Coordination in high-risk organizations: the need for flexible routines

Grote, Gudela; Weichbrodt, Johann; Günter, Hannes; Zala-Mezö, Enikö; Künzle, Barbara

doi:10.1007/s10111-008-0119-y

Cited by 98 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It was confirmed by interviews that participants in certain exercises became passive because of overambitious, unstructured, and messy exercises (Powley and Nissen 2012). Although the exercises need to have elements of improvisation and unexpected situations (Mendonça and Fiedrich 2006;Grote et al 2009), they also need to allow for well-established structures. One way to achieve this is to make sure that the exercise has a clear purpose and a structure, as well as clearly defined roles for participants (Petrenj et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…This is especially true for larger events when resources are scarce, but also for smaller events when those who first arrive at the scene are not trained to handle the specific situation (Scholtens 2008). In most countries, the police, rescue services, and ambulance are the organizations that deal with a large number of emergency responses on a daily basis and practice collaboration regularly (Borodzicz and van Haperen 2002;Grote et al 2009;Kapucu et al 2010;Lateef 2010;Berlin and Carlström 2011;Van Wart and Kapucu 2011;Andersson et al 2014). Exercises prepare them to be able to handle accidents, crises, and catastrophes in an optimal manner (McConnell and Drennan 2006;Kapucu et al 2010;Brattberg 2012;Berlin and Carlström 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a crisis context, change is about, for example, finding new ways to handle a situation by customizing one's efforts in collaboration with others. The challenge is to achieve the quickest and best results (Grote et al 2009;Nemeth et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Collaboration Exercises—The Lack of Collaborative Benefits

Berlin

Carlström

2014

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to analyze what professional emergency personnel learn during collaboration exercises and the benefits of what they have learned. Observations (n = 19) and semistructured interviews (n = 32) were carried out in conjunction with major exercises held in Sweden (2007Sweden ( -2012. The results show that exercises tend to be based on their own logic, which differs from actual events. Exercise participants believe that they mainly learn single-track, parallel, and pathdependent behavior. The exercises do not facilitate the use of cross-boundary activities. This means that learning, as well as benefits from the exercises for actual events, is limited. The exercises would be more appropriate if those participating had the opportunity to identify weaknesses, try alternative ways, and engage in comprehensive organizational analyses at the conclusion of the exercises. Based on the results of the study, alternative models for collaboration exercises are suggested, with elements that would better develop collaboration and contribute to learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collaboration Exercises—The Lack of Collaborative Benefits

Berlin

Carlström

2014

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Professionals are accustomed to devising their own routines for coping with the range of eventualities they meet and are more resistant to having rules and regulations imposed upon them. They usually regard such imposed rules as over-simplifications, written by people with only superficial knowledge of the complexity of reality and undervaluing the professionals' long years of "apprenticeship" and experience (McCarthy et al 1998, Grote et al 2009, Otsukaa et al 2010. However, even in much simpler tasks, outsider regulators tend to underestimate the complexity and diversity of the tasks, so involvement of the rule followers is needed also there.…”

Section: A Framework Of Rule Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety regulation: The lessons of workplace safety rule management for managing the regulatory burden

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a strong political consensus in a number of countries that occupational safety and health regulation is stifling industrial innovation and development and is feeding a culture of damaging risk aversion and petty bureaucracy. In a number of countries this has led to proposals to repeal regulations and reduce the regulatory burden. The authors were commissioned to prepare a discussion paper on this issue by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia, aimed particularly at an American audience.The paper is based on previous work of the first two authors, developing a framework of safety rule management at the workplace level (Hale & Borys 2012a and b). Based on a literature study, this paper analyses the similarities and differences between rules at the workplace level and the development, use and enforcement of regulations at the national level to influence and control organisational behaviour. It traces the forces encouraging the growth of regulatory detail and hence the bureaucratic burden of compliance and the options open to reduce that burden without loosening control so much that the level of safety declines. The analysis uses the hierarchy of rules from goals, through process (risk management) rules to detailed action rules as framework for predicting the level of ownership and responsibility felt by the regulated.

show abstract

“…In particular, the aim to for methods that go beyond the more established approaches associated to the concepts of ''classical'' HMI interaction and automatic control, has been constantly fostered, considering collaborative activities and distributed systems (Dekker and Woods 2002;Shalin 2005;Inagaki 2006;Vanderhaegen et al 2006;Smith et al 2007;CTW, 15 (1), 2013), cognitive systems engineering (Norros and Salo 2009;Inagaki 2010) and coordination in high-risk organizations (Grote et al 2009), etc.…”

Section: Looking Backmentioning

confidence: 99%