Advancing the Field of Disaster Response Management: Toward a Design Science Approach

Abstract

Multiorganizational response to emergencies and disasters requires collaboration. How to improve the collective response is therefore an essential question, but not easy to answer. In disaster research, normative research with a focus on providing evidence for how to improve professional practice has traditionally received less attention than explanatory ones. The aim of this article, using insights from design science where normative research is more common, is to suggest a complementary approach to response management research. Our approach, which combines experimental and explanatory research, is applied to a study of goal alignment. Goal alignment among response actors is often recommended despite literature’s contradictory evidence regarding its effect. We conducted an experiment with 111 participants, who, in groups of three, played a computer game under one of two conditions (goal alignment or not). Our results show that aligning goals did not improve the outcome in the game. Although this may serve as a counterargument to implementing goal alignment interventions, there are concerns with such conclusions. These reservations include, but are not limited to, the lack of validated models to use in experiments. Nevertheless, our suggested research approach and the goal alignment experiment highlight the importance of testing interventions and their effectiveness before implementation.

Keywords

Design science / Disaster response management / Experimental research / Goal alignment

References

[1] Aldrich DP. Challenges to coordination: Understanding intergovernmental friction during disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2019, 10(3): 306-316

[2] van Aken JE. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 2004, 41(2): 219-246

[3] van Aken JE. Management research as a design science: Articulating the research products of Mode 2 knowledge production in management. British Journal of Management, 2005, 16(1): 19-36

[4] van Aken JE. Valid knowledge for the professional design of large and complex design processes. Design Studies, 2005, 26(4): 379-404

[5] Ansell C, Boin A, Keller A. Managing transboundary crises: Identifying the building blocks of an effective response system. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2010, 18(4): 195-207

[6] Arce DG, Croson RTA, Eckel CC. Terrorism experiments. Journal of Peace Research, 2011, 48(3): 373-382

[7] Aven T. An emerging new risk analysis science: Foundations and implications. Risk Analysis, 2018, 38(5): 876-888

[8] Aven T, Renn O. Some foundational issues related to risk governance and different types of risks. Journal of Risk Research, 2019, 23(9): 1121-1134

[9] Biswas PK. Networks of small enterprises, architecture of governance and incentive alignment: Some cases from India. AI and Society, 2011, 26(4): 383-391

[10] Boin A. Lessons from crisis research. International Studies Review, 2004, 6(1): 165-194

[11] Brehmer B. Dynamic decision making: Human control of complex systems. Acta Psychologica, 1992, 81(3): 211-241

[12] de Bruijne M, van Eeten M. Systems that should have failed: Critical infrastructure protection in an institutionally fragmented environment. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2007, 15(1): 18-29

[13] Combe IA, Carrington DJ. Leaders’ sensemaking under crises: Emerging cognitive consensus over time within management teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 2015, 26(3): 307-322

[14] Coppola DP. Introduction to international disaster management, 2011 2 Burlington, USA: Elsevier

[15] Danielsson E. Following routines: A challenge in cross-sectorial collaboration. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2016, 24(1): 36-45

[16] David E. Emergent behavior and groups in postdisaster New Orleans: Notes on practices of organized resistance. In Learning from catastrophe: Quick response research in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 2006, Boulder, CO: Natural Hazards Center

[17] Dekker S, Pruchnicki S. Drifting into failure: Theorising the dynamics of disaster incubation. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2014, 15(6): 534-544

[18] Denyer D, Tranfield D, van Aken J. Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies, 2008, 29(3): 393-413

[19] Dynes RR. Organized behavior in disaster, 1970, Lexington, MA: Heath-Lexington Books

[20] Eiser R, Bostrom A, Burton I, Johnston DM, McClure J, Paton D, van der Pligt J, White MP. Risk interpretation and action: A conceptual framework for responses to natural hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2012, 1: 5-16

[21] Ekman, O., and C. Uhr. 2015. Global model for direction and coordination in multi-actor crisis management. In Proceedings of the 20th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, 16−19 June 2015, Annapolis, USA, track “Concepts, Theory, and Policy”, paper 011.

[22] Falk A, Heckman JJ. Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 2009, 326(5952): 535-538

[23] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2010. Developing and maintaining emergency operations plans – Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101. Washington, DC: FEMA. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/CPG_101_V2_30NOV2010_FINAL_508.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2021.

[24] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2017. National incident management system. Washington, DC: FEMA. https://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/NIMS_core.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2021.

[25] Fong EA, Tosi HL. Effort, performance, and conscientiousness: An agency theory perspective. Journal of Management, 2007, 33(2): 161-179

[26] Frykmer T. “What’s the problem?” – Toward a framework for collective problem representation in emergency response management. Journal of Emergency Management, 2020, 18(6): 511-524

[27] Frykmer, T., C. Uhr, and H. Tehler. 2018. On collective improvisation in crisis management – A scoping study analysis. Safety Science 110(C): 100–109.

[28] Gigerenzer G, Goldstein D. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 1996, 103(4): 650-669

[29] Hansson SO, Aven T. Is risk analysis scientific?. Risk Analysis, 2014, 34(7): 1173-1183

[30] Hart PT, Boin A. Rosenthal U, Boin A, Comfort LK. Between crisis and normalcy: The long shadow of post-crisis politics. Managing crises—Threats, dilemmas, opportunities, 2001, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas 28-46.

[31] Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S. Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 2004, 28(1): 75-105

[32] IASC (Inter-Agency Standing Committee) Handbook for RCs and HCs on emergency preparedness and response, 2010, Geneva: IASC

[33] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 1979, 47(2): 263-292

[34] Kalkman JP, Groenewegen P. On frontline workers as bureau-political actors: The case of civil–military crisis management. Administration and Society, 2018, 51(7): 1148-1170

[35] Kalkman JP, Kerstholt JH, Roelofs M. Crisis response team decision-making as a bureau-political process. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2018, 26(4): 480-490

[36] Kramer RM. A failure to communicate: 9/11 and the tragedy of the informational commons. International Public Management Journal, 2011, 8(3): 397-416

[37] Kuechler B, Vaishnavi V. On theory development in design science research: Anatomy of a research project. European Journal of Information Systems, 2008, 17(5): 489-504

[38] Lee, H.L. 2004. The Triple-A supply chain. Harvard Business Review, October 2004. https://hbr.org/2004/10/the-triple-a-supply-chain, Accessed 7 Jan 2021.

[39] Leenaars, C.H.C., C. Kouwenaar, F.R. Stafleu, A. Bleich, M. Ritskes-Hoitinga, R.B.M. De Vries, and F.L.B. Meijboom. 2019. Animal to human translation: A systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates. Journal of Translational Medicine 17: Article 223.

[40] Leonard B, Donnerstein E. External validity is more than skin deep. American Psychologist, 1982, 37(3): 245-257

[41] Mäki U. Models are experiments, experiments are models. Journal of Economic Methodology, 2005, 12(2): 303-315

[42] McEntire DA, Fuller C, Johnston CW, Weber R. A comparison of disaster paradigms: The search for a holistic policy guide. Public Administration Review, 2002, 62(3): 267-281

[43] MSB (Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap, Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency) Common guidelines for collaboration and command in societal disruptions (Gemensamma grunder för samverkan och ledning vid samhällsstörningar), 2017, Stockholm: Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap (in Swedish)

[44] Narayanan, V.G., and A. Raman. 2004. Aligning incentives in supply chains. Harvard Business Review, November 2004. https://hbr.org/2004/11/aligning-incentives-in-supply-chains. Accessed 3 Jan 2021.

[45] von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior, 1944, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

[46] Nohrstedt D, Bynander F, Parker C, Hart Pt. Managing crises collaboratively: Prospects and problems—A systematic literature review. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2018, 1(4): 1-15

[47] Phillips BD, Neal DM, Webb GR. Introduction to emergency management, 2016 2 Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis

[48] Pramanik R, Ekman O, Hassel H, Tehler H. Organizational adaptation in multi-stakeholder crisis response: An experimental study. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2015, 23(4): 234-245

[49] Quarantelli, E.L. 2000. Emergencies, disaster and catastrophes are different phenomena. DRC preliminary paper No. 304. Newark, DE: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.

[50] Quarantelli, E.L., R.R. Dynes, and E.J. Haas. 1966. Organizational functioning in disaster: A preliminary report. DRC working paper No. 7. Newark, DE: Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.

[51] Rinaldi SM, Peerenboom JP, Kelly TK. Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 2001, 21(6): 11-25

[52] Rodriguez H, Quarantelli EL, Dynes RR. Handbook of disaster research, 2007, Berlin: Springer

[53] Romme AGL. Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science, 2003, 14(5): 558-573

[54] Rosenthal U, Hart P' t, Kouzmin A. The bureau-politics of crisis management. Public Administration, 1991, 69(2): 211-233

[55] Shinohara K, Aoki T, So R, Tsujimoto Y, Suganuma AM, Kise M, Furukawa TA. Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: A web-based randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open, 2017, 7(12): 1-9

[56] Simon HA. The sciences of the artificial, 1996 3 Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

[57] SRA (Society for Risk Analysis). 2018. Society for Risk Analysis glossary. https://www.sra.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SRA-Glossary-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2021.

[58] Stirrat J. Competitive humanitarianism. Anthropology Today, 2006, 22(5): 11-16

[59] Tetlock P, Gardner D. Superforecasting—The art and science of prediction, 2015, New York: Crown Publishing

[60] Tosi HL, Katz JP, Gomez-Mejia LR. Disaggregating the agency contract: The effects of monitoring, incentive alignment, and term in office on agent decision making. The Academy of Management Journal, 1997, 40(3): 584-602.

[61] Uhr C. Leadership ideals as barriers for efficient collaboration during emergencies and disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2017, 25(4): 301-312

[62] UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) Handbook for emergencies, 2015, Geneva: UNHCR

[63] Wachtendorf, T. 2004. Improvising 9/11: Organizational improvisation following the World Trade Center Disaster. Ph.D dissertation, University of Delaware, 2004. Newark, DE: University of Delaware.

[64] Watts, D.J. 2017. Should social science be more solution-oriented? Nature Human Behaviour 1(1): Article 0015.

[65] Weick KE. Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 1988, 25(4): 305-317