Implementation through collaborative crisis management and contingency planning: the case of dam failure in Sweden

Persson, Erik; Granberg, Mikael

doi:10.1080/13669877.2020.1863845

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(58 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has limited scale, may create internal conflict, lacks sustainability, and has a nonbinding character. The case of Indonesia is not typical, as some scholars have raised similar concerns [38,48].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collaboration, at the very least, increases policy, government, and state legitimacy [37]. CCM is then a mix of collaborative public management and crisis management [38].…”

Section: Toward Collaborative Crisis Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moving beyond leadership and other technical or managerial concerns, CCM needs to be approached critically. Persson and Granberg [38] expressed concern about the scope of collaboration, which they believe will limit its capacity. Cristofoli et al [48] maintain the importance of legitimacy and accountability.…”

Section: Toward Collaborative Crisis Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Revisiting Crisis Governance: Toward Collaborative Crisis Management

Lele¹

2023

Crisis Management - Principles, Roles and Application

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter attends to three main modes of crisis governance: centralization, decentralization, and collaborative crisis management (CCM). While the first two modes focus almost exclusively on government actors, CCM goes beyond them by involving private sectors and civil society. CCM is a more robust form of crisis governance since it combines knowledge and resources from multiple actors, which is a key to managing the more complex nature of modern crises. This chapter uses the case of Indonesia in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic to show the dynamics of crisis governance. Indonesia moved from a centralized mode of crisis governance toward a more decentralized one. Simultaneously, there were several collaborative initiatives involving multiple stakeholders to deal with the crisis, such as in the case of SONJO. The case illustrates that while CCM provides a more effective response, it has some limitations as it has a smaller scale, may create internal conflict, lacks sustainability, and has a nonbinding character. The experience of Indonesia lends the lesson that for CCM to be robust crisis governance, and there needs to be a clear arrangement to boost its scale, manage internal conflict, improve sustainability, and induce a more permanent and binding framework.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collaboration, at the very least, increases policy, government, and state legitimacy [37]. CCM is then a mix of collaborative public management and crisis management [38].…”

Section: Toward Collaborative Crisis Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting Crisis Governance: Toward Collaborative Crisis Management

Lele¹

2023

Crisis Management - Principles, Roles and Application

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crisis management often requires collaborative implementation and policymaking (Persson & Granberg, 2021). Further, in many cases, the policymaking around a particular crisis is often conducted within the context of short “policy windows”, as the issue can demand attention and resources that might normally be placed elsewhere (Birkland, 1997; Henstra, 2010).…”

Section: Executive Decision‐making During Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the political market framework to explain executive decision‐making during the COVID‐19 crisis

Curley

Federman

Shen

2023

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional political market framework (PMF) argues that elected officials respond to policy demands by adopting policy that furthers their goal of reelection. However, an emerging crisis can make this approach to decision‐making challenging as the immediacy of response, the needs of the public, and technical expertise may conflict with reelection goals. This conflict can encourage elected officials to engage in blame avoidance by delegating policy‐making powers to the bureaucracy. Utilizing a mixed methods approach to analyze state‐level governor responses to COVID‐19, this paper expands the PMF by capturing the influence of bureaucratic demands on elected official decisions to delegate or transfer power to the bureaucracy. We find evidence that bureaucratic expertise, under the right set of circumstances, influences policymaker decisions to delegate policymaking power. Lastly, we advocate for a renewed focus on democratic principles and the consequences of delegation for transparency, accountability, and social equity. In understanding the specific dynamics at play when bureaucrats and executives work to develop policy in crisis, practitioners may gain a better understanding of how to navigate difficult decisions. The specific executive orders across states are not particularly well‐known, and providing evidence of the steps other states took to combat the crisis may prove useful to practitioners in the emergency management space. If practitioners have a more complete understanding of why policy is made and by what mechanisms, they may apply a focus on implementation strategies that are effective and relevant.

show abstract

“…This is because the initial baseline schedule, which is created through normal planning practice, fails to respond to the detrimental effects of disruptive events. It is therefore essential for project managers to turn to schedule contingency plans to mitigate the negative impact of disturbances on project completion time (Persson & Granberg, 2021). Buffer management is at the heart of schedule contingency planning, which has received significant attention in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Project schedule contingency planning: Building on von Bertalanffy's open systems theory and critical systems practice

Zarghami

2023

Syst Res Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research on project schedule contingency suffers from three major shortcomings: (1) it only partly reflects the complexity arising from the high interdependencies among project activities; (2) it is predicated on the idea of closed systems and thus does not address the interaction between a project and its environment; and (3) it does not sufficiently inform industry practices. This paper addresses these gaps by conceptually and analytically linking von Bertalanffy's open systems theory and critical systems practice (CSP) to schedule contingency planning. It focuses on buffer management as a common approach to schedule contingency planning and accordingly develops a method to determine the size of time buffers based on the three foundational dimensions of open systems theory. Further, this research provides guidelines to explain how the simultaneous pursuit of the four stages of CSP can assist project managers and decision‐makers in responding to disruptive events.

show abstract

Implementation through collaborative crisis management and contingency planning: the case of dam failure in Sweden

Cited by 9 publications

References 36 publications

Revisiting Crisis Governance: Toward Collaborative Crisis Management

Revisiting Crisis Governance: Toward Collaborative Crisis Management

Expanding the political market framework to explain executive decision‐making during the COVID‐19 crisis

Project schedule contingency planning: Building on von Bertalanffy's open systems theory and critical systems practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About