How the Choice of Measures of Effectiveness Constrains Operational Analysis

Raisbeck, Gordon

doi:10.1287/inte.9.4.85

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…of effectiveness (MOEs) are operationally quantifiable management tools that provide a means for measuring effectiveness, outcome, and performance of disaster management. 1 ' 3 ' 4 Measures of effectiveness (MOEs) first were used in industry to measure the reliability and performance of industrial products. During the Vietnam war, the concept was used to measure performance of civil-action programs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measures of Effectiveness in Large-scale Bioterrorism Events

Burkle

2003

Prehosp. Disaster med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measures of effectiveness (MOEs) are defined as operationally quantifiable management tools that provide a means for measuring effectiveness, outcome, and performance. No clear MOEs exist for determining success or failure of the management of a bioterrorism response. This is especially critical because management requires a multi-agency and multi-disciplinary decision-making and evaluation process. It is suggested that the minimum MOEs required to operationally measure outcome must contain a measuring response capacity for: (1) real-time public health surveillance system; (2) full coverage health information system; (3) capacity to measure variance across management timelines; (4) demonstrated decline in mortality and morbidity; (5) control of transmission rates of communicable agents; and (6) resource distribution across the entire population.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measures of Effectiveness in Large-scale Bioterrorism Events

Burkle

2003

Prehosp. Disaster med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…29 The measures must be defined clearly, easily understood, reliable, simple, and informative. It is crucial that they are cost-effective and task-relevant, and that diey supply a common language to all agencies that take part in managing emergency events.…”

Section: Using Measurements In the Assessment Process Assessment Measmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An assessment program must be based on valid, measurable criteria, render reliable, valid results, and draw conclusions about the effectiveness of institutions to manage MCIs. 29 The measures must be defined clearly, easily understood, reliable, simple, and informative. It is crucial that they are cost-effective and task-relevant, and that diey supply a common language to all agencies that take part in managing emergency events.…”

Section: Using Measurements In the Assessment Process Assessment Measmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Levels of Hospital Emergency Preparedness

Adini

Goldberg

Laor

et al. 2006

Prehosp. Disaster med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abbreviations: ASR = acute stress reaction CAR = Capabilities Assessment for Readiness MCI = mass-casualty incident PPE = personal protective equipment Abstract Introduction: Emergency preparedness can be defined by the preparedness pyramid, which identifies planning, infrastructure, knowledge and capabilities, and training as the major components of maintaining a high level of preparedness. The aim of this article is to review the characteristics of contingency plans for mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) and models for assessing the emergency preparedness of hospitals. Characteristics of Contingency Plans: Emergency preparedness should focus on community preparedness, a personnel augmentation plan, and communications and public policies for funding the emergency preparedness. The capability to cope with a MCI serves as a basis for preparedness for non-conventional events. Coping with chemical casualties necessitates decontamination of casualties, treating victims with acute stress reactions, expanding surge capacities of hospitals, and integrating knowledge through drills. Risk communication also is important. Assessment of Emergency Preparedness: An annual assessment of the emergency plan is required in order to assure emergency preparedness. Preparedness assessments should include: (1) elements of disaster planning; (2) emergency coordination; (3) communication; (4) training; (5) expansion of hospital surge capacity; (6) personnel; (7) availability of equipment; (8) stockpiles of medical supplies; and (9) expansion of laboratory capacities. The assessment program must be based on valid criteria that are measurable, reliable, and enable conclusions to be drawn. There are several assessment tools that can be used, including surveys, parameters, capabilities evaluation, and self-assessment tools. Summary: Healthcare systems are required to prepare an effective response model to cope with MCIs. Planning should be envisioned as a process rather than a production of a tangible product. Assuring emergency preparedness requires a structured methodology that will enable an objective assessment of the level of readiness. Adini B, Goldberg A, Laor D, Cohen R, Zadok R, Bar-Dayan Y: Assessing levels of hospital emergency preparedness. Prehosp Disast Mec/2006;21(6):451-457. November -December 2006 http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 452 Assessing Levels of Hospital Preparedness Adini

show abstract

“…Capacity limitations may also induce errors in creative problem-solving by inhibiting the critical analysis of creative processing activities (Cosier & Rose, 1977). Successful creative efforts require careful evaluation of information for reliability, credibility, and relevance (Derow, 1980;Mann, 1989;Raisbeck, 1979). Moreover, in process execution, outputs must be evaluated (Parnes & Noller, 1972;Treffinger, 1995) with these evaluations of output providing a basis for extending initial efforts and redirecting these efforts to enhance performance.…”

Section: Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors in Creative Thought? Cognitive Biases in a Complex Processing Activity

Mumford¹,

Blair²,

Dailey³

et al. 2006

The Journal of Creative Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The generation of new ideas is a complex demanding activity involving multiple processing operations. As is the case in other forms of complex cognition, biases in process execution can induce errors that limit peoples' ability to generate viable new ideas. In the present effort, the nature of these biases, and their impact on creative thought, are examined. It is noted that these biases arise from multiple sources including knowledge, limitations in processing capacity, patterns of information use, and the strategies applied in process execution. The implications of these observations for enhancing creative performance are discussed along with potential strategies for error remediation.

show abstract

How the Choice of Measures of Effectiveness Constrains Operational Analysis

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Measures of Effectiveness in Large-scale Bioterrorism Events

Measures of Effectiveness in Large-scale Bioterrorism Events

Assessing Levels of Hospital Emergency Preparedness

Errors in Creative Thought? Cognitive Biases in a Complex Processing Activity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About