Communication and coordination across event phases: A multi‐team system emergency response

Abstract

This paper explores how multi‐agency response teams communicate and coordinate in different phases of a simulated terrorist incident. Procedural guidelines state that responders should coordinate their response to a major emergency across two phases: ‘response’ (when the incident is ongoing) and ‘recovery’ (when the threat has subsided, but the legacy of the incident is ongoing). However, no research has examined whether these phases map to the behaviours of responders in situ. To address this, we used measures of communication and coordination to examine how behaviours evolved during a simulated terrorist incident in the United Kingdom. We grounded our approach within the theoretical literature on multi‐team systems. It was found that the current response/recovery classification does not fit the nuanced context of an emergency. Instead, a three‐phase structure of ‘response/resolve/recovery’ is more reflective of behaviour. It was also found that coordination between agencies improved when communication networks became less centralized. This suggests that collaborative working in multi‐team systems may be improved by adopting decentralized communication networks. Practitioner points To better prepare responders for emergencies, we recommend a three‐phase structure of ‘response/resolve/recovery’ is introduced in place of the current guidelines that outline a two‐phase structure of response and recovery. A three‐phase structure more accurately describes the behaviours of responders during emergencies and accounts for the shift in urgency between an ongoing incident (response) and shortly afterwards when the immediate threat has subsided (resolve). Given the cognitive load on focal agencies, decentralized communication structures should be introduced in the early phases of an emergency to increase collaborative decision‐making across inter‐agency partners.

Insights on Public Health Professionals Non-technical Skills in an Emergency Response (Multi-Team System) Environment

“…The insights and descriptions provided by the public health professionals are consistent with the definition of MTSs and spoke to the difficulties of coordinating activities across component teams, each with different priorities and agendas ( Marks et al, 2001 ; Zaccaro et al, 2012 ; Luciano et al, 2018 ). Furthermore, participant also reflected on the dynamic and fluid nature of the response environment, consistent with the view that MTSs can be characterized by their ad hoc nature, with teams joining and leaving the response dependent on the demands in the environment ( Luciano et al, 2018 ; Brown et al, 2021 ). Participants reflected closely on the fact that in this environment work is undertaken not only through formed teams but also through formal and informal networks which are created and leveraged to gather and share information; to pool resources and expertise to respond effectively to the emergency.…”

“…This finding indicates that we should view the response system not only in terms of boundary spanning between teams (see Carter, 2014 ), but as an ecosystem—where networks link teams and members together to develop situation awareness, take decisions and collaborate to take action. Conceptually this finding has interesting implications for the broader MTS literature, in which a focus on task completion has largely been used in which to frame and understand the behaviors of individuals operating within the system (see Firth et al, 2015 ; Brown et al, 2021 ). We suggest that future work on MTS may pay closer attention to the way in which relationships across component teams emerge and evolve over time and how the behaviors of individuals within the network support the development of a tightly linked eco-system.…”

“…This is reflected upon in the literature on MTSs, which outlines how component teams must respond effectively to their own organizational priorities (e.g., healthcare professionals must provide care and treatment to members of the public), while simultaneously remaining mindful of the wider over-arching priorities of the multi-team network (e.g., to limit the spread of disease and minimize the impact on the economy) (see Marks et al, 2001 ; Luciano et al, 2018 ; Rico et al, 2018 ; Ward et al, 2020 ). Managing this complex hierarchy of priorities, alongside the need to maintain effective communication with the other teams within the MTS network is challenging and can lead to disagreements over whose objectives should take priority ( Waring et al, 2020 ; Brown et al, 2021 ).…”

“…In the academic literature, these complex networks of teams, formed within the emergency management framework are referred to as multi-team systems (MTSs)—a network of component teams working to achieve separate objectives within the framework of collective, over-arching shared goals ( Mathieu et al, 2001 ). Due to their diverse and multi-faceted nature, MTSs are especially suited to responding in complex, high-stakes emergencies, however, the coming together of multiple agencies can create difficulties in collaboration and coordinated action ( Marks et al, 2005 ; Fodor and Flestea, 2016 ; Brown et al, 2021 ).…”

“…These observations have been met with increased research into non-technical skills in emergency response environments. For instance, research has examined skills such as communication and coordination in military personnel, the blue-light emergency services and search and rescue teams ( Fodor and Flestea, 2016 ; Wijnmaalen et al, 2019 ; Brown et al, 2021 ). There remains however, an absence of research examining the non-technical skills used by public health responders, in addition to limited empirical studies of non-technical skills in complex MTSs.…”