|
|
Peter H. Berghmans, Gerd Van Den Eede, & Bartel A. Van De Walle. (2008). A systems perspective on security risk identification: Methodology and illustrations from city councils. In B. V. de W. F. Fiedrich (Ed.), Proceedings of ISCRAM 2008 – 5th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (pp. 266–275). Washington, DC: Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, ISCRAM.
Abstract: In this paper we take a system theoretic perspective to the process of security risk identification in the context of city councils. Based on this approach, we construct a framework that helps to identify risks. We analyze why this methodological framework is suitable for the risk identification process. Research in fifty Flemish city councils reveals the usefulness of our approach of combining a perceived vs. objective perspective with a technical vs. organizational one. We believe such a framework offers a workable tool for dealing with IS security risks in a systems thinking way.
|
|
|
|
Jose J. Gonzalez, Geir Bø, & John Einar Johansen. (2013). A system dynamics model of the 2005 hatlestad slide emergency management. In J. Geldermann and T. Müller S. Fortier F. F. T. Comes (Ed.), ISCRAM 2013 Conference Proceedings – 10th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (pp. 658–667). KIT; Baden-Baden: Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie.
Abstract: It has long been recognized that the management of emergencies requires that response organisations act flexibly, becoming an “emergent organisation” to better manage the fact that disasters do not follow scripts. Nevertheless, recent research shows that crisis response organisations prefer to follow patterns adequate for normal situations. Arguably, the resistance to become an emergent organisation could be related to poor understanding of how to move from disorganisation to self-organisation. We extend a recent system dynamics work by Tu, Wang and Tseng, describing the transition from disorganisation to self-organisation in the Palau case, to analyse the management of disorganisation in the fatal Hatlestad landslide in Norway. We suggest that the causal structure of the system dynamics model describing the Palau and the Hatlestad case should be considered a candidate for an emergent “middle-range theory” describing the management of disorganisation in emergencies. We propose specific data collection to test the candidate theory.
|
|
|
|
Starr Roxanne Hiltz, Jose J. Gonzalez, & Murray Turoff. (2013). ICT support and the effectiveness of decision making in disasters: A preliminary system dynamics model. In J. Geldermann and T. Müller S. Fortier F. F. T. Comes (Ed.), ISCRAM 2013 Conference Proceedings – 10th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (pp. 668–673). KIT; Baden-Baden: Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie.
Abstract: A high level conceptual model is presented of factors hypothesized to be key determinants of the effectiveness of decision making in large scale disasters, grounded in the literature on disaster management. ICT robustness (including the use of social media) sensemaking, and the effectiveness of decision making processes by the multi-organizational Partially Distributed Teams that must cooperate are accorded key roles in the process model. The outcomes of the decision making processes modeled are decisions, in terms of timeliness and quality.
|
|
|
|
L.T. Darryl Diptee, & Scott McKenzie. (2012). The systems thinking approach of beyond-line-of-sight command and control. In Z.Franco J. R. L. Rothkrantz (Ed.), ISCRAM 2012 Conference Proceedings – 9th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. Vancouver, BC: Simon Fraser University.
Abstract: Effective command and control (C2) is necessary to achieve and maintain superiority in military engagements. C2 is well documented in the literature and is a major focus in the military arena; however, the conventional military network topology is increasingly becoming a liability and ineffective in the new age of asymmetric warfare. The beyond-line-of-sight command and control (BLOS C2) concept is a radical shift towards a seamless joint network topology, which will dramatically increase tactical C2 across military service branches, equipment types, and geographical locations. Though BLOS C2 is still in its testing phase, this paper examines the systems thinking approach of BLOS C2 with respect to layered models, adaptation, and synergy. The implementation of the BLOS C2 “tactical Wi-Fi” concept helps fill a Central Command (CENTCOM) capability gap in support of a Contingency Plan (CONPLAN) that provides Navy Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) with a robust force protection system. © 2012 ISCRAM.
|
|
|
|
Gerd Van Den Eede, Willem J. Muhren, Raphaël Smals, & Bartel A. Van De Walle. (2006). IS capability for incident management and the DERMIS design premises. In M. T. B. Van de Walle (Ed.), Proceedings of ISCRAM 2006 – 3rd International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (pp. 251–261). Newark, NJ: Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium.
Abstract: In this paper we present a dynamic model of the performance of an organization's Incident Management process as determined by the capability of its supporting emergency response information system. Our work is based on the Capability Trap model by Repenning & Sterman (2001) and draws from the many insights on emergency response information systems design as described in the DERMIS (Dynamic Emergency Response Management Information System) framework established by Turoff et al. 2004. Whereas the latter describes the premises that underlie an Information System (IS) that is capable of ensuring a reliable and flexible emergency response, the present paper contributes to the research field by looking at the interrelations of the aforementioned premises. We take a System Dynamics approach and gain insights in the key determinants of IS Capability by highlighting the mutual interdependences grouped around the concepts of adaptability, control, implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge.
|
|
