Measuring Crisis Communication Preparedness Across Different Branches of Government – Sharing Experiences Gained in Finland

Abstract

An audit measurement of crisis communication preparedness was conducted for 67 organizations, mainly on the national level, in Finland. This unique project was one of the ways to implement new crisis communication regulations getting into force a year earlier. Its purpose was to strengthen central government communication in incidents and emergencies. The audit consisted of a digital survey in the participating organizations and a reflection meeting on the level of each of the 14 branches involved. The indicators were customized taking the crisis communication scorecard, developed in an international project, as a basis. In addition, several meetings were arranged to facilitate related interorganizational learning and exchange of practices. The findings showed diversity across the different branches of government and led to an exchange of practices. The evaluation of the measurement tool confirmed that it had been good to include reputation issues in the indicators for the national government level, as crises are diverse and can be initiated by reputation issues, or emergencies may also bring up reputation issues.

Societal Impact Assessment of a Cyber Security Network Project

“…In order to achieve such outcomes, the means include education and/or training, experiential learning, learning through participation and social learning as well as a 'learning organization approach'." 36 Vos et al 39 see measurement processes may need "strong commitment and an open culture of learning" (p. 66). In sensitive matters outcomes may be difficult to compare, and it "would be recommended to supplement self-assessment with other measures such as external assessment" (p. 66).…”

“…5 Vos, Schoemaker and Luoma-aho suggest that communication takes place in Issue Arenas, where actors meet in physical or digital spaces to address and discuss issues that are relevant to them. 41 Arenas can thus, be seen as competitive spaces, where actors may, besides having common agendas, have interests their own, use with problem solving and influencing strategies, 35,39 and yet, deep engagement of the actors involved benefit all stages of an innovation process. 8 Ruoslahti 33 demonstrates that a process flow of elements of complexity 25 can be recognized in the context of innovation projects, and in relation to the input-throughput-output communication.…”