Information sharing in interteam responses to disaster

Abstract

Research demonstrates that information sharing is facilitated by familiarity, and having a common understanding of problems, use of lexicon, and semantic meaning. These factors can be difficult to develop within extreme environments such as disasters as members of the multi‐agency system that responds often have limited experience of working together. Public inquiries repeatedly highlight the impact of information sharing difficulties on public safety, but limited academic research has focused on identifying concrete behaviours that facilitate interteam information sharing within such environments. This paper presents a case study of a national disaster response exercise involving 1,000 emergency responders. Data consist of structured observations, recordings of interteam meetings, and interviews with emergency responders. Results of mixed‐method analysis indicate that interteam information sharing is delayed by limited situation awareness and poor articulation. Conversely, adopting behaviours that promote common frames for understanding interteam capabilities and information requirements improves information sharing and potentially reduces cognitive effort required to process information. Findings contribute to interteam communication theory by highlighting that in complex, time‐constrained environments, having a shared understanding of responsibilities and information requirement is important for minimizing redundant deliberation and improving relevance and speed.Practitioner points Facilitating the exchange and interpretation of relevant information is important for improving situation assessment, decision‐making, and the implementation of appropriate actions for addressing risks.Interteam information sharing can be particularly challenging when teams are comprised of members from across different organizations with different language and cultures that must form ad hoc to rapidly respond to problems in extreme environments.Adopting communication strategies that develop common frames‐of‐reference can facilitate information sharing and interteam responses to disasters.

The role of information sharing on decision delay during multiteam disaster response

“…Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM) research examines how decisions are made in dynamic, real-world contexts characterized by time pressure, risk, uncertainty, shifting and competing goals, and accountability pressure (Lipshitz et al 2001). This often includes extreme environments in which lives are at stake, such as military combat (Thunholm 2005), firefighting (Klein et al 1986), counter-terrorism policing (van den Heuvel et al 2012), and disaster response (Waring et al 2018). Findings from this domain highlight the importance of access to relevant information for developing an accurate understanding of the situation and how it may progress to tailor decisions and actions (Rankin et al 2013).…”

Barriers and Facilitators in Interorganizational Disaster Response: Identifying Examples Across Europe

“…Building on the above-mentioned works and further readings (Endsley 1995;Balcik and Beamon 2008; Groenendaal et al 2013;Radisch et al 2013;Waring et al 2018), five functions were selected as tasks that structured the interview design-situation assessment; decision making; coordination, command, and control; logistics; and communication with the public (Table 2).…”

“…How it is used is partially determined by organizational structures and the management of information within and across organizations. Many organizations are organized in a three-tiered hierarchical command structure, with decisions being fed from strategic (responsible for setting overall objectives) to tactical (setting parameters and level of autonomy for operational level to work to) and operational (managing the incident ground) level (Waring et al 2018).…”

Threat intelligence platform for the energy sector

“…In the disaster recovery area, Waring et al studied mechanisms that influence information exchange between emergency response teams. Their analyses revealed that clearly stated rationale, proper assignment of roles, and well‐established procedures facilitate the IS, while limited SA and incapacitated expression of information impede it.…”