|
Erland Jungert, & Niklas Hallberg. (2009). Capabilities of C2 systems for crisis management in local communities. In S. J. J. Landgren (Ed.), ISCRAM 2009 – 6th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management: Boundary Spanning Initiatives and New Perspectives. Gothenburg: Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, ISCRAM.
Abstract: Development of information systems support for crisis management in local communities must be based on the needs of the crisis management actors as well as capabilities of information technology (IT). IT provides extensive possibilities, but is difficult to adapt to the users' needs. A profound exploration of the needs of systems for crisis management is often neglected. Hence, the management of major crisis has been held back because of the lack of useful tools. This paper presents an architecture for system for the local communities. The development of the architecture was based on a needs analysis, including interviews with crisis management at a local community level. The architecture is also based on novel design issues that have lead to the development of a conceptual model structure called the mission support model whose main concepts mainly include (1) user roles, (2) services and (3) views.
|
|
|
Viktor Sköld Gustafsson, Tobias Andersson Granberg, Sofie Pilemalm, & Martin Waldemarsson. (2022). Managing Natural Hazards in Sweden – Needs for Improved Information and Decision Support Systems. In Rob Grace, & Hossein Baharmand (Eds.), ISCRAM 2022 Conference Proceedings – 19th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (pp. 376–384). Tarbes, France.
Abstract: This paper explores opportunities for information systems to support emergency response to multiple natural hazards. Interviews were conducted with 12 representatives from actors of the Swedish emergency response system about response to multiple natural hazards. Challenges and needs connected to five themes influencing the response effort were identified: Cooperation, Resource management, Command and control, Common operational picture, and Risk management. The results illuminate a lack of technology to support decisions and analyses during emergency response to both single and multiple natural hazards. Based on this, the paper suggests and discusses information systems and decision support tools to assist in satisfying the identified needs. The findings can inform policy makers in emergency response of where to concentrate the development of collaborative preparedness and response work, and the scientific community of future research directions.
|
|