incorporating mindfulness mechanisms in designing support ... · a major trend in the decision...

Incorporating mindfulness mechanisms in designing support systems for multiagency interoperability in emergency management

A. Amaye, K. Neville & A. Pope Business Information Systems, University College Cork, Ireland

Abstract

Disasters expose the strengths and weakness of multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary networks of public sector, private industry and non-governmental agencies that operate in emergency management (EM). The design of information systems (IS) for multi-agency use has to consider a broad spectrum of functionality, environmental constraints, and system specifications for these complex networks. Mindfulness, a key feature of high reliability organizations, provides a theoretical framework focused on collective capabilities critical to groups engaged in emergency preparedness threat and risk analysis. This research in progress paper proposes a process oriented approach for group decision support systems (GDSS) which supports mindful anticipation and containment of unexpected events. The complexity of disasters and multi-organizational response requires advancements in interoperability centred on capabilities for active preparedness in addition to system interface. The paper describes mechanisms to improve interoperability and multiagency coordination in EM through capability based performance in the IS domain. Keywords: emergency preparedness, process framework, information systems, decision support systems, interoperability.

1 Introduction

A major trend in the decision support system (DSS) domain for EM has been the integration of knowledge management system (KMS) functionalities, cognitive processes to encourage improvisation, and artificial intelligence techniques to

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 168, © 2015 WIT Press

Sustainable Development, Vol. 2 1145

doi:10.2495/SD150992

solve semi-structured problems in complex and uncertain situations [1, 2, p. 30, 3]. Most of these efforts have focused on the design and use of group DSS or GDSS, to help organizations manage emergencies “complementing” technology with added functionality while incrementally incorporating processes already in use to manage threats and hazards. The concept of mindfulness describes a level of awareness that occurs in high reliability organizations such as nuclear facilities, which improves organizational reliability and performance through specific organizational cognitive processes [4]. It was proposed and applied as an approach to information system (IS) research and practice to help steer and validate design, operations and management of systems by individuals and organizations emphasizing a capability-based approach to the anticipation and containment of incidents [5, 6]. IS researchers agree that a computer-based systems and their design “ought to be informed by an understanding of the cognitive processes involved in responding to unanticipated contingencies [2, p. 31]” for them to be effective and adapted for decision support. Literature describing the use of GDSS in emergency management (EM) has traditionally focused on emergency response or targeted activities like training and exercises while the breadth of literature on DSS use during preparedness has been limited. Preparedness is described as a continuous cycle of planning, organizing, training, equipping, exercising, evaluating and taking corrective action in an effort to ensure effective coordination during incident response [7]. Yet literature in the EM domain does not provide a standardized process critical for system design to describe preparedness activities or functions. This paper proposes the notion of preparedness as both active and passive processes which focus on preparation and prevention, cognitive mechanisms of mindfulness actively used in EM. Consequently, system design, management and operations must demonstrate capabilities indicative to these cognitive processes to more appropriately support EM agencies that operate in changing, dynamic environments. This paper’s contribution is twofold. First, by encouraging a better understanding of the role of collective mindfulness in EM, alignment of system design and encouraged use of GDSS will help support situational awareness and cooperative decision making. Second, we propose a better interpretation of GDSS use where routine and mindful performance collectively influences organizational reliability through incorporation of a five-step active preparedness model and tailored system mechanisms. Section 2 describes organizational performance during the preparedness phase and the view of mindfulness in GDSS design. Section 3 provides a process model incorporating mindfulness concepts through mechanisms focusing on system capabilities. Section 4 illustrates approaches to mindful-driven design highlighted in extant research addressing the use of heterogeneous data through a network of module based applications to enable EM process oriented decision-making. Section 5 discusses research implications and next steps.


1146 Sustainable Development, Vol. 2

2 A state of mindfulness

This section provides a review of the literature, discussing mindfulness as a function of organizational performance throughout the emergency preparedness phase and perspectives of its applicability as an approach in IS.

2.1 Mindfulness in organizational performance and emergency preparedness

Mindfulness is a capability for rich awareness of discriminatory details that facilitate the discovery and correction of potential accidents based on five processes observed in high reliability organizations: 1. Preoccupation with failure; 2. Reluctance to simplify interpretations; 3. Sensitivity to operations; 4. Commitment to Resilience; and 5. Migration to Expertise [4]. The originating two strategies intended for individual improvement: attention to context and attention to variability identified by [8] were expanded into a broader collective capacity of awareness and activity when investigating these cognitive processes in adaptable, reliable organizations [4]. EM agencies embody the characteristics of organizations prime to adapt to change through the use of routine and mindful processes and approaches. Emergency preparedness refers to continuous activities which improve the response capabilities of a community based awareness of anticipated triggers, lessons learned, and processes to respond to unexpected or expected threats [9]. It describes engagement in processes and activities which support a “readiness” state for all hazards, whether they provide advanced notice in the case of natural disasters like hurricanes, or no notice, such as earthquakes [7, 10, 11]. Passive preparedness refers to EM activities and processes used to engage organizations and the public when not responding to an emergency or disaster. Such processes and activities focus on plan development, public education, risk evaluation, capability assessment, exercise and training leveraging moments when a community is not experiencing an emergency [7, 11]. Active preparedness refers to system, process, and organizational steps taken immediately before the initiation of an emergency response effort [12, 13]. In contrast, active preparedness can be regarded as a five stage process where EM agencies engage in organizational actions which allow awareness through targeted activities that help initiate a response. Both active and passive preparedness activities demonstrate mindful-based capacities in the engagement of personnel, development of processes, and mechanisms to test the strength of and improve emergency response capabilities. Table 1 provides a description of mindfulness process and corresponding passive and active preparedness processes. The continuity of effort indicative of the preparedness phase suggests that mindfulness is at the core of EM agency performance. In the context of EM, mindfulness provides an theoretical framework to focus on reliability that emphases the role of technology in the EM lifecycle by characterizing interdependent and synergistic relationships between routine-based and system enabled performance [5].



Table 1: Mindfulness cognitive process and preparedness.

Mindfulness process

Organizational cognitive process

Passive and active preparedness processes

Preoccupation with failure

Increased attentiveness to all failures which offer opportunities to assess the health of the system, analyze near failures and focus on reliability of the system.

Passive: Engagement in activities to plan, training and exercise personnel, organizations, and the public in emergency response and awareness activities. Active: Activation of plans and processes to engage in response

Reluctance to simplify interpretations

Use of methods to increase awareness of complexity from divergent perspectives preserved by system and process redundancies.

Passive: Conducting risk and capability assessments. Building and monitoring resource and personnel capabilities including typing and credentialing. Active: Analysis of emergency triggers that may alert EM agency of

Sensitivity to operations

Maintenance of situational awareness which provides an integrated picture of operations in the moment based on perception, synthesis, and projection.

Passive/active: Use of systems and development of processes to maintain awareness and analysis of deviations in normal operations.

Commitment to resilience

Capacity to “bounce back” from unanticipated dangers after they occur and surprises in the moment through the use of informal networks and improvisation.

Passive: Evaluation of lessons learned, corrective actions, and improvement. Pre-identification and organization of resources, storage, and redundant systems Active: Notification and activation of resources to support resource capacities

Under specification of structure

Migration of expertise through flexibility and organizational structure to link expertise with problems, solutions and decisions.

Passive: Development of processes, structures and specialized teams to respond to emergencies Active: Activation of documented processes, resources and appropriate personnel to respond

Sources [4] [9, 10, 14, 15]

2.2 IS centred view of mindfulness for DSS in emergency management

Group decision support systems (GDSS) consists of sets of software, hardware and language components and procedures to support group information sharing and decision making [16]. GDSS are applied information systems used in EM focused on enhancing capabilities of emergency managers to understand, formulate and rank problems and alternatives for these purposes [1, 17, 18]. Among the various recent enhancements in this type of applied EM systems, five core features intended for group decision making are usually unchanged



including data bank, data analysis, normative and prescriptive models, technology for display and interaction, simulation [19]. Based on a comprehensive review of literature [3] acknowledged the lack of literature on the functional requirements for emergency response systems and argued that incorporation of KMS and use by a core group of knowledgeable users would improve system performance and organizational effectiveness. Other trends emergent in research are the enhancement of GDSS core features with integrations of KMS, data warehousing and analysis; inclusion of artificial intelligence, and incorporation of cognitive processing in prescriptive modelling [1, 2]. Consequently, mindfulness is not presented here as a technique for GDSS enhancement, but as a theoretical and pragmatic approach to understanding EM processes for GDSS development. There has been a difference of opinion in IS on approaches to the concept and the application of mechanisms that enable mindful processes. Butler and Gray [5] proposed application of the concept to IS as a strategy for individual and organizational system use to achieve reliable performance with broader implication for system design, management and operation. Business continuity, considered an aspect of IS operations, was recognized as embodying aspects of mindfulness important to “descriptive and prescriptive research of mindful capabilities” (p. 219). This perspective recognizes mindfulness as both a state of organizational being as well as an organizational capability. Practice has focused on DSS attributes which view mindfulness as a capability-based method of inquiry and interpretation enabling technological evolutions of DSS use in EM and information security [6]. Figure 1 illustrates the capability-based approach proposed in the design and operation of GDSS for EM where system functionality and features facilitate mindful anticipation or containment lead to a capability to discovery and manage unexpected events.

Figure 1: Capability-based mindfulness process in information systems (source: Van de Walle and Turoff [6], adapted from Weick et al. [4]).

Mindfulness implies a perpetual state of being ready to respond to a situation once prompted by a trigger that is a deviation from routine processes, procedures



or activities based on mechanisms which enable collective awareness, sensitivity and interpretation of such deviations. It also describes the adaptability of systems to respond to those dynamic changes in environments. Before adherence to the concept or application of mindfulness, researchers and developers must consider guidance derived from knowledge of mindfulness in the EM domain to create the processes that can explain and prescribe preparedness functions.

3 Active preparedness stages, foundations for mindful-based design

This section presents the model of active preparedness as a decision making process to approach system design with consideration of the EM environment.

3.1 The five steps of active preparedness

Active preparedness is presented as a set of methodological and escalating situational awareness processes of monitoring, analysis, organization, readiness and activation immediately before the initiation of an emergency response effort. The focus of active preparedness is the preparation of systems, facilities, resources and personnel to respond to a threat that has been assessed and validated. The five steps of active preparedness processes are:

i. Monitoring. Primary function of preparedness where integration and management of critical information, implementation of knowledge management capabilities and processes to support emergency response operations occurs [20]. This stage is a continuous problem recognition activity that occurs and prompts the initiation of subsequent stages.

ii. Analysis. Analysis of threats and hazards allows for the second level of mindful-based approaches in active preparedness where anticipation and containment courses are determined based on the information and data that has been processed, organized and validated during the monitoring stage. Situation analysis has been described a base level activity of data gathering and assessment based on “predetermined conditions and analysis for unusual or pre-identified deviations [3],” where assessment becomes critical to the creation of an operational picture.

iii. Organizing. Organizing during active preparedness is a “just-in time” assessment of resource capabilities that would be available for use in emergency response [6]. This stage provides an awareness of supply and inventory of facilities, equipment, vehicles and personnel.

iv. Readiness. Readiness is the next stage where routine processes for monitoring and organization are escalated to initiate notification and feedback of the status of a threat or hazard to convey and establish situational awareness amongst the appropriate personnel and support organizations.

v. Activation. The final stage of active preparedness, where the procedures, systems, facilities and personnel are actively engaged in the initiation of a response effort. At this stage, some resources may be mobilized and poised to respond, and facilities may be actively receiving personnel.



Figure 2: Active preparedness process diagram.

Figure 2 provides an illustration of the preparedness cycle composed of passive preparedness functional activities and active preparedness processes. System design, operations and management intended for the EM domain audience must consider that mindfulness is the modus operandi where the intent for system use is to enable efficiency in managing information, coordinating resources, and making time-sensitive decisions with the dynamics of disaster in the backdrop, establishing the context of collaborative response [20, 21].

3.2 System mechanisms for mindfulness in active preparedness

Mechanisms describe parts and features of IS which operate and interact to perform functions through software or other computer based applications [19]. GDSS mechanisms that enable mindfulness during active preparedness processes, serve as a means of obtaining the appropriate level of awareness to prompt judgment and decision-making. This offers a model of decision making behavior in IS design and operations based on cognitive processes as well as preparedness functions [20]. Active preparedness stages demonstrate the characteristics of EM mindfulness that are considerable elements of technological interface and collaboration by GDSS. GDSS designed and used during preparedness phases should exhibit capabilities which balance meeting the needs of both individual users and EM agencies transitioning from routine to dynamic environments at a moment’s notice; operating from multiple locations using a wide variety of technologies. Systems that work in tandem with emergency response plans integrate predetermined threats and “readiness” procedures that are documented, trained and exercised by EM personnel during the passive preparedness phases [22]. Figure 3 describes how mindfulness is facilitated at each process stage of active preparedness through process goals and system mechanisms which enable cognitive processing and analysis, integrative communication, and data visualization that emphasis collaboration for real time decision making [6, 13, 18, 20, 23–25].



Figure 3: Mindfulness mechanisms for active preparedness.

4 System design driven by mindful capability integration

This section presents a series of diagrams to illustrate approaches to integrating mindfulness through capability-based system mechanisms for GDSS used in EM operational centers aligned to each active preparedness process step.

4.1 Capability-based approaches for mindful-driven design

The knowledge-centered design methodology for DSS was proposed to address the uniqueness of the EM domain, where incremental design focused on understanding the target environment that the DSS would be used, EM knowledge necessary in emergency operations, characterization of user classes, and functional analysis of expected system behavior [17]. Focus on the user, the system and the environment during the active preparedness stages offers a unique opportunity to create mechanisms that provided for anticipation and containment of emergencies. Approaches to IS design, management and operations presented by [5, 20] emphasize integration of mindfulness in the design lifecycle to address human factors, while other researchers have suggested adherence to knowledge or user-centered design with “major emphasis on user requirements driving technological development as a result of lessons learned [16, p. 408]”. EM knowledge-centered design with an understanding of the target environment for GDSS use, multiagency user tasks, profiles and interaction patterns in a structured and effective manner provides the most appropriate approach for mindful-based design of GDSS [17]. The design premises and considerations described by DSS and KMS researchers validates the selection of features and functions which enable situational awareness to view, send, receive, exchange open information and engage in dynamic



communication activities that enable the context construction for real time decision making in EM [13, 18, 21]. The diagrams which follow in this section highlight extant research of applied system capabilities, functions and features which can be integrated in a GDSS intended to perform EM process oriented tasks.

4.2 Mindful anticipation and containment

Mindfulness obtained through situational awareness is one recognizable and measurable characteristic for collective cognitive perception and response processes of individuals and teams in high reliability organizations [4]. EM agencies maintain active levels of awareness through facility-based operational centers like fusion centers, coordination centers and watch commands as a means of maintaining visibility of day-to-day operations [15]. The mechanisms encourage the use of technological systems to monitor, collect, analyze critical information that is then used to produce data and visual information to perceive, comprehend and project activities [20]. Monitoring capabilities focus on problem recognition through integration of heterogeneous data that is semantically interoperable enabled by hypertext taxonomy linkages [24, 25]. GDSS infrastructure interfacing with linked, middleware and enterprise system applications allow for integration of open source and legacy system data. Analysis capabilities focus on the analysis of data for the purpose of decision making where risk perception and process decision models provide methods for analysis and decision making through collaborative information sharing [6, 25]. Figure 4 illustrates GDSS functions that support monitoring and analysis process collaboration through integrative systems and collaborative analysis

Figure 4: GDSS capability for anticipation and containment.



which occurs during both passive and active preparedness. Determination of threat anticipation or containment becomes the output based on collaborative information analysis, forming the foundation for multiagency interoperability.

4.3 Capability to discover and manage unexpected events

Once information is filtered, process, and displayed in the monitoring and analysis steps, EM processes are documented in emergency plans that articulate decision methods to initiate a response through organizational channels which prepare resources and personnel [7, 22]. Organization and Readiness capabilities are operationalized through modules and system applications which allow for activation of existing plans that are integrated in the GDSS. These plans provide inventories and checklists which can be used to monitor active preparedness functions and prompt users. System mechanisms which allow for awareness of the capacity of resource and personnel management integrate routine processes with interactive technologies to monitor collaboration in EM response [23] (illustrated in Figure 5).

Figure 5: GDSS mindfulness capability for organization and readiness processes.

4.4 Activation as a form of organizational reliability

Activation is the final stage of preparedness, where the procedures, systems, facilities and personnel are now actively engaged in the initiation of a response effort. At this stage, some resources may be mobilized and poised to respond,



and facilities may be actively receiving personnel. GDSS mechanisms in this phase leverage the capabilities of existing data systems in the flow of validated information while filtering content for the purpose of decision-making using a patchwork of application modules. The integration of emergency information through automated data visualization tools, open communication platform interface, and multilevel assessments help to create a common operational picture [6, 11, 19] to enable organizational reliability.

5 Research implications and conclusion

The preparedness phase is characterized by a number of interrelated activities intended to impose routine and broad understanding to the dynamically changing activities. Through the development of emergency plans and teams to the conduct of training and exercises to familiarize personnel of general emergency response roles and duties, goal of these activities is to make personnel and organizations familiar with the systems, procedures and processes used in response. Researchers have provided an abundance of literature on the role and use of technology in the response phases, and various passive preparedness activities. Though preparedness generally has been perceived as the things done before response, literature discussing the transitional elements of this phase is needed. It is in this phases that a GDSS builds its viability and effectiveness among EM users as familiarity with system features and functionality increases during trainings and exercises. The focus of this paper were the active, “ramp up,” stages of preparedness which initiate the response phase where systems, people, organizations, and resources position themselves in a readiness mode. The paper provides a process-oriented model that incorporates mindfulness in the execution of active preparedness functions. The challenge of designing systems for dynamic environments is balancing the functionality of a system with dynamic processes used to manage disasters, which must be done with better knowledge of the users, environment, and intended uses of the system [17]. This paper provides a discussion of preparedness and proposed a process orientation model for understanding mindfulness during the phase. The paper discussed system mechanisms based on capabilities through diagrams which support an understanding of the operational picture a GDSS facilitates within the EM domain. The approach and conceptual framework proposed through active preparedness is towards the development of an implementation and deployment model to assess the design and functionality of GDSS. The measure of GDSS success and improvement to organizational interoperability will be determined by how well it can help establish situational awareness and create an operational picture that assists in the coordination of personnel and resources [4]. Organizational reliability for adaptable EM agencies is achievable by better alignment of system design and operations with mindful-based approaches that exist in EM preparedness processes and operations.



References

[1] K. N. Papamichail and S. French, “Design and evaluation of an intelligent decision support system for nuclear emergencies,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 84–111, 2005.

[2] D. Mendonca, G. E. G. Beroggi, and W. a. Wallace, “Decision support for improvisation during emergency response operations,” Int. J. Emerg. Manag., vol. 1, no. 1, 2001.

[3] M. E. J. M. E. Jennex, “Modeling Emergency Response Systems,” 2007 40th Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., pp. 1–8, 2007.

[4] K. E. Weick, K. M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld, “Organizing for High Reliability,” Res. Organ. Behav., vol. 21, pp. 81–123, 1999.

[5] B. S. Butler and P. H. Gray, “Reliability, Mindfulness, and Information Systems,” MIS Quaterly, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 211–224, 2006.

[6] B. Van de Walle and M. Turoff, “Decision support for emergency situations,” Inf. Syst. E-bus. Manag., vol. 6, pp. 295–316, 2008.

[7] E. L. Quarantelli, “Organizational Behavior in Disasters and Implications for Disaster Planning,” Natl. Train. Cent. Monogram Ser., vol. 1, pp. 1–31, 1986.

[8] E. J. Langer, “Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness–mindfulness,” Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol., vol. 22, pp. 137–173, 1989.

[9] M. UNISDR, “UNISDR Terminology for Disaster Risk Redution,” United Nations Int. Strateg. Disaster Reduct. Geneva, Switz., 2009.

[10] FEMA, “Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning,” 1996. [11] D. McLoughlin, “A framework for integrated emergency management,”

Public Adm. Rev., pp. 165–172, 1985. [12] S. Belardo and H. L. Pazer, “A framework for analyzing the information

monitoring and decision support system investment tradeoff dilemma: an application to crisis management,” Eng. Manag. IEEE Trans., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 352–359, 1995.

[13] D. J. Power, F. Burstein, and R. Sharda, “Reflections on the past and future of decision support systems: Perspective of eleven pioneers,” in Decision Support, 2011, pp. 25–48.

[14] FEMA, “Developing and maintaining emergency operations plans,” 2010. [15] D. Mcloughlin, F. Emergency, and M. Agency, “Framework for Integrated

Emergency Management,” Public Adm. Rev., vol. 45, pp. 165–172, 1985. [16] S. Belardo and J. Harrald, “A framework for the application of group

decision support systems to the problem of planning for catastrophic events,” Eng. Manag. IEEE Trans., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 400–411, 1992.

[17] D. Fogli and G. Guida, “Knowledge-centered design of decision support systems for emergency management,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 336–347, 2013.

[18] S. Belardo and J. Harrald, “A framework for the application of group decision support systems to the problem of planning for catastrophic events,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 400–411, 1992.



[19] S. Belardo, K. R. Karwan, and W. Wallace, “An investigation of system design considerations for emergency management decision support,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern., vol. SMC-14, no. 6, pp. 795–804, 1984.

[20] M. R. Endsley, “Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems,” Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 32–64, 1995.

[21] M. Turoff, M. Chumer, B. Vand de Walle, and X. Yao, “The Design of a Dynamic Emergency Response Management Information System (DERMIS),” J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl., vol. 5, pp. 1–35, 2004.

[22] M. R. Endsley, “Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems,” Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 65–84, 1995.

[23] E. W. Stein, “Improvisation as model for real-time decision making,” in Supporting real time decision-making, Springer, pp. 13–32, 2011.

[24] M. Dorasamy, M. Raman, and M. Kaliannan, “Knowledge management systems in support of disasters management: A two decade review,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 80, no. 9, pp. 1834–1853, 2013.

[25] L. Carver and M. Turoff, “Human-Computer Interaction: The Human and Computer as a Team in EMIS,” Commun. ACM, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 33–38, 2007.



incorporating mindfulness mechanisms in designing support ... · a major trend in the decision...

Documents