Air Transport System Agility: The Agile Response Capability (ARC) Methodology for Crisis Preparedness

Woltjer, Rogier; Johansson, Björn; Oskarsson, Per-Anders; Svenmarck, Peter; Kirwan, Barry

doi:10.3390/infrastructures7020011

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mobilization of social science expertise alongside the expertise already dominant in pandemic planning is also key to facilitating public engagement” (20, p. 181–182). Along these lines, a new preparedness philosophy might emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, maybe revolving around a “whole-of-organizations” approach, aiming at fostering organizational capacities in responding to cross-sectoral crises [ 80 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legacy of the Pandemic Preparedness Regime: An Integrative Review

Bourrier¹,

Deml²

2022

Int J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The global response to COVID-19 inherited a long history of preparedness features pertaining to various threats, including bioterrorism, (re)-emerging infectious diseases, and pandemics. We describe the evolution of pandemic preparedness frameworks, before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: We conducted an integrative literature review of publicly available documents, including grey and scientific literature, on pandemic preparedness frameworks. We relied on social science literature as a main source and used search keywords: pandemic preparedness, H1N1, COVID-19, “whole-of-society”/“whole-of-community.”Results: The H1N1 pandemic (2009–2010) tested pandemic preparedness frameworks. Lessons-learned reports concluded that the global H1N1 response were too strong and unnecessarily alarming. Such critiques, pandemic fatigue, and budgetary cuts post-2008 explain lack of preparedness for COVID-19. Critiques culminated in a shift towards a “whole-of-society” approach to health crises, although its uptake has not been ideal.Conclusion: Traditional preparedness regime limits arose again during the COVID-19 pandemic. The “whole-of-society” approach was not fully deployed in COVID-19 responses. A “whole-of-organizations” approach could be designed, ensuring that countries consider local organizations’ potential to partake in containing infectious disease and counter undesirable side-effects of non-pharmaceutical measures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legacy of the Pandemic Preparedness Regime: An Integrative Review

Bourrier¹,

Deml²

2022

Int J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…b,c,f (Hammer sim#2 questionnaire) All these aspects taken together means that the different groups had to coordinate their actions and mission to a higher degree than what is customary in regular simulator training. 51,63 This is a major skill for being successful in controlling dynamic systems and hence being successful in accomplishing a mission. The LVC-T scenario therefore shows promise with the allocations that were made of L-, V-, and C-entities and their tasks to provide training value to both L-and V-entities.…”

Section: Lds1: Implementation: Behavioral Implications In Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A live mindset in Live Virtual Constructive simulations: a spin-up for future LVC air combat training

Aronsson

Artman

Mitchell

et al. 2022

Journal of Defense Modeling & Simulation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combining Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) aircraft in the same training scenario holds promise for developing and enhancing fighter pilot training. The simulator study reported here builds on joint pilot-researcher co-design work of beyond visual range LVC training (LVC-T) scenarios to provide training value to pilots in both Live and Virtual aircraft. One fourship of pilots simulated Live entities by acting under peacetime restrictions, while other pilots acted as during regular Virtual training. The objective was to investigate pilots’ reflections on the implications of LVC-T and on the methodology used to provide hands-on experience of a plausible LVC-T scenario. The purpose is to inform the design and use of future LVC in air combat training from the perspective of training value. Results indicate that pilots are positive toward the LVC scenario design, especially the dynamics that a large-scale scenario brings to training of decision making. They indicate a high degree of presence, the need for specific regulations to enforce flight safety, and that restrictions put on the simulated Live entities had implications for the other pilots. In addition to regular Live (L) and simulator (V + C) training, LVC-T may enhance pilots’ repertoires and decision-making patterns.

show abstract

“…Groenendaal and Helsloo (2020) have introduced an approach based on the concept of 'anticipated improvisation' as an extension of conventional BCM, which enhances the organisational adaptive capacity to deal with unpredictable major impact events. This approach recognises the need for organizations to be agile (Woltjer et al, 2022) and flexible in response to dynamic environments, while also being able to anticipate and prepare for unexpected disruptions. By embracing complex adaptive systems models, organisations can better navigate the challenges posed by complex and unpredictable events, ultimately improving their resilience and ability to survive and thrive in the face of adversity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Business continuity and resilience management: A conceptual framework

Steen,

Haug,

Patriarca

2023

Contingencies & Crisis Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The overall objective of business continuity management (BCM) systems is to provide guidance and analytical subcomponents on how to assess and manage risk and sustain operations when facing a disruptive event. Current BCM practices largely follow a standard structure for formal planning processes and risk‐assessment activities. An underlying assumption in standard practices is that systems can be decomposed in subsystems in a meaningful way, as they are tractable and data are available to predict the system's future functionality. However, the reality is much more complex in our volatile world. Standard BCM approaches do not pay adequate attention to the treatment of uncertainties. Thus, they fall short of addressing the complexity of operations involved with emergencies and crisis. Lack of focus on uncertainty hampers the ability of BCM systems to provide sufficient support for decision making in highly uncertain situations. Dealing with such situations necessitates a shift from a defensive risk‐management approach, grounded on an illusion of control and accountability, to a proactive stance based on resilience thinking. Responding to this call, we use concepts from the resilience engineering (RE) field and link them to different components of a BCM system. We develop a novel BCM framework and identify a set of resilience influence factors to enhance resilience in BCM systems. We use a case‐example, hosted by a leading organization in a second‐line emergency response operation in Norway to reflect on the application of a suggested BCM framework.

show abstract

Air Transport System Agility: The Agile Response Capability (ARC) Methodology for Crisis Preparedness

Cited by 9 publications

References 28 publications

The Legacy of the Pandemic Preparedness Regime: An Integrative Review

The Legacy of the Pandemic Preparedness Regime: An Integrative Review

A live mindset in Live Virtual Constructive simulations: a spin-up for future LVC air combat training

Business continuity and resilience management: A conceptual framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About