This paper proposes an empirically grounded framework for examining the preparedness and recovery phases of disaster management activities and processes pertaining to predictable disasters within a developed country. The two-stage framework provides a single model composed of important preparedness and recovery initiatives, as well as activities and processes derived from empirical data collected for case studies from Australia: the 'Black Saturday' bushfires in the state of Victoria in February 2009; and Cyclone Larry in March 2006. The framework enables a variety of analyses, including the generation of insights into disaster management preparedness and recovery in the context of events in wealthy developed countries. The paper combines two empirical examples, a series of bushfires and a severe tropical cyclone, to enhance understanding of, and to contribute to better, disaster preparedness and recovery in the future. The paper contributes to the growing literature on disasters, preparedness, recovery and associated logistics, and other issues.

PurposeThis paper aims to explore the role of mental models in knowledge development in order to demonstrate how the type and strength of the mental models held by a team contribute to its success in general and to innovation in particular.Design/methodology/approachTwo cases are analysed (a successful and an unsuccessful team) which were developed via observation and interviews. The mental models in each case were analysed to map them to the success or otherwise of the teams.FindingsThe first case demonstrates that mental models in a multidisciplinary team can provide opportunity for a shared generation of knowledge for process innovation while open to external influence. The second case demonstrates that, where there are strongly shared mental models that prevent the team from constructing an accurate picture of their present by closing out external influences and pre‐selecting desired knowledge, opportunities for innovation are shut down.Practical implicationsWhere mental models provide a sharing framework without closing out the networks and systems that sustain them, they can foster and support innovation. Managing team openness becomes a priority for supporting innovation. Team leaders will need to consider what types of mental models are developing and foster a focus on innovative outcomes and not processes. A concentration on understanding the current context via challenging given assumptions is recommended.Originality/valueThe paper offers clear, practical examples of the results of teams being encouraged to utilise open and closed systems of mental models.

Abstract

This paper is the first in a series that will examine the management of innovation by cross-functional, multidisciplinary patient care teams in a palliative care environment. This highly innovative environment is singularly focused on relieving the suffering of patients and their socially related carers during an end of life experience. The singular focus enables and encourages palliative care practitioners to break through and diminish or accommodate professionally-based paradigm conflicts and organisational politics. This facilitates collaborative team-based efforts, including the patient and the patient's social support group, to address the multi-causal uncertainties that characterise end of life in palliative care. The continuous innovation model used in the European Union funded CIMA project is used as a starting point for this research. While many businesses have struggled to implement self-regulating teams and have invested considerable resources in attempting to gain some advantage from teamwork it appears palliative care professionals have adopted self-regulating work teams in a highly uncertain environment as the most suitable human resource structure and practice.

Case conferences were inherently uncertain and complex. Complexity results from the range of people and groups interacting with the patient before the case conference who do not attend the conference. Uncertainty results from a lack of direction, leadership and agreed outcomes against which the conference can be structured and measured. A standard process facilitated by someone other than the GP and containing necessary information would offer a better chance of optimising this process.