Interoperability and standardization: lessons from the fruit-bowl

Abstract

PurposeThis study hypothesizes the limitations of standardization as an interoperability development tool within emergency management.Design/methodology/approachPragmatism and Morgan's seminal organizational metaphors inform the conceptualization of the Interoperability Orange metaphor using symbolic logic and visual imagery.FindingsThe essence of standardization is homogeneity. Within emergency management, it is commonplace to develop legislation to standardize policies, procedures, training, equipment and terminology to engender interoperability among first responder and associated organizations. Standardization is achievable with similar or a small number of organizations. However, it is unlikely, if not impossible, in the context of disasters and catastrophes, given the broad range of organizations, groups and individuals typically involved. This diversity of cultures, subcultures, norms, values and indigenous and technical languages intimates that standardization is counterintuitive, particularly in disasters and catastrophes. The posited Interoperability Orange metaphor demonstrates that standardization as a policy, though desired, is theoretically unobtainable in enlarging multiorganizational environments. Thus, new perspectives, policies and solutions for interoperability are needed.Originality/valueThe posited theory builds on the growing body of metaphor-based emergency management research. The Interoperability Orange provides an accessible and easy-to-use communicative tool that aids theoretical cognition – notably within multicultural English as a Second Language environments – as it enables a deeper more critical and explicit understanding of the limits of standardization expressed via metaphor, symbolic logic and imagery.

Health consequences of disasters: Advancing disaster data science

“…The Department of Homeland Security describes the interoperability challenge as ensuring “anyone can talk with whomever they need to, whenever they need to, when properly authorized” ( 39 , 40 ). The scientific literature defines interoperability in terms of stakeholders being able to work together ( 41 , 42 ), and as a markedly broader concept with various definitions that transect technological, people and, procedural contexts ( 36 ). With such wide-ranging and potentially disagreeing definitions of interoperability, it is unsurprising that distinct fields struggle to achieve interoperability.…”

“…Interoperability sits at the core of (almost) all issues of disasters and health. It is a multidimensional concept that incorporates technology, training, decision making, policies, procedures, language, culture, subculture, norms and values, and more ( 41 ). Accordingly, the noted themes and issues relating to data source utility are explored herein using Cole's interoperability framework, which emphasizes technology, people, and processes to ensure that researchers can effectively utilize the broad range of available data sources.…”

“…Interoperability is vital within disaster response as much as in disaster data: the more interoperable stakeholders are, the more likely they are to be able to work together in an effective manner ( 41 , 42 ). Per the Department of Homeland Security’s interoperability definition cited previously, they must include over 60,000 federal, state, tribal, and local stakeholders in pursuance of the whole of the community approach ( 39 , 40 ).…”