Information sharing in interteam responses to disaster

Research demonstrates that information sharing is facilitated by familiarity, and having a common understanding of problems, use of lexicon, and semantic meaning. These factors can be difficult to develop within extreme environments such as disasters as members of the multi‐agency system that responds often have limited experience of working together. Public inquiries repeatedly highlight the impact of information sharing difficulties on public safety, but limited academic research has focused on identifying concrete behaviours that facilitate interteam information sharing within such environments. This paper presents a case study of a national disaster response exercise involving 1,000 emergency responders. Data consist of structured observations, recordings of interteam meetings, and interviews with emergency responders. Results of mixed‐method analysis indicate that interteam information sharing is delayed by limited situation awareness and poor articulation. Conversely, adopting behaviours that promote common frames for understanding interteam capabilities and information requirements improves information sharing and potentially reduces cognitive effort required to process information. Findings contribute to interteam communication theory by highlighting that in complex, time‐constrained environments, having a shared understanding of responsibilities and information requirement is important for minimizing redundant deliberation and improving relevance and speed. Practitioner points Facilitating the exchange and interpretation of relevant information is important for improving situation assessment, decision‐making, and the implementation of appropriate actions for addressing risks. Interteam information sharing can be particularly challenging when teams are comprised of members from across different organizations with different language and cultures that must form ad hoc to rapidly respond to problems in extreme environments. Adopting communication strategies that develop common frames‐of‐reference can facilitate information sharing and interteam responses to disasters.

[1]  Laurence Alison,et al.  A systematic review of the potential hurdles of interoperability to the emergency services in major incidents: recommendations for solutions and alternatives , 2013, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[2]  Chris Baber,et al.  Collaborative sense-making during simulated Intelligence Analysis Exercises , 2016, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  Laurence Alison,et al.  Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi‐agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack , 2017 .

[4]  Stacey D. Scott,et al.  Collaboration Technology in Military Operations: Lessons Learned from the Corporate Domain , 2006 .

[5]  Peter Essens,et al.  Antecedents of individuals' interteam coordination: Broad functional experiences as a mixed blessing , 2014 .

[6]  M. Endsley,et al.  Objective measures of situation awareness in a simulated medical environment , 2004, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[7]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Claus Bossen,et al.  Mobility Work: The Spatial Dimension of Collaboration at a Hospital , 2005, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[9]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[10]  William M. Jones,et al.  Situation Awareness Information Dominance & Information Warfare. , 1997 .

[11]  Muhammad Tanveer Afzal,et al.  Reliability and Validity of Qualitative and Operational Research Paradigm , 2008 .

[12]  Laurence Alison,et al.  Immersive Simulated Learning Environments for Researching Critical Incidents , 2013 .

[13]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Hallowed Grounds: The Role of Cultural Values, Practices, and Institutions in TMS in an Offshored Complex Engineering Services Project , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[14]  Jonas Lundberg,et al.  A case study of factor influencing role improvisation in crisis response teams , 2011, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[15]  Eric A Surface,et al.  Frame-of-reference training effectiveness: effects of goal orientation and self-efficacy on affective, cognitive, skill-based, and transfer outcomes. , 2010, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  E. Salas,et al.  Focus Article: Taking Stock of Naturalistic Decision Making , 2017 .

[17]  Davide Manca,et al.  How Distributed Situation Awareness Influences Process Safety , 2014 .

[18]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  Measuring Team Knowledge: A Window to the Cognitive Underpinnings of Team Performance , 2003 .

[19]  Andre Martin,et al.  The state of teams , 2015 .

[20]  Astrid Scholtens Controlled Collaboration in Disaster and Crisis Management in the Netherlands, History and Practice of an Overestimated and Underestimated Concept , 2008 .

[21]  William S. Kramer,et al.  The Science of Multiteam Systems , 2015 .

[22]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Applications for naturalistic decision-making , 2015 .

[23]  M. Endsley Situation Awareness Misconceptions and Misunderstandings , 2015 .

[24]  Hilde Sandhåland,et al.  Distributed situation awareness in complex collaborative systems: A field study of bridge operations on platform supply vessels , 2015, Journal of occupational and organizational psychology.

[25]  Tammy L. Rapp,et al.  Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness , 2012 .

[26]  Gary Klein,et al.  Naturalistic Decision Making , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[27]  Nicole Coviello,et al.  International Entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis , 2011 .

[28]  A. Schmidt,et al.  What to do? The effects of discrepancies, incentives, and time on dynamic goal prioritization. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[29]  Yuqing Ren,et al.  Transactive Memory Systems 1985–2010: An Integrative Framework of Key Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences , 2011 .

[30]  Jan Maarten Schraagen,et al.  Human factors aspects of ICT for crisis management , 2011, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[31]  John R. Hollenbeck,et al.  Beyond Team Types and Taxonomies: A Dimensional Scaling Conceptualization for Team Description , 2012 .

[32]  N A Stanton,et al.  Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology , 2006, Ergonomics.

[33]  Gunnar Ellingsen,et al.  A Review of 25 Years of CSCW Research in Healthcare: Contributions, Challenges and Future Agendas , 2012, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[34]  Beth A. Bechky Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[35]  Ciaran Heavey,et al.  Transactive Memory Systems and Firm Performance: An Upper Echelons Perspective , 2015, Organ. Sci..

[36]  D. Wegner Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind , 1987 .

[37]  Björn J. E. Johansson,et al.  Assessing team focused behaviors in emergency response teams using the shared priorities measure , 2014, ISCRAM.

[38]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Theoretical Underpinnings of Situation Awareness, A Critical Review , 2000 .

[39]  J. McLeod Qualitative Research In Counselling And Psychotherapy , 2000 .

[40]  Laurence Alison,et al.  Decision inertia : deciding between least worst outcomes in emergency responses to disasters , 2015 .

[41]  K. McGraw,et al.  Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. , 1996 .

[42]  D. Wegner,et al.  Cognitive interdependence in close relationships , 1985 .

[43]  Leslie A. DeChurch,et al.  Multiteam Systems : An Organization Form for Dynamic and Complex Environments , 2012 .

[44]  Ronald F. Piccolo,et al.  A META‐ANALYSIS OF TEAMWORK PROCESSES: TESTS OF A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH TEAM EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA , 2008 .

[45]  S. Gronlund,et al.  Situation Awareness , 2006 .

[46]  Leslie A. DeChurch,et al.  Teamwork in multiteam systems. , 2005, The Journal of applied psychology.

[47]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Distributed situation awareness , 2016 .

[48]  O. Gelo,et al.  Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Beyond the Debate , 2008, Integrative psychological & behavioral science.

[49]  H. Frith,et al.  Clothing and embodiment: men managing body image and appearance , 2004 .

[50]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[51]  L. Weingart,et al.  Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams , 2007 .

[52]  Deidra J. Schleicher,et al.  A Cognitive Evaluation of Frame-of-Reference Rater Training: Content and Process Issues. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[53]  E. Salas,et al.  Facilitating Team Adaptation “in the Wild”: A Theoretical Framework, Instructional Strategies, and Research Agenda , 2007 .

[54]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  P ERSPECTIVE M AKING AND P ERSPECTIVE T AKING IN C OMMUNITIES OF K NOWING , 2000 .

[55]  Yan Xiao,et al.  Dynamic Delegation: Shared, Hierarchical, and Deindividualized Leadership in Extreme Action Teams , 2006 .

[56]  E. Salas,et al.  Taking stock of naturalistic decision making , 2001 .

[57]  Bart van den Hooff,et al.  Are We on the Same Page? Knowledge Boundaries and Transactive Memory System Development in Cross-Functional Teams , 2015, Commun. Res..

[58]  L. Weingart,et al.  Subgroups within a team: The role of cognitive and affective integration , 2011 .

[59]  Mats Engwall,et al.  Project overload: An exploratory study of work and management in multi-project settings , 2006 .

[60]  Lelyn D. Saner,et al.  Measuring and Predicting Shared Situation Awareness in Teams , 2009 .

[61]  E. Kothe Functional diversity , 2018, Journal of basic microbiology.

[62]  FitzpatrickGeraldine,et al.  A Review of 25 Years of CSCW Research in Healthcare , 2013 .

[63]  Hannes Guenter,et al.  Effects of dual identification and interteam conflict on multiteam system performance , 2016 .

[64]  Peter Essens,et al.  Multiteam Systems in the Public Sector , 2012 .

[65]  Marissa L. Shuffler,et al.  A historiometric analysis of leadership in mission critical multiteam environments , 2011 .

[66]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Distributed Situation Awareness: Theory, Measurement and Application to Teamwork , 2009 .

[67]  J. Schraagen,et al.  Information Sharing During Crisis Management in Hierarchical vs. Network Teams , 2010 .

[68]  Dustin J. Sleesman,et al.  Coordinated action in multiteam systems. , 2012, The Journal of applied psychology.

[69]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Same page, different books: : Extending representational gaps theory to enhance performance in multiteam systems , 2014 .

[70]  Gary Klein,et al.  Making Sense of Sensemaking 1: Alternative Perspectives , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[71]  Gary Klein,et al.  Making Sense of Sensemaking 2: A Macrocognitive Model , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[72]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams , 2006, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[73]  MendonçaDavid,et al.  Collaborative adhocracies and mix-and-match technologies in emergency management , 2007 .