Inter-Organisational Exercises in Dry and Wet Context—Why Do Maritime Response Organisations Gain More Knowledge from Exercises at Sea Than Those on Shore?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Maritime and Land-Based Collaboration
3. Methods
3.1. The Context of the Survey
3.2. Procedures
4. Results
4.1. Participants
4.2. Collaboration
4.3. Learning
4.4. Utility
4.5. Bivariate Regressions
4.6. Multiple Regressions
5. Discussion
5.1. Practical Implications
5.2. Limitations
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Berlin, J.; Carlström, E. Collaboration Exercises. What Do They Contribute?: A Study of Learning and Usefulness. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2015, 23, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berlin, J.; Carlström, E. Learning and usefulness of collaboration exercises: A study of the three level collaboration (3LC) exercises between the police, ambulance, and rescue services. Int. J. Mass Emergencies Disasters 2015, 33, 428–467. [Google Scholar]
- Kristiansen, E.; Löve-Sörensen, J.; Carlström, E.; Magnussen, L.I. Time to rethink Norwegian maritime collaboration exercises. Int. J. Emerg. Serv. 2017, 6, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnussen, L.I.; Carlström, E.; Sörensen, J.L.; Torgersen, G.E.; Hagenes, E.F.; Kristiansen, E. Learning and Usefulness stemming from collaboration in a maritime crisis management exercise in Northern Norway. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2018, 27, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sorensen, J.; Magnussen, L.-I.; Torgersen, G.-E.; Christiansen, A.M.; Carlström, E. Old dogs new tricks? A Norwegian study on whether previous collaboration exercise experience impacted participants’ perceived exercise effect. Int. J. Emerg. Serv. 2018, 8, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Axelsson, R.; Bihari-Axelsson, S. Integration and collaboration in public health: A conceptual framework. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 2006, 21, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berlin, J.; Carlström, E. The Dominance of Mechanistic Behaviour: A Critical Study of Emergency Exercises. Int. J. Emerg. Manag. 2013, 9, 327–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Emergency Preparedness Principles. Available online: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/samfunnssikkerhetog-beredskap/innsikt/hovedprinsipper-i-beredskapsarbeidet/id2339996/ (accessed on 30 April 2020).
- MSB. Så Bygger vi Säkerhet i Norden: Ett Svenskt Myndighetsperspektiv; Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011.
- Norwegian Official Report. NOU 2012. Report from the July 22 Commission. Available online: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets (accessed on 6 June 2020).
- Skr. Strengthened Collaboration: Improved Safety, Stated by the Swedish Government; Regeringskansliet/Försvarsdepartementet: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009.
- Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency. Civil Emergency Planning/Crisis Management in Sweden; Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018.
- Berlin, J.; Carlström, E. Collaboration Exercises: The Lack of Collaborative Benefits. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2014, 5, 192–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Wart, M.; Kapucu, N. Crisis Management Competencies. The Case of Emergency Managers in the USA. Public Manag. Rev. 2011, 13, 489–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aedo, I.; Bañuls, V.A.; Canós, J.-H.; Díaz, P.; Hiltz, S.R. Information Technologies for Emergency Planning and Training. In Proceedings of the 8th International ISCRAM International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 8–11 May 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Drennan, L.; McConnell, A. Risk and Crisis Management in the Public Sector; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Deverell, J. Crisis-Induced Learning in Public Sector Organisations; Elanders: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Christensen, T.; Laegrid, T.; Rykkja, L. After a Terrorist Attack: Challenges for Political and Administrative Leadership in Norway. J. Contingencies Manag. 2013, 21, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scholtens, A. Controlled Collaboration in Disaster and Crisis Management in the Netherlands, History and Practice of an Overestimated and Underestimated Concept. J. Contingencies Manag. 2008, 16, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groenendaal, J.; Helsloot, I.; Scholtens, A. A Critical Examination of The Assumptions Regarding Centralized Coordination in Large-Scale Emergency Situations. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 2013, 10, 113–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stein, J. How Institutions Learn: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective. J. Econ. Issues 1997, 3, 729–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbacioglu, S.; Kapucu, N. Organisational learning and selfadaption in dynamic disaster environment. Disasters 2011, 30, 212–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bush, P.D. The Theory of Institutional Change. J. Econ. Issues 1987, 21, 1075–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moynihan, D.P. From intercrisis to intracrisis learning. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2009, 17, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gredler, M. Evaluating Games and Simulations, a Process Approach; Kogan Page: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Moynihan, D.P. Learning under Uncertainty: Networks in Crisis Management. Public Adm. Rev. 2008, 68, 350–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sommer, M.; Braut, G.S.; Njå, O. A Model for Learning in Emergency Response Work. Int. J. Emerg. Manag. 2013, 9, 151–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nemeth, C.; Wears, R.L.; Patel, S.; Rosen, G.; Cook, R. Resilience is not control: Healthcare, crisis management, and ICT’, Cognition. Technol. Work 2011, 13, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, H.; Williams, P.; Jeffares, S. Leadership for Collaboration. Public Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 41–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres, R.T.; Preskill, H. Evaluation and organisational learning: Past, present, and future. Am. J. Eval. 2001, 22, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marchenko, N.A.; Borch, O.J.; Markov, S.V.; Andreassen, N. Maritime Safety in the High North:Risk and Preparedness. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Rhodes, Greece, 26–27 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Carlström, E.; Sörensen, J. Forberedt pa krise. In Samvirke: En Larebok i Beredskap; Kristiansson, E., Magnussen, L.I., Carlström, E., Eds.; Universitetsforlaget: Oslo, Norway, 2017; pp. 45–58. [Google Scholar]
- Emad, G.; Roth, W. Policy as Boundary Object: A New Way to Look at Educational Policy Design and Implementation. Vocat. Learn. 2008, 2, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Almersjö, O.; Ask, E.; Brokopp, T.; Brandsjö, K.; Hedelin, A.; Jaldung, H.; Lundin, T. Branden på Scandinavian Star den 7 April 1990. In SOS-Rapport 1993:3; Socialstyrelsen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Cornwell, B.; Harmon, W.; Mason, M.; Merz, B.; Lampe, M. Panic or Situational Constraints? The Case of the M/V Estonia. Int. J. Mass Emergencies Disasters 2001, 19, 5–26. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, D.E. The ‘Titanic Syndrome’: Risk and Crisis Management on the Costa Concordia. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 2011, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zec, D.; Komadina, P.; Pritchard, B. Toward a global standard MET system: An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of present MET systems. In Proceedings of the 1st International Association of Maritime Universities, Inaugural General Assembly & Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 26–29 June 2000. [Google Scholar]
- IMO. The STCW Convention & Code 2010 Manila Amendments. 2019. Available online: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/TrainingCertification/Pages/STCW-Convention.aspx (accessed on 1 August 2019).
- Berlin, J.; Carlström, E. Why is collaboration minimised at the accident scene? A critical study of a hidden phenomenon. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2011, 20, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristiansen, E.; Håland Johansen, F.; Carlström, E. When it matters most. Collaboration between first responders in incidents and exercises. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2018, 27, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carlström, E.; Fredén, L. The First Single Responders in Sweden: Evaluation of a pre-hospital single staffed unit. Int. Emerg. Nurs. 2017, 32, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comfort, L.K.; Kapucu, N. Inter-Organisational Coordination in Extreme Events: The World Trade Center Attacks, September 11, 2001. Natl. Hazards 2006, 39, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolbers, J.; Groenewegen, P.; Mollee, J.; Bím, J. Incorporating Time Dynamics in the Analysis of Social Networks in Emergency Management. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 2013, 10, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borodzicz, E.P.; Van Haperen, K. Individual and group learning in crisis situations. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2002, 10, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sinclair, H.; Doyle, E.E.; Johnston, D.M.; Patton, D. Assessing Emergency Management Training and Exercises. Disaster Prev. Manag. 2012, 21, 507–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McConnell, A.; Drennan, L. Mission Impossible? Planning and Preparing for Crisis. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2006, 14, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sorensen, J.L.; Magnussen, L.-I.; Torgersen, G.-E.; Christiansen, A.; Carlström, E. Perceived Usefulness of Maritime Cross-Border Collaboration Exercises. Arts Soc. Sci. J. 2019, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sorensen, J.L. Norwegian Maritime Crisis Collaboration Exercises: Are they Useful? Ph.D. Thesis, Graduate Faculty of the School of Business and Technology Management, Northcentral University, San Diego, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Klabbers, J. The Exercises Planners Guide; HMSO: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, J.W.; Rowan, B. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am. J. Sociol. 1977, 83, 340–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berlin, J.; Carlström, E. Samverkan på Olycksplatsen: Om Organisatoriska Barriäreffekter; University West: Trollhättan, Sweden, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Altman, D.G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research; Chapman and Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Landgren, J. Spontant organiserad samverkan kompenserar för de centrala aktörernas misslyckande. In Samverkan för Säkerhets Skull, Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap; Nilsson, N.-O., Ed.; Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Magnussen, L. Didactics and Innovation in Collaboration for the Unforeseen in Training Practice Preparation. In Interaction: ‘Samhandling’ Under Risk: A Step Ahead of the Unforeseen; Torgersen, G.-E., Ed.; Cappelen Damm Akademisk: Oslo, Norway, 2018; pp. 339–353. [Google Scholar]
- Petrenj, B.; Letterie, E.; Trucco, P. Towards enhanced collaboration and information sharing towards Critical Infrastructure resilience: Current barriers and emerging capabilities. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on Next Generation Infrastructures, Washington, DC, USA, 16–19 November 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Rykkja, L.H. Övelser i sammfunnsikkerhet som styrnings-och samordningsverktöy. Nord. Organ. 2011, 12, 2–25. [Google Scholar]
- Ebert, J.F.; Huibers, L.; Christensen, B.; Christensen, M.B. Paper- or Web-Based Questionnaire Invitations as a Method for Data Collection: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study of Differences in Response Rate, Completeness of Data, and Financial Cost. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Published | Exercise/Scenario | Exercise Arrangement | Number of Organisations Involved in the Exercise | Number of Participants in the Study | Declined to Participate in the Study |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
[1] | Car ferry accident handled by ONSOS | ONSO | 3 | 39 | 2 |
[1] | Fire at school | ONSO | 4 | 28 | 1 |
[1] | Fire at work | ONSO | 4 | 27 | 3 |
SUBTOTAL ONSOS: | 11 | 94 | 5 | ||
[48] | 1. Maritime oil spill 2. Maritime search and rescue | OFFSO | 21 | 79 | 336 |
[4] | 1. Fire at passenger ferry 2. Maritime search and rescue | OFFSOS | 22 | 53 | 11 |
[50] | Maritime search and rescue | OFFSO | 8 | 30 | 32 |
[49] | Maritime search and rescue | OFFSO | 27 | 90 | 472 |
SUBTOTAL OFFSOS: | 78 | 252 | 852 | ||
TOTAL ALL: | 89 | 346 | 857 |
Bivariate Regression ONSO N = 94 OFFSO N = 252 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variables: Learning Independent Variables: Collaborative Characteristics of Exercises | ||||||
Pearson R | R-square | F-Value | T-Value | Sig. | ||
1. The exercises focused on collaboration | ONSO | 0.27 | 0.08 | 7.31 | 5.03 | 0.00 |
OFFSO | 0.33 | 0.10 | 30.92 | 5.56 | 0.00 | |
2. Discussions immediately after the exercise | ONSO | 0.22 | 0.05 | 4.55 | 9.90 | 0.03 |
OFFSO | 0.16 | 0.02 | 7.08 | 2.66 | 0.01 | |
3. Opportunities to improvise | ONSO | 0.21 | 0.04 | 4.18 | 9.19 | 0.04 |
OFFSO | 0.24 | 0.05 | 15.93 | 3.99 | 0.00 | |
4. Collaboration was initiated immediately | ONSO | 0.39 | 0.16 | 16.81 | 10.19 | 0.00 |
OFFSO | 0.18 | 0.03 | 8.90 | 2.98 | 0.00 | |
5. Well-known activities during the exercise | ONSO | 0.48 | 0.23 | 27.67 | 13.73 | 0.00 |
OFFSO | 0.11 | 0.01 | 3.46 | −1.85 | 0.06 | |
6. Staff that needed to exercise participated | ONSO | 0.27 | 0.07 | 7.37 | 7.99 | 0.00 |
OFFSO | 0.14 | 0.01 | 5.11 | 2.26 | 0.02 | |
7. Clear instructions of collaborative practices | ONSO | 0.43 | 0.19 | 21.33 | 8.69 | 0.00 |
OFFSO | 0.26 | 0.06 | 17.47 | 4.18 | 0.00 | |
8. My point of view was regarded | ONSO | 0.42 | 0.18 | 19.85 | 6.02 | 0.00 |
OFFSO | 0.40 | 0.16 | 48.86 | 6.99 | 0.00 |
Bivariate Regression ONSO N = 94 OFFSO N = 252 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable: Utility Independent Variables: Learning Characteristics of Exercises | ||||||
Pearson R | R-Square | F-Value | T-Value | Sig. | ||
1. Learnt new things | ONSO | 0.47 | 0.22 | 26.35 | 13.32 | 0.00 |
OFFSO | 0.35 | 0.11 | 31.99 | 5.65 | 0.00 | |
2. Learnt organisational aspects of organisations involved | ONSO | 0.30 | 0.09 | 8.89 | 16.58 | 0.00 |
OFFSO | 0.32 | 0.10 | 27.44 | 5.23 | 0.00 | |
3. Learnt communicational aspects of organisations involved | ONSO | 0.24 | 0.06 | 5.58 | 15.71 | 0.02 |
OFFSO | 0.29 | 0.08 | 21.82 | 4.67 | 0.00 | |
4. Learnt priority aspects of organisations involved | ONSO | 0.15 | 0.02 | 2.09 | 13.48 | 0.15 |
OFFSO | 0.31 | 0.09 | 25.64 | 5.06 | 0.00 | |
5. Learnt new concepts | ONSO | 0.14 | 0.02 | 1.89 | 16.04 | 0.17 |
OFFSO | 0.25 | 0.06 | 16.24 | 4.03 | 0.00 |
Multiple Regression ONSO N = 94 OFFSO N = 252 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable: Learning | |||||
Independent Variables: Collaborative Characteristics of Exercises | |||||
ONSO R = 0.73 R-SQUARE = 0.53 | |||||
Bivariate St.Beta. | Multi.regr.St.Beta. | Diff. | T-value | Sig. | |
3. Opportunities to improvise | 0.21 | 0.04 | 4.18 | 9.19 | 0.04 |
5. Well-known activities during the exercise | 0.48 | 0.23 | 27.67 | 13.73 | 0.00 |
7. Clear instructions for collaborative practices. | 0.43 | 0.19 | 21.33 | 8.69 | 0.00 |
8. My point of view was regarded | 0.42 | 0.18 | 19.85 | 6.02 | 0.00 |
OFFSO R = 0.52 R-SQUARE = 0.25 | |||||
8. My point of view was regarded | 0.40 | 0.29 | 0.11 | 4.78 | 0.00 |
Multiple Regression ONSO N = 94 OFFSO N = 252 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent Variable: Utility. Independent Variable: Learning Characteristics of Exercises | |||||
ONSO R = 0.50 R-SQUARE = 0.26 | |||||
Bivariate St.Beta. | Multi.regr.St.Beta. | Diff. | T-value | Sig. | |
1.Learnt new things | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.00 | 4.21 | 0.00 |
OFFSO R = 0.52 R-SQUARE = 0.26 | |||||
1. Learnt new things | 0.47 | 0.32 | 0.15 | 4.71 | 0.00 |
5. Learnt new concepts | 0.63 | 0.13 | 0.50 | 2.04 | 0.04 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Carlström, E.; Magnussen, L.I.; Kristiansen, E.; Berlin, J.; Sørensen, J.L. Inter-Organisational Exercises in Dry and Wet Context—Why Do Maritime Response Organisations Gain More Knowledge from Exercises at Sea Than Those on Shore? Sustainability 2020, 12, 5604. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145604
Carlström E, Magnussen LI, Kristiansen E, Berlin J, Sørensen JL. Inter-Organisational Exercises in Dry and Wet Context—Why Do Maritime Response Organisations Gain More Knowledge from Exercises at Sea Than Those on Shore? Sustainability. 2020; 12(14):5604. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145604
Chicago/Turabian StyleCarlström, Eric, Leif Inge Magnussen, Elsa Kristiansen, Johan Berlin, and Jarle Løwe Sørensen. 2020. "Inter-Organisational Exercises in Dry and Wet Context—Why Do Maritime Response Organisations Gain More Knowledge from Exercises at Sea Than Those on Shore?" Sustainability 12, no. 14: 5604. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145604