Decision‐making in multi‐agency groups at simulated major incident emergencies: In situ analysis of adherence to UK doctrine

Abstract

When major incident emergencies occur in the UK (e.g., a terrorist attack), senior representatives convene from local emergency services, civil resource organizations, health agencies, and government. These groups make decisions that minimize the societal and economic impacts of major incidents. Their adherence to UK doctrine was assessed using video footage of 18 groups responding to a major incident in a simulation suite, and six groups responding to a large-scale exercise. There were marked between-group differences in the sequencing of decision-making activities, and limited consideration of alternative courses of action. These results provide an impetus for future policy, guidance, and training to address (a) between-group inconsistency in decision processes and (b) the lack of consideration of alternative courses of action.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Decision‐making in multiagency multiteam systems operating in extreme environments

“…In contrast, findings of the current study show a tendency for responders to revert to gathering information rather than progressing through stages to take action. These findings parallel Wilkinson et al (2019), who also observed some multiagency strategic groups engaging in redundant deliberation. Similar patterns of decision delay and inertia have also been observed in real incidents (Kerslake, 2018;Pollock, 2013) and have been highlighted in interviews with emergency responders (Power & Alison, 2017).…”

“…There was also evidence of this in TCGs, albeit to a lesser extent. Previous research shows a similar pattern of individual decision-makers taking action without explicitly planning at both operational Klein, 1993Klein, , 2008 and strategic levels (Wilkinson et al, 2019) in extreme environments. Current findings advance on this previous research by examining whether the implementation of the JDM has led to any changes.…”

“…Findings of research conducted in extreme environments show a tendency for individual decision-makers to deviate from linear approaches by avoiding explicit planning (Klein, 1993(Klein, , 2003, or delaying action (Power & Alison, 2018;Waring et al, 2018). However, research is needed that examines processes used to make joint decisions in situ within MTSs operating in extremis to provide a basis for establishing the utility of the JDM for reducing decision inertia and other pitfalls associated with group decisions (Wilkinson, Cohen-Hatton, & Honey, 2019).…”

“…SCGs and TCGs are comprised of representatives from across relevant agencies, providing a key platform for coordination (Civil Contingencies Act, 2004). SCGs are tasked with setting strategic direction, prioritizing resources, monitoring goal progress, formulating media and communication strategy, and horizon scanning to aid incident recovery (Wilkinson et al, 2019;www.jesip.org.uk/command). TCGs are tasked with interpreting strategic direction, developing tactical plans, and coordinating actions and resources.…”

“…Although research focusing on joint decision processes in MTSs operating in extremis is rare, one recent study shows evidence of both inertia and lack of explicit planning (Wilkinson et al, 2019). Wilkinson et al observed SCGs responding to simulated disasters and identified between-group differences, with some multiagency strategic groups more prone to inertia whilst others were more likely to act without deliberately considering alternatives.…”