Decision‐making in multiagency multiteam systems operating in extreme environments

Abstract

Extreme environments such as disasters are often managed by several teams working towards a shared goal but with unique sub-goals at individual and team levels. Whilst these multiteam systems provide potential access to a wide pool of knowledge and resources, public inquiries repeatedly highlight coordination difficulties, leading to conflicting decisions and actions. However, limited research has focused on examining the interteam processes used to coordinate decisions in situ within extreme environments in order to cross-validate theory. Accordingly, the following study analyses naturalistic observations conducted during two large-scale live disaster response exercises in order to examine (1) what inter-team processes are used to coordinate decisions, and (2) the extent to which they correspond with a linear phase-based 'Joint Decision Model' (JDM) introduced to national UK disaster response guidance. Findings show responders frequently either revert to gathering information rather than progressing to take action, or take action without deliberately considering options, powers, and policies to form a plan. These non-linear decision processes remain largely similar across both exercises, indicating that the initial implementation of national JDM guidance has not yet led to substantial changes. Further focus is needed to identify mechanisms for improving coordination in practice, including the form and frequency of training required to maintain such complex skills.

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

“…Mapping communication networks as the incident evolved during different event phases illustrated the disconnect between component teams and demonstrated an over‐reliance on the Chair to manage the flow of communications. This highlights the demand placed on central commanders during emergencies: they are required to simultaneously manage communications across the MTS and take the lead on key decisions (Kerslake Report, 2018; Waring, Moran, & Page, 2020). One way to lessen the load on central commanders and increase the connectedness across component teams might be to assign a ‘boundary spanner’ in the response to crises.…”

Policing in pandemics: A systematic review and best practices for police response to COVID-19

“… Steigenberger [ 75 ] Multiple Presents a review of empirical studies on the multi-agency coordination of disaster response operations. Waring et al [ 76 ] Training exercises Presents naturalistic observations conducted during two large-scale live disaster response exercises, finding that participants frequently either revert to gathering information rather than progressing to take action, or take action without deliberately considering options, powers, and policies to form a plan. Wolbers et al [ 77 ] Multiple Analyses the coordination between agencies and organisations for emergency management (inter-organisational coordination), showing the development of effective methods of communication and collaboration.…”

“…In another example, Waring, Moran, and Page [ 76 ] find that especially in collaborative environments, groups reverted back to information-finding rather than implementing decisions and taking action. As a possible solution, the study highlights the importance of strong leadership for steering groups and clear guidelines and time plans to enhance effectiveness and efficiency [ 76 ].…”

Using a Public Safety Radio Network for Information Negotiation between the Three-Tiered Command and Control Structure

“…The respondents at the operational C2S underpinned the importance of the collaboration at the incident command location on the emergency site. As the stakeholders at the operational C2S usually make rapid decisions based on the recognition of familiar cues [36], it is likely that the communication between actors is a continual discourse. Based on the results, Figure 2 demonstrates how a common call group can be used for information sharing.…”