Total Defence Resilience: Viable or Not During COVID‐19? A Comparative Study of Norway and the UK

Abstract

The total defence (TD) concept aims to provide an effective crisis response structure by increasing society resilience. However, the complexity of its structure regarding resource mobilization and management process highlights the need for a complexity‐oriented approach in the operationalising of TD. We study the application of TD during the COVID‐19 crisis and explore what makes the TD a viable system with resilience capabilities in the face the crisis. We apply the Viable Systems Model as a methodology to compare the viability of the United Kingdom and Norwegian TD systems, both of which use systems networks to achieve resilience, and contrast the different outcomes of each country. Our analysis highlights that: Managing the complexity of the TDS requires that all of the involved agencies proactively adopt a transparent approach to a joint decision making. This demands a wide range of sources of innovative solutions at different levels. Joint exercises, developed by the responsible agencies, enhance mutual understating of roles and responsibilities and crisis response structure. This calls for institutionalized support to dedicate resources. To avoid communications challenges, involved agencies in the TDS need to adopt an open messaging strategy, highlighting how to deal with uncertainties in communicating of decisions and action.

Collaboration–competition dilemma in flattening the COVID‐19 curve

“…The base case in Figure 2 shows that Norway was relatively early to lock down during the first wave (Pollock & Steen, 2021 ). The number of cases per day had just reached 200 when the lockdown started.…”

Resilience in emergency management: Learning from COVID-19 in oil and gas platforms

“…While response has well-defined goals (e.g., save lives, environment and properties), recovery is more fuzzy [ 20 ]. The primary objective of recovery is bouncing back to normal operations, by means of interaction and effective coordination [ [21] , [22] , [23] ], along with reliable communication [ 24 ]. Recovery depends on temporal (pace) and spatial (place) settings [ 25 ].…”

Effect of stress on safety‐critical behaviour: An examination of combined resilience engineering and naturalistic decision‐making approaches

“…Moreover, the findings highlight the role of group dynamics (Jones & Roelofsma, 2000) and collaborating activities (Appendix B, Themes) as crucial elements in the decision-making process. The mechanisms that ensure the synchronisation of activities, thus strengthening the ability to interact, are linked to an operational communication strategy grounded on trust, respect and openness between the parties involved (Pollock & Steen, 2020). Resilience in this context is about having effective and proactive communication.…”