Designing, Managing, and Sustaining Functionally Collaborative

Emergency Management Networks

Contact: Naim Kapucu, Ph.D. Department of Public Administration, University of Central Florida

HPA II Suite 238M, Orlando, FL 32816-1395 Phone: 407-823-6096; Fax: 407-823-5651

E-mail: Kapucu@ucf.edu

Naim Kapucu, Ph.D., is an associate professor and director of the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management (CPNM) in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. His main research interests are emergency and crisis management, decision-making in complex environment, collaborative governance, and organizational learning and design. His work has been published in Public Administration Review (PAR), Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART), Administration & Society, the American Review of Public Administration (ARPA), Public Administration, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, and Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies, Policy, and Management. He teaches public and nonprofit management, emergency and crisis management, and analytic techniques for public administration courses. He can be reached at Kapucu@ucf.edu.

Vener Garayev, PhD Candidate is a Public Administration Track Ph.D. Candidate in Public Affairs program, and research analyst at the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. He received his MPA in 2008 from UCF. He can be reached at Vener.Garayev@ucf.edu.

The manuscript prepared for the Public Management Research Conference, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, June 2-4, 2011, New York. This research is funded by National Science Foundation (Award #: 0943208)

Designing, Managing, and Sustaining Functionally Collaborative

Emergency Management Networks

Abstract: The success of networked governance in emergency management is dependent on

structural, spatial and temporal issues embedded to inter-organizational relationships. Network

sustainability is one of such issues that requires due attention by scholars and practitioners in the

field. This paper examines how network sustainability, namely, the extent to which network

relationships are maintained and nurtured over time, is affected by interdependent network

relationships, network complexity, and information-communication technology utilization at the

local level. Based on 118 responses from a self-administered survey distributed to four county-

based metropolitan regions in the State of Florida, this study provides regression analysis

analyzing above-mentioned relationships. Using UCINET social network analysis software,

additional analysis of network structure and dynamics in the four counties is provided for further

insight. The findings suggest positive and statistically significant relationships between network

relationships and information-communication technology utilization, and no statistically

significant impact of network complexity as well as control variables of sector type, number of

full-time employees, and yearly budget. Network analysis, on the other hand, suggests different

patterns between friendship network, on the one hand, and advice networks during preparedness

and response, on the other. This study contributes to the literature on networked governance

applied to the field of emergency management.

Keywords: Emergency management, networks, functionally collaboration, network

development, network sustainability, Information communication technology, complexity

1

Designing, Managing, and Sustaining Functionally Collaborative

Emergency Management Networks

Introduction

Emergency management is one of the fields under the realm of public affairs that has

extensively utilized networks to deal with public issues over the past decades. The complex

nature and substantive impacts of the emergency management issues proved inability of single

organizations to tackle disasters and emergencies on their own, leading them to accept a

collaborative approach (Kapucu & Garayev, 2011; Kapucu, Arslan, & Demiroz, 2010) as the

main solution to the problem. Focusing on the all-hazard approach as the main strategy to deal

with disasters, organizations responsible for emergency management find them themselves quite

often involved in the midst of networked governance that envisions shared goals and

responsibilities as well as a coordinated and unified action to produce a commonly-owned result

(Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000).

Networked governance, on the other hand, is a combination of inter-organizational

interactions spread across timeline, the nature of which depends on the network structure and

relationships, the contextual factors and the issue to be addressed. Disasters are focusing events

requiring immediate response as well as actions before and after it strikes (Birkland, 1997). The

major disasters of the past few years showed that having organizations ready to respond is not

enough provide for effective emergency response. One of the issues to be addressed in this

regard is network sustainability – the extent to which inter-organizational relationships are

maintained especially in the absence of disasters when it is deemed unnecessary the most.

Focusing on the four metropolitan regions in the State of Florida, this study analyzes how

organizations responsible for emergency management in respective counties understand network

2

relationships they are involved in. The study specifically looks at how network sustainability is

affected by inter-organizational relationships, network complexity, and information-

communication technology utilization as perceived by organizations involved in those networks.

The study seeks to find answers to the following questions: Is there any relationship between

inter-organizational relationships, network complexity, and information-communication

technology utilization as predictor variables on the one hand, and network sustainability as

outcome variable on the other? What are the structural and relational aspects of inter-

organizational networks involved in disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery?

To answer the research questions, a self-administered survey was electronically mailed to

some 300 organizations responsible for emergency management as specified in respective

counties’ comprehensive emergency management plans (CEMP). Based on the 120 responses

received, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify statistical relationships among

dependent and independent variables. The results of the regression analysis was further discussed

in light of the design network structures derived from CEMPs and network structures derived

from responses to network-related questions in the survey. Responses to open-ended questions

were also included to provide additional insight. Along with contribution to the literature on

network theory, this study intends to provide managerial and policy implications with the

purpose to improve emergency response and recovery. Directions for further research are also

discussed.

Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

The nature of emergencies and disasters today forces for emergency response and

recovery organizations to collaborate in order to be effective (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006;

Callahan & Holzer, 1994; Vangen & Huxham, 2003). Organizations with limited capacity and

3

capabilities tend to create partnerships sharing resources, information, personnel, finance and

expertise (McDonald, 2008). These partnerships are often multi-organizational and cross-

jurisdictional resulting in a network approach to emergency management(Weber, 2003).

Networks have been already widely utilized in the field, though excellence in related sphere has

not been achieved yet(Kapucu & Van Wart, 2006). Networks are dynamic structure comprising

multiple organizations often located in geographically different sites (Snow, Lipnack, & Stamps,

1999). They are multisite groups of organizations with shared preferences, norms and values

coming together for a common goal and relying mainly on information-communication

technologies for their operations and communication (Grabowski & Roberts, 1999).

Networks are generally characterized by flexible and non-rigid administrative structure, and non-

hierarchical mode of governance, which might be considered as the positive attributes. They are

often criticized, however, on the grounds of slow decision-making, leadership, trust,

accountability and performance measurement issues (Ward & Wamsley, 2007).

Nevertheless, inter-organizational and inter-governmental policy-making in emergency

management is useful especially in the field of emergency management where tackling

emergency incidents is almost impossible without involvement of other parties including

nonprofit and for-profit sectors, and community and individuals (Mushkatel & Weschler, 1985).

The way networks utilized, however, is a crucial factor that would impact the ultimate success

(Trotter, Briody, Sengir, & Meerwarth, 2008). More specifically, networks in emergency

management have a higher chance of success if maintained and sustained over time e (Ansell &

Gash, 2007; Milward & Provan, 2000). Gillespie et al. (1993) state that network sustainability

can be achieved through continuous professional personal relationship and interactions to

address a continuously present and active problem. While the literature abounds on the factors

4

affecting network sustainability, this study focuses on three of them, namely network

relationships, network complexity, and information-communication technology utilization.

Being a group of several actors working together to achieve a common goal in the

broadest sense (Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007), networks are highly dependent on inter-

organizational relationships and interactions(Vangen & Huxham, 2003). This means that what

makes networks work is their main characteristics. Accordingly, network sustainability is

dependent upon the interdependency of organizational goals and overall preferences (DeSanctis,

Staudenmayer, & Wong, 1999). It is also organizations’ interdependency in terms of resources

and assets (Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999) that are shared to minimize cost and increase organizational

success and productivity(Ansell & Gash, 2007; Fiszben & Lowden, 1999). The network

relationships characterized by specific asset interdependencies, thus, are the cornerstone of

networks. Once this multiagency perspective (Davies, 2003) is dissolved, it is needless as well as

impossible for a group of organizations to sustain their relationships in the long run. Emergency

management is a specific case, in which organizations’ limited capabilities and capacities often

force them to collaborate with others(Jordan, 2010) in order to deal with disasters of unexpected

nature, scope and severity (Thurmaier & Wood, 2002). Therefore, emergency management

extensively relies upon a multiagency collaborative approach (Drabek, Tamminga, Kilijanek, &

Adams, 1981), the success of which is parallel with the nature and the level of interdependency

among network actors. In light of the literature, thus, the first hypothesis to be tested in this

article is as follows:

H1: Interdependent network relationships are positively associated with network

sustainability.

5

One of the factors closely related to interdependent network relationships is the concept

of network complexity. Broadly speaking, network complexity is the sum of increased,

multifaceted, and multidirectional relationships(Kapucu, 2009). The literature also emphasizes

network complexity as the factor to impact network sustainability. Jassawalla and Sashittal

(1999) argue that network complexity is the natural phenomenon pertaining to collaborative

practices. While being natural, though, complexity characterized by interactions among multiple

actors with different goals and expectations is a factor that might negatively affect network

performance, and, thus, sustainability (DeSanctis, Staudenmayer, & Wong, 1999). It is

imperative that network actors understand the advantages and disadvantages of network

complexity, and utilize it beneficially. This article assumes that network complexity, if not

managed properly especially in the context of emergencies and disasters, would result in

decreased network sustainability. In other words, if organizations consider multiplicity of actors,

interactions and goals as an opportunity for more successful network results, network

sustainability is a higher chance; otherwise, network complexity is a hindrance that should be

managed wisely. The hypothesis to be tested in regard to network complexity is as follows:

H2: Network complexity is negatively associated with network sustainability.

The literature also links network sustainability to technical and structural factors. One of

the mostly cited factors to impact network sustainability is the utilization of information-

communication technologies (ICT). Technological innovations, social media, and electronic

opportunities today are inevitable parts of creating, developing and maintaining networks

(Mowshowitz, 1997). Utilization of ICT especially for communication and information exchange

is of practical benefit in network context(Dawes & Eglene, 2004). The ICT utilized for network

purposes generally minimizes transaction costs, saves time, increases network efficiency, and

6

speeds the overall process of decision-making and implementation (den Hengst & Sol, 2001).

Though not a completely sufficient factor, information-communication technologies, thus,

contribute to the overall effectiveness of collaborative networks (Cohen & Mankin, 1999). The

main contribution of the ICT is engendered in the fastened, enhanced, facilitated, coordinated,

and streamlined network operations (Kelly & Stark, 2002). Network sustainability is far from

seamless in the absence of technological tools making networks viable in today’s conditions. The

third and last hypothesis of this article, therefore, is as follows:

H3: Utilization of information-communication technologies (ICT) is positively associated

with network sustainability.

While many other structural and relational factors contribute to network sustainability,

this study takes a modest approach to test the impact of tree factors, namely interdependent

network relationships, network complexity, and information-communication technology (ICT)

utilization on network sustainability. These factors are being tested in the context of emergency

management field, which is further explained in the following section.

In addition to the main constructs of the study, three control variables were included in

the model for testing. These variables are the agency sector (SEC), the number of full-time

employees in the agency (EMP), and the budget allocated for specific agency in respective fiscal

year (BDG). The main intent in adding these control variables in the model is to test whether

these attributes of the organizations in this or another way affect their relationships with the

overall network of agencies. The overall conceptual model of the study is shown below in Figure

1:

F

A

complexi

independ

sustainab

sector (S

budget of

C

T

novelty a

severity o

respond t

acknowle

Figure 1: Co

According to

ity (COM), a

dent variable

bility (SUS).

EC), the num

f the agency

Context of th

The fact that

anymore. Th

of disasters a

to disasters e

edgment by

onceptual M

the Figure 1

and informat

es whose rela

These relati

mber of full-

y (BDG).

he Study

emergency m

he field has a

as well as to

experienced

government

Map of the St

1, inter-depe

tion-commu

ationship is t

ionships are

-time employ

management

adapted itself

o the need for

over past de

ts at all level

7

tudy

endent netwo

unication tech

tested in rega

tested while

yees in the a

t relies on co

f to emergin

r reforms in

ecades. One

ls for the urg

ork relationsh

hnology util

ard to the de

e controlling

agency (EMP

ollaborative

ng threats of

light of the

of the drama

gency to desi

hips (NET),

lization (ICT

ependent var

g for the type

P), and the o

approaches

increasing s

failures to e

atic changes

ign more eff

network

T) are

riable of netw

e of agency o

overall yearly

today is not

scope and

effectively

s has been th

fective

work

or its

y

t a

he

8

emergency response systems that would address previous failures. The desired systems would

bring more flexibility and horizontality in terms of intra-organizational and inter-organizational

relationships, as well as a strong emphasis on coordination, collaboration and communication.

The establishment of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1978 was a basis for

such evolution (Schroeder, Wamsley, & Ward, 2001). FEMA absorbed several agencies aiming

at provision of unified and coordinated national response. The natural disasters and the non-

inclusive civil defense approach up to the end of the Cold War in late 1980s signaled for

additional reforms, one of the most important of which was the Robert T. Stafford Disaster

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (Sylves, 2007).

The Stafford Act embodied principles and mechanisms to assist state and local

communities in times of disasters, which was supposed to be implemented through Federal

Response Plan (FRP) created along with the Act. The FRP established an all-hazard and

function-based approach in emergency management that aimed for a coordinated and efficient

use of resources during disasters. The Plan enlisted twelve emergency support functions (ESF) –

a measure to group organizations based on their responsibilities, capabilities, capacity and

expertise. This approach established not only a framework of coordination, but also collaboration

among agencies representing different sectors and levels of government. The FRP proved

ineffective during disasters of 1990s, and especially during the terrorist attacks on September 11,

2001. Subsequent reforms were of paradigmatic and consequential nature. In 2003 the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created absorbing 22 federal agencies, which put

FEMA a peripheral role of managing natural disasters with lessened authority and budget over

emergency management policies.

9

Focusing more on the notion of homeland security, the DHS created the National

Response Plan (NRP) that was based on existing plans with the emphasis on all-hazard, all-

discipline and collaborative approach to emergency management (Kapucu & Garayev, 2011;

Bullock, Haddow, & Coppola, 2005). The Plan envisioned better communication as well as

increased partnerships among all stakeholders in emergency management. The twelve-function

framework of the FRP was expanded with three additional ESFs to fifteen, thus providing a more

inclusive and comprehensive approach to tackle disasters. The years after 2003, and specifically

disasters like Hurricane Katrina of 2005, showed the deficiencies in the existing system urging

for additional changes and reforms (Kamarck, 2003). The federal government took relevant steps

to appreciate FEMA’s previous role and capacity; which resulted in the creation of the National

Response Framework (NRF) in 2008. Having similarly fifteen ESFs, the NRF asserted the need

for enhanced collaboration, coordination and communication among emergency management

stakeholders and emphasized the importance of disaster-resilient communities structured around

the all-hazard and inter-disciplinary approach to prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response

and recovery(Kapucu, 2009).

The historical evolution at the national level was similarly applied to and adopted at the

state and local levels over time. The NRP came along with the National Incident Management

System (NIMS) that proposed a nation-wide template to address disasters. The NIMS also

provided the Incident Command System (ICS) that described the mechanism to provide

emergency response and recovery. The local governments across the United States are expected

to adopt and implement similar structures. Being the focus of the study, the county governments

design their emergency management systems accordingly with slight variations due to regional,

geographic, demographic, financial and administrative issues. This study specifically analyzes

10

four counties in the State of Florida, which have emergency management systems adjusted to the

national-level expectations.

The collaborative and coordinative approach at the federal level is similarly practiced at

the county-level with counties having comprehensive emergency management plans (CEMP)

with the number of ESFs ranging from 15 to 20 in most instances.

This study specifically focuses on the four metropolitan areas in the State of Florida (Orange,

Hillsborough, Duval, and Miami-Dade Counties). The four counties were chosen based on the

size of the county and population they serve, which are also major metropolitan regions in the

State of Florida. These are also the counties chosen as part of the project funded by the National

Science Foundation (NSF). As in the case of many other counties within the State, these four

counties have independent Emergency Operation Centers (EOC) that are relatively larger in size

with 5 to 10 employees. Each of these counties collaborates with 60 to 90 public, for-profit, and

nonprofit organizations in times of disasters. These organizations constitute an informal network

of collaborators who come together based on the scope and severity of emergencies, with

significant disasters resulting mostly in full activation of the network. The following section

elaborates on the methodology utilized for this study related to the four metropolitan regions.

Methodology

This study employs data derived from responses to a self-administered survey that was

electronically mailed to all agencies responsible for emergency response and recovery in the four

metropolitan areas in the State of Florida. The agencies comprise primary and support agencies

from public, for-profit and non-profit sectors in the four counties (Orange County, Hillsborough

County, Duval County, and Miami-Dade County). The list of agencies was obtained from

respective counties’ Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans (CEMP) that specify which

11

agencies are responsible for which ESFs during emergency response and recovery. The process

of data collection took approximately 3-4 months due to difficulty to reach some 300 agencies

for survey completion. Some 150 responses were collected, among which only 118 were eligible

for analysis after data clearance. A total of 93, 69, 66, and 84 (312 totally) organizations were

identified to be contacted and 40, 35, 23, and 20 responses (118 totally) were received for the

Orange County, Hillsborough County, Duval County, and Miami-Dade County respectively.

The survey consisted of blocks of questions regarding the main variables of this study

along with open-ended questions with the aim to get additional qualitative insight about the

responses provided. The blocks of questions were combined into index variables and utilized for

multiple regression analysis. The ultimate index constructs utilized in the study have the

following Cronbach Alpha reliability values: Interdependent Network Relationships (NET) –

.880; Network Complexity – .801 (COM); Information-Communication Technology Utilization

(ICT) – .708; Network Sustainability (SUS) – .742 (See Appendix A for index items of each

construct).

In addition to regression analysis, this study also utilized a network approach to analyze

the structures of the networks as specified by the respondents to the survey. The analysis presents

an overview of networks as perceived by the respondents to the survey questions targeting inter-

organization relationships. These analyses are utilized to understand and interpret the findings

from regression analysis. Additional insight on the benefits of sustainable network relationships

for emergency management field is derived from qualitative responses through open-ended

questions in the survey. The next section presents findings of multiple regression analysis in light

of the network analysis to support the regression results.

12

Findings and Results

Despite the relatively small sample size, the normality assumptions for multiple

regression analysis were mostly met. The results of the analysis of the impact of interdependent

network relationships, network complexity, and information-communication technology (ICT)

utilization on network sustainability specify an R-square value of .197 (R=.443), accounting for

around 20% of the variation in network sustainability dependent variable. The model is also

statistically significant at the level of .001, namely there is less that 0.1% probability that the

calculated F-value of 4.526 would happen by chance.

In addition, it was found that control variables do not have any statistically significant

explanation for the variance in the dependent variables caused by independent variables. In other

words, the control variables of sector, number of employees, and budget don’t provide any

additional explanation in the model beyond independent variables. Neither the first model

composed of control variables, neither the coefficients of the control variables in the combined

model were found to be statistically significant.

The coefficients of the combined model with control variables included, namely the

impacts of independent and control variables in the model, are shown below in Table 1 below.

According to the table, interdependent network relationships and utilization of information-

communication technologies (ICT) are statistically significant contributors to network

sustainability. Network complexity is excluded from the model, and, thus, does not seem to

contribute to network sustainability based on the data obtained for this study.

13

Table 1: Coefficients of Regression Model

Model Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 2 (Constant) 2.276 .443 5.136 .000

DEM4 -.020 .084 -.021 -.243 .809

DEM5 .028 .043 .089 .662 .510

DEM6 -.014 .049 -.037 -.282 .778

INDEX_NET .223 .069 .277 3.226 .002**

INDEX_COM .053 .047 .097 1.134 .259

INDEX_ICT .217 .072 .268 2.996 .003**

a. Dependent Variable: INDEX_SUS Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

The regression analysis results are not surprising especially in terms of the network

relationships and ICT affecting network sustainability. These assumptions were strongly

supported by different scholars in the literature. The Figure 2 below displays network

relationships at the network level of each county studied. The Figure might shed light on the two

factors in the regression model, namely network relationships inter-dependence and network

complexity. The figure shows that in terms of friendship network – who knows whom – counties

seem to be comparatively complete, meaning that county-wide every agency has a sense of what

other agencies are responsible for in the whole emergency management network, and this might

be not a surprise. The friendship networks, in turn, are transmitted to a lower-density

collaborative preparedness (advice during preparedness) and collaborative response (advice

during response) networks, with some isolate nodes especially in the case of Miami-Dade, the

county with the lowest response rate as a possible explanation. In other words, the network

sustainability in each county case is fostered through these highly connected nodes before and

after emergencies. The literature likewise emphasizes the importance of pre and post-disaster

14

collaborations for longer and more productive relationships leading to sustainable networks. The

regression results are also supported by qualitative comments of the respondents.

The surprising finding is related to network complexity that has been found statistically

insignificant to have impact on network sustainability. This result poses a questions about the

perception of network complexity by emergency management practitioners, who might or might

not view multiplicity of network relationship and interaction among organizations from different

sectors and levels of government and, thus, having different goals, as hindrance to network

sustainability. Again, as in the case of network relationships inter-dependence, the network

complexity characterized by multiplicity of interactions among actors representing diverse

backgrounds and organizational goals seems to have been supported by visual diagrams;

statistical results, however, lead to rejection of the assumption. These might be due to the fact

that different organizations interpret network complexity in different ways, some seeing it as an

advantage and some as disadvantage, despite the fact that they are supposed to work together

according to the CEMPs.

Lastly, in terms of information-communication technology (ICT) utilization, the network

analysis presents highly connected networks, which is possible only through sophisticated

technical capacity of organizations involved in the network. While the high level of network

connectedness can be also attributed to several other factors, it is the strong belief of the authors

that ICT is the main factor making it possible. In other words, ICT is a mandatory but not

sufficient factor to explain the density and multiplicity of interactions and relationships in the

networks in the Figure 2. This is especially true for the collaborative preparedness and

collaborative response networks that are highly dependent on ICT in today’s complex

environment of emergencies.

Figure 2Counties

Ora

nge

Hil

lsbo

roug

h D

uval

M

iam

i-D

ade

Friendship

2. Friendshs

p

ip, Advice

AdvPre

Preparedne

15

vice During eparedness

ess and Addvice Respo

Advice Du

onse Networ

uring Respon

rks of the

nse

Four

16

Table 2, on the other hand, provides a list of top three agencies with degree, closeness,

and betweenness centrality measures for friendship, advice during preparedness and advice

during response networks in four counties.

17

Table 2: Centrality Measures for Friendship, Advice during Preparedness and Advice during Response Networks in Four Counties Orange County

Degree Closeness BetweennessI know this organization 1 Orange County Human Resources United Way Orange County Communications

2 Orange County Health Services Progress Energy American Red Cross3 Orange County Animal Services Florida Highway Patrol Orange County Office of EM

I collaborate during preparedness 1 Orange County Communications Lynx Orange County Communications2 Orange County Fiscal & Business Brighthouse American Red Cross3 Orange County Business Develop. Area Agency on Aging Orange County Sheriff’s Office

I collaborate during response 1 Orange County Communications Hospitals Orange County Communications2 Orange County Fiscal & Business Orlando Police Department American Red Cross3 Orange County Human Resources Orange County Admin. Services Orange County Sheriff's Office

Hillsborough County

Degree Closeness BetweennessI know this organization 1 HC Hazard Mitigation HC Geographic Info. System (GIS) HC Management & Budget

2 HC Building Services HC Emergency Dispatch Center HC Emergency Management3 Tampa Fire Rescue Department HC Library Services American Red Cross

I collaborate during preparedness 1 HC Emergency Management Tampa Emergency Management HC Emergency Management2 American Red Cross HC Sheriff's Office American Red Cross3 HC Damage Assessment HC Communications Tampa Fire Rescue Department

I collaborate during response 1 HC Emergency Management Florida National Guard HC Emergency Management2 American Red Cross Tampa Emergency Management American Red Cross3 HC Damage Assessment HC Sheriff's Office HC Fire Rescue

Duval County

Degree Closeness BetweennessI know this organization 1 JEA Utilities Atlantic Beach Police Department Jacksonville Housing & Neighborhoods

2 Duval County Health Department Atlantic Beach Animal Control Jacksonville Planning & Development3 Jacksonville Recr. & Comm. Services Jacksonville Port Authority Florida Department of Transportation

I collaborate during preparedness 1 Jacksonville Recr. & Comm. Services Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Jacksonville Emergency Preparedness2 Northeast Florida Regional Council Jacksonville Fire & Rescue JEA Utilities3 Jacksonville Environ. & Compliance American Red Cross Northeast Florida Regional Council

I collaborate during response 1 Jacksonville Emergency Preparedness Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Jacksonville Emergency Preparedness2 Jacksonville Recr. & Comm. Services Jacksonville Fire & Rescue FL Department of Law Enforcement3 Jacksonville Econ. Dev. Commission American Red Cross Jacksonville Aviation Authority

Miami-Dade County

Degree Closeness BetweennessI know this organization 1 Florida Power and Light Fl Dept. of Transportation Florida Power and Light

2 MDC Solid Waste Management MDC Seaport Department Coral Gables Fire Rescue3 Miami Beach Fire Rescue MDC Building Department Fl Dept. of Environmental Protection

I collaborate during preparedness 1 MDC Dept. of Emergency Manag. Salvation Army MDC Dept. of Emergency Manag.2 MDC Solid Waste Management American Red Cross Miami Beach Fire Rescue3 Miami Beach Fire Rescue FEMA MDC Police Department

I collaborate during response 1 MDC Aviation Department FEMA MDC Dept. of Emergency Manag.2 MDC Solid Waste Management American Red Cross MDC Solid Waste Management3 MDC Dept. of Emergency Manag. Fl Dept. of Transportation Miami Beach Fire Rescue

18

The survey also included two open-ended questions asking about how sustainable

emergency management network partnerships/collaborations (1) would help enhance, and (2)

would not benefit emergency management field. The responses to the former question can be

summarized in the form of emphasis on the importance of emergency management partnerships

for time efficiency, for better distribution of resources, for better coordination of operations, for

clearer and better communication, and for better ultimate results with least damages to human

lives and property. Specifically, most of the responses concentrate around enhanced coordination

of emergency operations that relieves the overall burden on functionally inter-related actors. A

sample answer to the first question is as follows: “Setting up a common framework helps people

from disparate organizations better understand what their roles are and how they fit towards the

overall objectives.”

The responses to the latter question, on the other hand, can be summarized in the form of

agreement on the collaborative partnerships’ seamlessness with minor concerns. For example, a

respondent says that “partnerships "for the sake of" partnerships would waste time and funding,”

while another respondent argues that conflicting priorities might be a hindrance for effective

collaborations. Yet another argues that organizations that are not equally trained or aware of

NIMS-based structure, guidelines, and operations system may lead to inefficient and ineffective

collaboration. A sample answer to the second question is as follows: “It's beneficial if both know

their roles and perform them and not try to either take command or fail to support the event.”

Discussion and Lessons Learned

While emergency management organizations do practice collaborative networks in

today’s conditions, not all of them are aware of the benefits of sustaining those collaborative

relationships across time, especially in the absence of disasters. What is more, not all

organizations are equipped with tools and information to enhance the network they are part of.

19

This study presents several lessons to enhance collaborative networks for better and more

effective results in the emergency management field.

Lesson 1: Emergency management networks are effective to the extent inter-actor

relationships are enhanced for more sustainable relationships.

The actors involved in emergency management collaborative networks should take

partnerships serious. It is not one-way request of information or provision of service in

collaborative networks that makes network work; rather, it is constantly nurtured, enhanced and

increased two-way interactions among functionally inter-related actors to increase organizational

capacity and preparedness for disasters. Network actors that are isolated and disconnected from

the whole might be ineffective, insufficiently prepared, unhelpful and even detrimental to the

whole network especially during the response stage. Thus, network relationships among actors

responsible for emergency management, including mitigation, preparedness, response and

recovery stages, should be constantly increased and enhanced through sustained contact and

interaction for the purposes of synchronization of information, capacity and expectations.

Lesson 2: Emergency management networks should be cautious about the nature of

relationships, specifically against complexity that would damage, rather than contribute to,

overall emergency preparedness and response operations.

Due the fact that collaboration involves multiple actors from different sectors and levels

of government, the collaborative network relationships in emergency management are prone to

be diverse and multi-faceted. This diversity may be reflected in the strength, quality, and nature

of the relationships bringing complexity arising from the need to compromise multiple goals and

expectations. Network actors, thus, face a burden of constantly monitoring their relationships to

bring balance between internal organizational goals and network goals. On the other hand, the

20

assumption that network complexity characterized by multiplicity of organizational goals and

interactions impacts network sustainability is to re-tested across other types of networks.

Lesson 3: Emergency management collaborative networks should invest into

information-communication technologies (ICT) to increase network sustainability.

While the types and the nature of disasters decades ago were simplistic, the increased

severity and scope of emergencies today call upon more sophisticated and coordinated

emergency preparedness and response. The multi-faceted and complex collaborative network

relationships in today’s conditions are manageable and sustainable only through clear and

enhanced communication channels and information sharing systems for the purpose of

coordinated and unified efforts and decision-making. A lack of decision support systems as well

as communication technologies that make cooperation and partnership of geographically

distributed actors possible may be detrimental in time-sensitive and quickly-evolving emergency

preparedness and response networks.

Conclusion

This study analyzed the factors affecting network sustainability in emergency

management context. The main contribution of the study is the statistically confirmed

relationships between network relationships inter-dependency and information-communication

technology (ICT) utilization on the one hand, and network sustainability on the other. The

assumed relationship between network complexity and network sustainability was not supported

by the study findings. Emergency management practitioners should consider development of

network relationships and investment into ICT as important factors to increase network

sustainability, which in turn would result in effective emergency preparedness and response. The

21

need for increased network relationships should not be compromised by the caution against

possible network complexity.

Network sustainability is positively associated with inter-dependent network relationships

and information-communication technology utilization. To achieve sustainable networks, thus,

organizations need to invest into development of dense relationships and technical capacity. The

structure and relationships of organizations do matter when inter-organizational networks are

considered. Accordingly, inter-organizational networks in disaster preparedness and response are

characterized by density of relationships structured in accordance with the phases of emergency

management respectively. The network structure and relationships, and specifically the network

relationships as well as technical capacity of organizations, do contribute to the sustainability,

and, thus, effectiveness/efficiency of emergency preparedness, response and recovery.

22

References

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory , 1-29.

Birkland, T. A. (1997). After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events.

Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-

sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Liiterature. Public Administration Review ,

44-55.

Bullock, J. A., Haddow, G. D., & Coppola, D. P. (2005). Introduction to Homeland Security.

Burlington: Elsevier, Inc.

Callahan, K., & Holzer, M. (1994). Rethinking Governmental Change: New Ideas, New

Partnerships. Public Productivity and Management Review , 17 (3), 201-214.

Cohen, S. G., & Mankin, D. (1999). Collaboration in the Virtual Organization. In C. L. Cooper,

& D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trend in Organizational Behavior: The Virtual Organization

(pp. 105-120). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Davies, R. (2003, November 24). Network Perspectives in the Evaluation of Development

Interventions: More Than a Metaphor. Retrieved from www.mande.co.uk/docs/nape.pdf

Dawes, S. S., & Eglene, O. (2004). New Models of Collaboration for Delivering Government

Services: A Dynamic Model Drawn from Multi-national Research. 2004 Annual National

Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 1-11). Seattle, WA: Digital

Government Society of North America .

den Hengst, M., & Sol, H. G. (2001). The Impact of Information and Coordination Technology

on Interorganizational Coordination: Guidelines from Theory. Informing Science , 4 (4),

129-138.

23

DeSanctis, G., Staudenmayer, N., & Wong, S. S. (1999). Interdependence in Virtual

Organizations. In C. L. Cooper, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trend in Organizational

Behavior: The Virtual Organization (pp. 81-104). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Drabek, T. E., Tamminga, H. L., Kilijanek, T. S., & Adams, C. R. (1981). Managing

Multiorganizational Emergency Responses: Emergent Search and Rescue Networks in

Natural Disaster and Remote Area Settings. Boulder: University of Colorado.

Fiszben, A., & Lowden, P. (1999). Working Together for a Change: Government, Civic and

Business Partnerships for Poverty Reduction in Latin America and the Carribean.

Washington, D.C.: Economic Development Institute of the World Bank.

Gillespie, D. F., Colignon, R. A., Banerjee, M. M., Murty, S. A., & Rogge, M. (1993).

Partnerships for Community Preparedness. Boudler: University of Colorado.

Grabowski, M., & Roberts, K. H. (1999). Risk Mitigation in Virtual Organizations. Organization

Science , 10 (6), 704-721.

Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From?

American Journal of Sociology , 177-231.

Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (1999). Building Collaborative Cross-Functional New

Product Teams. Academy of Management , 13 (3), 50-63.

Jordan, A. E. (2010). Collaborative Relationships Resulting from the Urban Area Security

Initiative. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management , 7 (1), Article 38.

Kamarck, E. C. (2003). Applying 21st-Century Government to the Challenge of Homeland

Security. In J. M. Kamensky, & T. J. Burlin (Eds.), Collaboration Using Networks and

Partnerships (pp. 103-146). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

24

Kapucu, N. (2009). Interorganizational Coordination in Complex Environments of Disasters:

The Evolution of Intergovernmental Disaster Response Systems. Journal of Homeland

Security and Emergency Management , 6 (1), 1-26.

Kapucu, N. & Garayev, V. (2011). Collaborative Decision-Making in Emergency and Crisis

Management. International Journal of Public Administration. 34(6): 366-375.

Kapucu, N., & Van Wart, M. (2006). The Evolving Role of the Public Sector in Managing

Catastrophic Disasters: Lessons Learned. Administration and Society , 38 (3), 279-308.

Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., & Demiroz, F. (2010). Collaborative emergency management and

national emergency management network. Disaster Prevention and Management , 19 (4),

452-468.

Kelly, J., & Stark, D. (2002). Crisis, recovery, innovation: responsive organization after

September 11. New York: Center on Organizational Innovation.

Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. M. (2000). Public management and Policy Network: Foundations

of a network approach to governance. Public Management , 2 (2), 135–158.

McDonald, D. D. (2008, January 8). Collaborative Decisionmaking in Disaster Response

Situations. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from Dennis McDonald's Blog:

http://www.ddmcd.com/managing-technology/collaborative-decisionmaking-in-disaster-

response-situations.html

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). How Networks Are Governed. In C. J. Heinrich, & L.

E. Lynn (Eds.), Governance and Performance: New Perspectives (pp. 238-262).

Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Mowshowitz, A. (1997). On the Theory of Virtual Organization. Systems Research and

Behavioral Science , 14, 373–384.

25

Mushkatel, A. H., & Weschler, L. F. (1985). Emergency Management and the Intergovernmental

System. Public Administration Review , 45 (Special Issue), 49-56.

Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational Networks at the Network Level:

A Review of the Empirical Literature on Whole Networks. Journal of Management , 33

(3), 479-516.

Schroeder, A. D., Wamsley, G. L., & Ward, R. (2001). The Evolution of Emergency

Management in America. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Handbook of Crisis and Emergency

Management. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Snow, C. C., Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). The Virtual Organization: Promises and Payoffs,

Large and Small. In C. L. Cooper, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trend in Organizational

Behavior: The Virtual Organization (pp. 15-30). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Sylves, R. T. (2007). Federal Emergency Management Comes of Age: 1979-2001. In C. B.

Rubin (Ed.), Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900-2005 (pp. 111-

153). Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute.

Thurmaier, K., & Wood, C. (2002). Interlocal Agreements as Overlapping Social Networks:

Picket-Fence Regionalism in Metropolitan Kansas City. Public Administration Review ,

62 (5), 585-698.

Trotter, R. T., Briody, E. K., Sengir, G. H., & Meerwarth, T. L. (2008). The Life Cycle of

Collaborative Partnerships: Evolution of Structure and Roles in Industry-University

Research Networks. Connections , 28 (1), 40-58.

Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing Collaborative Relations. The Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science , 39 (1), 5-31.

26

Ward, R., & Wamsley, G. (2007). From a Painful Past to un Uncertain Future. In C. B. Rubin

(Ed.), Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900-2005 (pp. 207-242).

Fairfax: Public Entity Risk Institue.

Weber, E. P. (2003). Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management,

Accountability, and Sustainable Communities. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

27

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Index Items for Dependent and Independent Variables

Construct Items α

value

Net

wor

k R

elat

ions

hips

(I

ndep

ende

nt)

Our organization develops long-run relationships with other organizations

0.880

Our organization exchanges resources with other organizations

Our organization exchanges information with other organizations

Our organization works towards a common goal as other responsible organizations

Our organization is involved in partnership practices with other organizations

Our organization is involved in collective/shared making decisions for disaster response

Com

plex

ity

(Ind

epen

dent

)

Disaster response is challenging because it requires working with other organizations

0.801

Disaster response is challenging because it requires working under other functions (i.e., ESFs)

Disaster response is challenging because different agencies often have different goals

Disaster response is challenging because different agencies often work against each other

Disaster response is challenging because organizations involved are so different from one another

ICT

(I

ndep

ende

nt)

Our organization relies upon the use of information technology in communication and coordination

0.708

Our organization’s operations are streamlined by technological tools of communication and coordination Our organization has sufficient technical and technological capacity to deal with disasters

The use of ICT facilitates/enhances the operations of our organization

Our operations are supported by a disaster information management system (WebEOC, E-Team, etc.)

Net

wor

k S

usta

inab

ilit

y (D

epen

dent

)

Our organization maintains relationships with other organizations with role in disaster preparedness and response

0.742

In the absence of disasters, our organization sustains relationships with other organizations

In the absence of disasters, our organization is involved in collaborative practices (such as exercises, and meetings) with organizations we collaborate during disaster responseCritical relationships among disaster response agencies become formalized so that they are sustainable over time