Japan Tsunami
cc by-nd 2.0 Sorisoro1
Governmental Social Media use for
Emergency Communication
“With the financial support...
2
Introduction
• During crisis communities need information
•To speed up recovery and help people EMAs
need to engage in a...
Structure
• Literature review
– Users / Citizens
– Organizations, Institutions and
Governments
• Methodology
• SM Adoption...
4
Literature review: citizens and media
• The early uses of SM highlighted the active
role of citizens in spreading inform...
5
Literature review: citizens and media
• Consequently, during Hurricane Katrina
traditional media was ready to use Web 2....
cc by-sa 2.5 Markus Angermeier cc by-nd 2.0 Matthew Wilkinson
Greenfield, Manchester flood
6
First web 2.0 disasters highl...
7
Literature review
• The crowd is faster than EMAs
• Victoria Tech shooting (Winnerman, 2007;
Palen et al., 2007).
•Mumba...
8
Literature review: organisations
• Organizations have just recently begun using SM
to address crises (Booz Allen Hamilto...
1 9
Methodology
•Interviews
• focus groups
• online observation
and participations on
SM
Secondary data
SM guidelines
By M...
10
EU ORGANISATIONS ADOPTION
11
12
SOCIAL
Drivers & Barriers
“What’s the point of using SM? The emergency services cannot afford not
to use SM given all t...
13
TECHNOLOGICAL
Drivers & Barriers
“The time is slow in terms of adoption; it takes time to catch up with
technology or w...
14
ECONOMIC FACTORS
Drivers & Barriers
This dimension includes the investments that government organisations
has done to a...
15
SOP FACTORS
Drivers & Barriers
It refers to the policies that restrict or support, in form of legislation or
regulation...
16
RECOMMENDATIONS
DEFINE
OBJECTIVES
IDENTIFY
PLATFORMS
GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURE
DEFINE
COMMUNICATION
STRATEGY
PILOTMONITOR
CREATE
COMMUNITY
INST...
• If EMAS don’t do it (inform first), PEOPLE will do
• It affects to the INSTITUTION IDENTITY/image
• TALKING with people
...
• The more powerful drivers and barriers are
social.
• The relevant role of the EM entrepreneur.
• The relevance of regula...
cc by 2.0 James Cridland
20
It is not the technology that keeps us from
innovating – it is the organizational and
institut...
21
Disaster 2.0 (D2.0): Using Web 2.0
applications and Semantic Technologies to
strengthen public resilience to disasters
...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Governmental Social Media use for Emergency Communication

55

Published on

Presentation of Roser Beneito-Montagut, Susan Anson, Duncan Shaw and
Christopher Brewster on the topic "Governmental Social Media use for Emergency Communication" at ISCRAM2013

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
55
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Governmental Social Media use for Emergency Communication

  1. 1. Japan Tsunami cc by-nd 2.0 Sorisoro1 Governmental Social Media use for Emergency Communication “With the financial support of the Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security-related Risks Programme European Commission – Directorate-General Home Affairs” Beneito-Montagut, R. ; Anson, S.; Shaw, D. & Brewster, C.
  2. 2. 2 Introduction • During crisis communities need information •To speed up recovery and help people EMAs need to engage in a two-way conversation with the public • Web 2.0 has proved to be valuable in providing information during a disaster
  3. 3. Structure • Literature review – Users / Citizens – Organizations, Institutions and Governments • Methodology • SM Adoption – Drivers – Barriers • Policy Recommendations • Conclusions 3
  4. 4. 4 Literature review: citizens and media • The early uses of SM highlighted the active role of citizens in spreading information -Use of wiki during 11th September (Palen & Liu, 2007), blogging, video-blogging and photo sharing during London Bombings and Indian Ocean Earthqueake (Meraz, 2006)
  5. 5. 5 Literature review: citizens and media • Consequently, during Hurricane Katrina traditional media was ready to use Web 2.0. • SM during Katrina use of Web 2.0 was more complex: •Proliferation of databases to search people •Use of mashups and geolocalisation tools.
  6. 6. cc by-sa 2.5 Markus Angermeier cc by-nd 2.0 Matthew Wilkinson Greenfield, Manchester flood 6 First web 2.0 disasters highlighted the power of NETWORKED CONVERSATIONS
  7. 7. 7 Literature review • The crowd is faster than EMAs • Victoria Tech shooting (Winnerman, 2007; Palen et al., 2007). •Mumbai terrorist attacks (Howe, 2008). • Lately, studies have concentrated on the use of Twitter and Facebook (Büscher, Mogensen et al., 2008; Starbird et al., 2010; Hughes and Palen, 2009; Sutton, 2010; Sutton et al., 2008, Vieweg et al., 2008; Yan Qu, Zhang et al., 2010). • All agree that micro-blogging is useful as well as its perils (Castillo, et al, 2011: Waters et al., 2010; Oh et al., 2011).
  8. 8. 8 Literature review: organisations • Organizations have just recently begun using SM to address crises (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2009) • NGOs led the way in adopting SM tools (Barnes & Mattson, 2008; Liu et al, 2012; Sachoff, 2009; Waters, 2010) • Few governmental organisations use SM and mainly for publishing information, not as an Emergeny Management tool. •Few research in govermental use (Denis et al. 2012; Latonero & Shklowski, 2011; Taylor & Kent 2007; Taylor & Perry, 2005).
  9. 9. 1 9 Methodology •Interviews • focus groups • online observation and participations on SM Secondary data SM guidelines By Mass Energy Lab Inc Case studies Content analysis Quantitative data on Internet and SM usage for individuals in each country and eGovernment indicators
  10. 10. 10 EU ORGANISATIONS ADOPTION
  11. 11. 11
  12. 12. 12 SOCIAL Drivers & Barriers “What’s the point of using SM? The emergency services cannot afford not to use SM given all those conversations that actually are going on” DRIVERS • Enhanced Outreach • Build a community • Real time engagement BARRIERS • Age • Decision making •Not aware • Lack of trust • Real / Virtual
  13. 13. 13 TECHNOLOGICAL Drivers & Barriers “The time is slow in terms of adoption; it takes time to catch up with technology or with the social media flow. ” (interviewee, 2012) DRIVERS • Cheap • Accessible • No need of high technological skills BARRIERS •Lack of Internet access •Lack of equipment •Lack of skills •Lack of skills and knowledge •Security concerns •Information control
  14. 14. 14 ECONOMIC FACTORS Drivers & Barriers This dimension includes the investments that government organisations has done to adopt social media. It will contain investment in form of workforce, technological investment or hiring external companies or consultants (Mergel et al, 2008). DRIVERS • Cheap •No software investment BARRIERS •Lack of staff •Lack of equipment
  15. 15. 15 SOP FACTORS Drivers & Barriers It refers to the policies that restrict or support, in form of legislation or regulations, the use of social media by governmental organisations (Mergel et al, 2008). DRIVERS • Regulation & Policies •Communication plan including SM BARRIERS •Inter-organisational problems •Command & Control •Lack of regulation & Policies •Lack of trust
  16. 16. 16 RECOMMENDATIONS
  17. 17. DEFINE OBJECTIVES IDENTIFY PLATFORMS GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE DEFINE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY PILOTMONITOR CREATE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONALISE EVALUATE
  18. 18. • If EMAS don’t do it (inform first), PEOPLE will do • It affects to the INSTITUTION IDENTITY/image • TALKING with people • To manage people EXPECTATIONS • It can be CHEAP… the most of the cases we have reviewed are not adding costs. • Social Media is not only about talking with the public, it can be as well ORGANISATIONAL talking, and staff of your organisation talking among them. • It can be an OPERATIONAL TOOL. 18 CONCLUSIONS
  19. 19. • The more powerful drivers and barriers are social. • The relevant role of the EM entrepreneur. • The relevance of regulation, policies and strategies for SM adoption. • As in other public services, innovation is hard, and it is even harder in organisations dealing with uncertain situations. 19 CONCLUSIONS
  20. 20. cc by 2.0 James Cridland 20 It is not the technology that keeps us from innovating – it is the organizational and institutional difficulties that need to be overcome (Mergel et al, 2009).
  21. 21. 21 Disaster 2.0 (D2.0): Using Web 2.0 applications and Semantic Technologies to strengthen public resilience to disasters Thanks!!! http://www.disaster20.eu/ r.beneito-montagut@aston.ac.uk @roserrr Christopher Brewster (PI) Duncan Shaw Susan Anson Roser Beneito-Montagut Shuangyan Liu Seyyed Shah Jill Forrest

×