength, quality, and nature
of the relationships bringing complexity arising from the need to compromise multiple goals and
expectations. Network actors, thus, face a burden of constantly monitoring their relationships to
bring balance between internal organizational goals and network goals. On the other hand, the
20
assumption that network complexity characterized by multiplicity of organizational goals and
interactions impacts network sustainability is to re-tested across other types of networks.
Lesson 3: Emergency management collaborative networks should invest into
information-communication technologies (ICT) to increase network sustainability.
While the types and the nature of disasters decades ago were simplistic, the increased
severity and scope of emergencies today call upon more sophisticated and coordinated
emergency preparedness and response. The multi-faceted and complex collaborative network
relationships in today’s conditions are manageable and sustainable only through clear and
enhanced communication channels and information sharing systems for the purpose of
coordinated and unified efforts and decision-making. A lack of decision support systems as well
as communication technologies that make cooperation and partnership of geographically
distributed actors possible may be detrimental in time-sensitive and quickly-evolving emergency
preparedness and response networks.
Conclusion
This study analyzed the factors affecting network sustainability in emergency
management context. The main contribution of the study is the statistically confirmed
relationships between network relationships inter-dependency and information-communication
technology (ICT) utilization on the one hand, and network sustainability on the other. The
assumed relationship between network complexity and network sustainability was not supported
by the study findings. Emergency management practitioners should consider development of
network relationships and investment into ICT as important factors to increase network
sustainability, which in turn would result in effective emergency preparedness and response. The
21
need for increased network relationships should not be compromised by the caution against
possible network complexity.
Network sustainability is positively associated with inter-dependent network relationships
and information-communication technology utilization. To achieve sustainable networks, thus,
organizations need to invest into development of dense relationships and technical capacity. The
structure and relationships of organizations do matter when inter-organizational networks are
considered. Accordingly, inter-organizational networks in disaster preparedness and response are
characterized by density of relationships structured in accordance with the phases of emergency
management respectively. The network structure and relationships, and specifically the network
relationships as well as technical capacity of organizations, do contribute to the sustainability,
and, thus, effectiveness/efficiency of emergency preparedness, response and recovery.
22
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory , 1-29.
Birkland, T. A. (1997). After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events.
Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-
sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Liiterature. Public Administration Review ,
44-55.
Bullock, J. A., Haddow, G. D., & Coppola, D. P. (2005). Introduction to Homeland Security.
Burlington: Elsevier, Inc.
Callahan, K., & Holzer, M. (1994). Rethinking Governmental Change: New Ideas, New
Partnerships. Public Productivity and Management Review , 17 (3), 201-214.
Cohen, S. G., & Mankin, D. (1999). Collaboration in the Virtual Organization. In C. L. Cooper,
& D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trend in Organizational Behavior: The Virtual Organization
(pp. 105-120). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Davies, R. (2003, November 24). Network Perspectives in the Evaluation of Development
Interventions: More Than a Metaphor. Retrieved from www.mande.co.uk/docs/nape.pdf
Dawes, S. S., & Eglene, O. (2004). New Models of Collaboration for Delivering Government
Services: A Dynamic Model Drawn from Multi-national Research. 2004 Annual National
Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 1-11). Seattle, WA: Digital
Government Society of North America .
den Hengst, M., & Sol, H. G. (2001). The Impact of Information and Coordination Technology
on Interorganizational Coordination: Guidelines from Theory. Informing Science , 4 (4),
129-138.
23
DeSanctis, G., Staudenmayer, N., & Wong, S. S. (1999). Interdependence in Virtual
Organizations. In C. L. Cooper, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trend in Organizational
Behavior: The Virtual Organization (pp. 81-104). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Drabek, T. E., Tamminga, H. L., Kilijanek, T. S., & Adams, C. R. (1981). Managing
Multiorganizational Emergency Responses: Emergent Search and Rescue Networks in
Natural Disaster and Remote Area Settings. Boulder: University of Colorado.
Fiszben, A., & Lowden, P. (1999). Working Together for a Change: Government, Civic and
Business Partnerships for Poverty Reduction in Latin America and the Carribean.
Washington, D.C.: Economic Development Institute of the World Bank.
Gillespie, D. F., Colignon, R. A., Banerjee, M. M., Murty, S. A., & Rogge, M. (1993).
Partnerships for Community Preparedness. Boudler: University of Colorado.
Grabowski, M., & Roberts, K. H. (1999). Risk Mitigation in Virtual Organizations. Organization
Science , 10 (6), 704-721.
Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From?
American Journal of Sociology , 177-231.
Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (1999). Building Collaborative Cross-Functional New
Product Teams. Academy of Management , 13 (3), 50-63.
Jordan, A. E. (2010). Collaborative Relationships Resulting from the Urban Area Security
Initiative. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management , 7 (1), Article 38.
Kamarck, E. C. (2003). Applying 21st-Century Government to the Challenge of Homeland
Security. In J. M. Kamensky, & T. J. Burlin (Eds.), Collaboration Using Networks and
Partnerships (pp. 103-146). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
24
Kapucu, N. (2009). Interorganizational Coordination in Complex Environments of Disasters:
The Evolution of Intergovernmental Disaster Response Systems. Journal of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management , 6 (1), 1-26.
Kapucu, N. & Garayev, V. (2011). Collaborative Decision-Making in Emergency and Crisis
Management. International Journal of Public Administration. 34(6): 366-375.
Kapucu, N., & Van Wart, M. (2006). The Evolving Role of the Public Sector in Managing
Catastrophic Disasters: Lessons Learned. Administration and Society , 38 (3), 279-308.
Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., & Demiroz, F. (2010). Collaborative emergency management and
national emergency management network. Disaster Prevention and Management , 19 (4),
452-468.
Kelly, J., & Stark, D. (2002). Crisis, recovery, innovation: responsive organization after
September 11. New York: Center on Organizational Innovation.
Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. M. (2000). Public management and Policy Network: Foundations
of a network approach to governance. Public Management , 2 (2), 135–158.
McDonald, D. D. (2008, January 8). Collaborative Decisionmaking in Disaster Response
Situations. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from Dennis McDonald's Blog:
http://www.ddmcd.com/managing-technology/collaborative-decisionmaking-in-disaster-
response-situations.html
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). How Networks Are Governed. In C. J. Heinrich, & L.
E. Lynn (Eds.), Governance and Performance: New Perspectives (pp. 238-262).
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Mowshowitz, A. (1997). On the Theory of Virtual Organization. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science , 14, 373–384.
25
Mushkatel, A. H., & Weschler, L. F. (1985). Emergency Management and the Intergovernmental
System. Public Administration Review , 45 (Special Issue), 49-56.
Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational Networks at the Network Level:
A Review of the Empirical Literature on Whole Networks. Journal of Management , 33
(3), 479-516.
Schroeder, A. D., Wamsley, G. L., & Ward, R. (2001). The Evolution of Emergency
Management in America. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Handbook of Crisis and Emergency
Management. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Snow, C. C., Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). The Virtual Organization: Promises and Payoffs,
Large and Small. In C. L. Cooper, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trend in Organizational
Behavior: The Virtual Organization (pp. 15-30). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sylves, R. T. (2007). Federal Emergency Management Comes of Age: 1979-2001. In C. B.
Rubin (Ed.), Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900-2005 (pp. 111-
153). Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute.
Thurmaier, K., & Wood, C. (2002). Interlocal Agreements as Overlapping Social Networks:
Picket-Fence Regionalism in Metropolitan Kansas City. Public Administration Review ,
62 (5), 585-698.
Trotter, R. T., Briody, E. K., Sengir, G. H., & Meerwarth, T. L. (2008). The Life Cycle of
Collaborative Partnerships: Evolution of Structure and Roles in Industry-University
Research Networks. Connections , 28 (1), 40-58.
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing Collaborative Relations. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science , 39 (1), 5-31.
26
Ward, R., & Wamsley, G. (2007). From a Painful Past to un Uncertain Future. In C. B. Rubin
(Ed.), Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900-2005 (pp. 207-242).
Fairfax: Public Entity Risk Institue.
Weber, E. P. (2003). Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management,
Accountability, and Sustainable Communities. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
27
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Index Items for Dependent and Independent Variables
Construct Items α
value
Net
wor
k R
elat
ions
hips
(I
ndep
ende
nt)
Our organization develops long-run relationships with other organizations
0.880
Our organization exchanges resources with other organizations
Our organization exchanges information with other organizations
Our organization works towards a common goal as other responsible organizations
Our organization is involved in partnership practices with other organizations
Our organization is involved in collective/shared making decisions for disaster response
Com
plex
ity
(Ind
epen
dent
)
Disaster response is challenging because it requires working with other organizations
0.801
Disaster response is challenging because it requires working under other functions (i.e., ESFs)
Disaster response is challenging because different agencies often have different goals
Disaster response is challenging because different agencies often work against each other
Disaster response is challenging because organizations involved are so different from one another
ICT
(I
ndep
ende
nt)
Our organization relies upon the use of information technology in communication and coordination
0.708
Our organization’s operations are streamlined by technological tools of communication and coordination Our organization has sufficient technical and technological capacity to deal with disasters
The use of ICT facilitates/enhances the operations of our organization
Our operations are supported by a disaster information management system (WebEOC, E-Team, etc.)
Net
wor
k S
usta
inab
ilit
y (D
epen
dent
)
Our organization maintains relationships with other organizations with role in disaster preparedness and response
0.742
In the absence of disasters, our organization sustains relationships with other organizations
In the absence of disasters, our organization is involved in collaborative practices (such as exercises, and meetings) with organizations we collaborate during disaster responseCritical relationships among disaster response agencies become formalized so that they are sustainable over time