Interorganizational Interaction in Disaster Response Networks: A Government Perspective

Abstract

Governments play important roles as focal organizations in many interorganizational networks. However, the government perspective has largely been overlooked in the literature on supply networks, including research on humanitarian operations and logistics. So far, little attention has been devoted to how government agencies and other actors interact within complex networks. In this study, we use a qualitative research approach to study interorganizational interaction in the context of a major U.S. disaster: Hurricane Sandy.Specifically, we investigate the relatively successful Sandy response effort conducted by the New Jersey state government in interaction with other humanitarian actors. We find that the government took three main roles in interacting with other actors within the disaster response network: organizer, facilitator, and supply network member. Moreover, we develop a grounded model that provides a theoretical explanation of the interaction process and highlights the practices used by the government during the response stage. In addition to contributing to the humanitarian research domain, our study advances the emerging discourse on networks whose focal actors are not for-profit firms.

Supply Chain Management for Extreme Conditions: Research Opportunities

“… Managing centralized supply chains with vertically integrated firms with deterministic or stochastic demand with centralized control (e.g., Cohen & Lee, 1988), Managing decentralized supply chains, contracts, and coordination (Cachon, 2003), and the bullwhip effect (Lee et al, 1997) and the OM research community have examined different coordination issues using game‐theoretic model and supply contract theory (Sahin & Robinson, 2002), and more recently, digitalization (Sweeney et al, 2020) Managing risk in supply chains with disruptions caused by human‐made/natural disasters, uncertain supply, or uncertain demand (e.g., Manhart et al, 2020; Sodhi & Tang, 2012), Managing humanitarian supply chains to save lives and support beneficiaries after a disaster with supply chains created on short notice using prepositioned inventory or cash (Quarshie & Leuschner, 2020; Van Wassenhove, 2006), and Managing environmental and social sustainability in supply chains (Busse, 2016), with the growing interest in social responsibility (Lee & Tang, 2018) and subsidies from donors or governments (Yu et al, 2020). …”

“…Even in a free market, government interventions may be needed for critical products such as drugs, vaccines, and PPE in the near term. In general, the government's role in supply chains, even humanitarian ones, deserves much attention (Quarshie & Leuschner, 2020). The government formulating an industrial policy and business incorporating that into operations is critical (Spring et al, 2017).…”

Impact of disasters on routine emergency service response performance

“…In their study of disaster response network resilience, Lai and Hsu (2018) discuss the importance of redundancy, robustness and resourcefulness of network structures. Quarshie and Leuschner (2020) find that dynamic capabilities can be provided by non‐profits and voluntary actors.…”

“…Risk pooling and resource sharing develop dynamic capabilities for the regions. Quarshie and Leuschner (2020) address disaster response networks in their study of the key roles of government in interacting with other actors within response networks. They identify activities important for response network interaction that could be classified as static and dynamic capabilities for government agencies.…”

Discontinuous Wefts: Weaving a More Interconnected Supply Chain Management Tapestry

“…Responses to humanitarian disasters involve coordination across emerging, dynamically changing networks of organizations, governments, and individual volunteers. These humanitarian networks are challenging to coordinate (Seybolt, 2009), but there is a developing base of knowledge on how to do this (Quarshie & Leuschner, 2020). Based on the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approach, the widely accepted four phases of crisis management are mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery (Donahue & Joyce, 2001).…”