Information Sharing During Crisis Management in Hierarchical vs. Network Teams

Abstract

This study examines the differences between hierarchical and network teams in emergency management. A controlled experimental environment was created in which we could study teams that differed in decision rights, availability of information, information sharing, and task division. Thirty-two teams of either two (network) or three (hierarchy) participants (N ¼ 80 in total) received messages about an incident in a tunnel with high-ranking politicians possibly being present. Based on experimentally induced knowledge, teams had to decide as quickly and as accurately as possible what the likely cause of the incident was: an attack by Al Qaeda, by anti-globalists, or an accident. The results showed that network teams were overall faster and more accurate in difficult scenarios than hierarchical teams. Network teams also shared more knowledge in the difficult scenarios, compared with the easier scenarios. The advantage of being able to share information that is inherent in network teams is thus contingent upon the type of situation encountered.

Network measures for characterising team adaptation processes

“…Team members usually make choices in their communication patterns, which affects the function of the group and the information sharing within the team (Schraagen, Huis in 't Veld, and de Koning 2010;Stanton, Walker, and Sorensen 2012;Walker et al 2012). Two of the most common communication structures are the classical hierarchy and the network structure, whereby the degree of centralisation has an important effect on group performance and individual functioning such as the availability of information in problem-solving situations (Bavelas 1950;Leavitt 1951).…”

PLATT: A flexible platform for experimental research on team performance in complex environments

“…The scenario has been constructed in such a way that all possible routes can be put in order from fastest to slowest, to make an objective comparison of routes in line with hierarchical and networked teams and consisted of differences in team composition and task division, different decision rights, different communication media, and different information-sharing facilities (Schraagen et al, 2010). The results showed that networked teams were overall faster and more accurate in their decisions than were hierarchical teams.…”

“…Below, we briefly describe the scenarios that have been developed for these studies and the results that have been obtained. The results of these studies are described in more detail elsewhere (i.e., Kamphuis et al, 2008Kamphuis et al, , 2009Langelaan & Keeris, 2008;Schraagen, Huis in't Veld, & de Koning, 2010;Van Bezooijen, Vogelaar, & Essens, 2009.…”

Untitled

“…In addition, Comfort [62] points out that under cumulative stress, the hierarchical organization tends to fail and personnel are obstructed by a lack of information, constraints on innovation and an inadequacy to shift resources and actions to timely meet new demands. Schraagen, et al [63] experimentally demonstrated that in complex environments, the network centric structures were more efficient in terms of speed, accuracy, information distribution, knowledge sharing and decision making compared to the hierarchical structures. identified four propositions of a NCO and a set of governing principles for a network centric force which are the tenets of netcentric warfare: i) a robustly networked force improves information sharing; ii) information sharing and collaboration reinforce the information quality and share situational awareness; iii) shared situational awareness allows self-synchronization and strengthens sustainability and command speed; iv) All these in turn are significantly increasing the mission effectiveness.…”