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

Berchtold, Claudia; Vollmer, Maike; Sendrowski, Philip; Neisser, Florian; Müller, Larissa; Grigoleit, Sonja

doi:10.1007/s13753-020-00249-y

Cited by 26 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Claudia Berchtold et al (21) analyzed interorganizational challenges and introduced governmental organizations, political and legal conditions, organization of national cultures, personal preferences, and experiences of players as the main challenges. Their results were completely consistent with the findings of the present study; however, this study also addressed intraorganizational challenges.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences of Experts with Communication and Information Exchange in Response to Disasters

2022

ircmj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Effective communication and timely information exchange during disasters and emergencies can help responsive organizations prepare better and react fast and effectively in order to mitigate losses and casualties. Objectives: This study summarizes the experiences of experts at Iran’s Relief and Rescue Organization and Emergency Organization with regard to how communication and information exchange contributed in response to past disasters. Methods:: The content analysis approach was used in this qualitative study. The statistical population included the operational managers and employees of Iran’s Relief and Rescue Organization and Emergency Organization from different provinces with various in managerial and field work's experiences at supreme, middle, and operational levels as well as experiences with local, provincial, regional, national, and international disasters. The purposive sampling method was then employed to collect data through semi-structured interviews from 24 participants. Data analysis was performed in MAXQDA 12. Findings: The results of analyzing the interviews included a main theme of communication and information exchange with two categories. The first category was identified as intra-organizational communication and information exchange with seven subcategories called organizational individuals and departments, communication channels, communication model, message content, purpose of communication, standards and instructions, and challenges. The second category was identified as inter-organizational communication and information exchange with six subcategories called organizational individuals and departments, communication channels, communication model, message content, purpose of communication, and challenges. Conclusion: The participants believed that there were limited horizontal communications and information exchange between Iran’s Relief and Rescue Organization and Iran’s Emergency Organization at the same level via fixed phones, mobile phones, and wireless radios in response to disasters. Therefore, disturbance to accurate timely communication and information exchange between organizations, especially in the first 24 hours of a disaster and lack of inter-organizational agreements and communication infrastructure result in the further vulnerability of victims, Red Crescent rescuer, and emergency technicians.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences of Experts with Communication and Information Exchange in Response to Disasters

2022

ircmj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The obvious pandemic co-operator to fire rescue service is healthcare service which states a core emergency foundation in pandemic and needs operational support from other emergency services, public administration etc., (Jouffroy et al, 2020). It finds its justification in preparing emergency infrastructure to disasters (Ortiz-Barrios et al, 2020) and fighting barriers in interorganizational disaster response (Berchtold et al, 2020).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

To Manage Societal Security in COVID-19: Operational Continuity of Fire Rescue Service in Disaster Conditions

Gromek¹,

Wojakowska²

2021

ERSJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The research objective is the question "How to manage societal security in COVID-19 conditions from the perspective of operational continuity of fire rescue service?" Design/Methodology/Approach: In order to achieve the research objective, the qualitative method was used. The research materials was collected using the SWOT analysis. We involved 99 fire rescue experts in SWOT analysis to identify the continuity factors. Basing on 3731 elementary results, we unified them to the reference 40 (10 per each SWOT category). This gave us a background to formulate specific and general manners to ensure the security. The collected empirical data was processed using the methods of analysis, synthesis and comparison to form conclusions. Deductive and inductive inference methods enabled the presentation of a comprehensive approach to social safety management. Findings: Specific methods relate to SWOT results, risk specifications and service conditions. Particular attention should be paid to physical isolation, organizational flexibility, personal protective equipment, training and access to up-to-date information on the outbreak. The research results can be used in scientific works, as well as in expert opinions for the needs of public administration units, in particular for the improvement of the management process of fire protection units. Practical Implications: The study will positively influence the understanding of the needs of various participants in the safety management process, both in the current functioning of the organization and in crisis situations. Originality/ Value: The study is an opportunity to present a comprehensive approach to managing social security in the face of COVID-19 and future epidemics. It covers risk management, operational continuity, and the safety and well-being of firefighters. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to present such an approach.

show abstract

“…(2007),Neville et al (2016),Tubin and Levin-Rozalis (2008),Uhr et al (2008),Vlaar et al (2006),Wolbers et al (2018),Yeo (2020),Zinke et al (2010) 6. Literature on processes:Berchtold et al (2020),Boin and Bynander (2015),Boin et al (2013), BBK (2016),Bunker et al (2015),Comfort and Kapucu (2006), Department of Homeland Security (n.d),Groenendaal et al (2013),Hackstein et al (2016),Hofinger (2009),Hofinger and Beck (2017), Koski et al (2020), K€ unzer et al (2012), Kuipers et al (2015), Lasogga and von Ameln (2010), Ley et al (2014), Neville et al (2016), Reuter (2015), Wolbers and Boersma (2013), Yeo (2020), Zareii et al (2014), Zinke et al (2010) 7. Literature on knowledge: Bechky and Okhuysen (2011), Berchtold et al (2020), Boin and Bynander (2015), Boin et al (2013), BBK (2016), Bunker et al (2015), Comfort (2007), Hackstein et al (2016), Hofinger (2009), Koski et al (2020), K€ unzer et al (2012), Majchrzak et al (2007), Yeo (2020), Waring et al (2018), Wolbers and Boersma (2013), Yeo (2020), Zinke et al (2010) 8.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Literature on knowledge: Bechky and Okhuysen (2011), Berchtold et al (2020), Boin and Bynander (2015), Boin et al (2013), BBK (2016), Bunker et al (2015), Comfort (2007), Hackstein et al (2016), Hofinger (2009), Koski et al (2020), K€ unzer et al (2012), Majchrzak et al (2007), Yeo (2020), Waring et al (2018), Wolbers and Boersma (2013), Yeo (2020), Zinke et al (2010) 8. Literature on social aspects: Bechky and Okhuysen (2011),Beck and Plowman (2014),Berchtold et al (2020),Boin and Bynander (2015), BBK (2016),Comfort and Kapucu (2006),Gimenez et al (2017),Hackstein et al (2016),Hofinger (2009),Hofinger and Beck (2017), K€ unzer et al (2012),Lasogga and von Ameln (2010),Majchrzak et al (2007),Scanlon (1999),Tubin and Levin-Rozalis (2008),Uhr et al (2008),Vlaar et al (2006),Waring et al (2018),Yeo (2020),Zareii et al (2014) 9. Literature on technology:Berchtold et al (2020),Bunker et al (2015), BBK (2016),Comfort and Kapucu (2006), Department of Homeland Security (n.d.),K€ unzer et al (2012),Ley et al (2014), Reuter (2015,Rusch (2019)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Literature on social aspects: Bechky and Okhuysen (2011),Beck and Plowman (2014),Berchtold et al (2020),Boin and Bynander (2015), BBK (2016),Comfort and Kapucu (2006),Gimenez et al (2017),Hackstein et al (2016),Hofinger (2009),Hofinger and Beck (2017), K€ unzer et al (2012),Lasogga and von Ameln (2010),Majchrzak et al (2007),Scanlon (1999),Tubin and Levin-Rozalis (2008),Uhr et al (2008),Vlaar et al (2006),Waring et al (2018),Yeo (2020),Zareii et al (2014) 9. Literature on technology:Berchtold et al (2020),Bunker et al (2015), BBK (2016),Comfort and Kapucu (2006), Department of Homeland Security (n.d.),K€ unzer et al (2012),Ley et al (2014), Reuter (2015,Rusch (2019)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Production of event security in Germany – empirical findings on perceptions of interorganisational collaboration between various security actors

Schütte

Willmes²

2022

IJEFM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper aims to explore interorganisational collaboration on event security in Germany. Therefore, it focusses on perceptions of representatives from emergency and law enforcement agencies (ELEAs) as well as commercial event stewards and security providers (ESSPs) who work together in the area. The following questions are addressed in this paper: how do the actors perceive inter-organisational collaboration on event security? In these actors' view, what factors define collaboration?Design/methodology/approachFor this study, a literature review was carried out on success-critical factors of inter-organisational collaboration at security-related settings. The results have been grouped into categories, which are assigned to sociotechnical core elements. These are the basis of a qualitative content analysis of 47 semi-structured interviews with ELEA and ESSP representatives in the context of 15 major events in Germany.FindingsThe findings support the assumption that interorganisational collaboration on event security theoretically and in the perception of on-site experts emerges as a sociotechnical system within the setting of major events. Successful collaboration is determined by human, technical and organisational factors, which interconnect the collaborating actors and ideally stabilise their work relations.Originality/valueThis article contributes to the literature regarding event and security research. The results provide insights into hitherto under-represented perspectives of stakeholders on collaboration in event security. The sociotechnical category system adds an approach for the systematic analysis of interorganisational security production.

show abstract

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

Cited by 26 publications

References 18 publications

Experiences of Experts with Communication and Information Exchange in Response to Disasters

Experiences of Experts with Communication and Information Exchange in Response to Disasters

To Manage Societal Security in COVID-19: Operational Continuity of Fire Rescue Service in Disaster Conditions

Production of event security in Germany – empirical findings on perceptions of interorganisational collaboration between various security actors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About