Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Coordination of Activities in Dynamic Situations – The Case Of Crisis Management


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Login to see the comments

Coordination of Activities in Dynamic Situations – The Case Of Crisis Management

  1. 1. Coordination of activities in dynamic situations – The case Of crisis management<br />
  2. 2. Motivations<br />Crisis is a hot topic<br />Higher sensitivity of our societies to disruption<br />Higher fragility of our infrastructures<br />Belief that Information System could help<br />
  3. 3. Real Motivations<br />Extreme use case for coordination<br />Challenging issues<br />Appealing Use case and Stories<br />Funding<br />
  4. 4. Crisis, not Emergency<br />Infrastructure disruption<br />Unexpected Events<br />Evolving situation<br />Changing goals<br />Limited ressources<br />
  5. 5. Our Focus<br />Coordination of activities<br />Multiple organisations<br />Multiple stakeholders<br />
  6. 6. Requirements<br />Explore<br />Rescue<br />Protect<br />
  7. 7. Guidelines<br /><ul><li>First do no Harm
  8. 8. Enhance Mindfulness
  9. 9. Empower, never enforce
  10. 10. Detect violation, Show inconsistencies</li></li></ul><li>BPM and Crisis Management<br />Business Process Management/Workflow Systems have been suggested for emergency management<br />do they work for crisis management?<br />
  11. 11. The answer is no<br />Outcome of a workshop with Firefighters<br />
  12. 12. How to support inter organizational coordination in dynamic situation<br />Dynamic situation<br />Changing goals<br />Inter organisation<br />No central authority<br />Privacy/governance issues<br />
  13. 13. Our proposition<br />A Dynamic activity model<br />Design time = Execution time<br />Temporal dependencies<br />P2p Sharing between organisation<br />
  14. 14. Activity (and governance)<br />Role (User assignment to this role is part of the activity)<br />Transition<br />State of Manage-ment Lifecycle<br />
  15. 15. Activity and dependency<br />Transport People<br />Temporal Dependency<br />Search People<br />Plan<br />Plan<br />Idle<br />Execute<br />Execute<br />Finish<br />Failed<br />Finish<br />Failed<br />Activity<br />Activity<br />© SAP 2010 / Page 13<br />
  16. 16. Allen temporal relations<br />Used to describe dependencies between Activities<br />A<br />A<br />B<br />A<br />A<br />A<br />A<br />A<br />B<br />B<br />B<br />B<br />B<br />B<br />Overlaps<br />(o)<br />Finishes<br />(f)<br />Precedes<br />(p)<br />Meets<br />(m)<br />Contains<br />(c)<br />Starts<br />(s)<br />Equals<br />(e)<br />
  17. 17. Modeling and executing<br />Protect from Flood<br />Evacuate Area<br />Plan<br />Execute<br />Execute<br />Plan<br />Execute<br />:contains:<br />Execute<br />Execute<br />:contains:<br />Execute<br />Execute<br />:contains:<br />Execute<br />Execute<br />:contains:<br />Execute<br />“we use time lines to as markers for future action, we have what we call trigger points, when the incident advances to a certain point, it triggers other things, so that would fit into your model as well, using time lines, connecting inter-dependencies”<br />(Fire Fighter US / Southern California )<br />Plan<br />Execute<br />Fail<br />Execute<br />:contains:<br />Execute<br />Execute<br />:contains:<br />Execute<br />Plan<br />Execute<br />Execute<br />Plan<br />Build Dam<br />Fill Sandbags<br />Warn People<br />Transport People<br />Fails<br />:Precedes:<br />Execute<br />Transport Sandbags<br />Plan<br />Order Shelter<br />Plan<br />Execute<br />Plan<br />Protection Measures<br />Execute<br />Execute<br />In place<br />© SAP 2010 / Page 15<br />
  18. 18. Sharing activities<br />“we are exchanging text information ahem real-time through either cell or mobile units or satellite”<br />[..]<br />“obvious the more complex a situation gets, for instance where you may have many organizations working collectively in order to accomplish a goal, but at the same time working independently in terms of their own interests, where you get in those in situation like that, you know it get to the point, to be so complex that it would be overwhelming”<br />Fire Fighter, Hamilton, MT<br />© SAP 2008 / Page 16<br />
  19. 19. Violation detection<br />
  20. 20. Implementation on Google Wave<br />
  21. 21. Sharing<br />
  22. 22. Experimentation<br />How to validate the model ?<br />Crisis are difficult to replicate<br />Very few crisis management exercises<br />Let’s build a simplified experiment<br />
  23. 23. Design of the experiment<br />Comparative study<br />Lego(tm) as tangible artefacts<br />Several roles<br />Goal changes during the experiment<br />
  24. 24. The Experiment Story<br />A building as to be created to protect a power engine<br />An architect, an engineer, manufacturers, a transporter and an assembler have to coordinate their actions to succeed<br />They use a controlled language for commands<br />At some point the power engine specifications are changed<br />There is a time limit.<br />
  25. 25. The buildings<br />Buildings and components<br />
  26. 26. First experiment<br />Two group of students (10 students each)<br />First group uses a chat tool (Google Talk)<br />Second group uses a collaborative editing tool (Google Wave)<br />Logistic is ensured by one of the experimenters<br />
  27. 27. Coordination problem example 1<br />
  28. 28. Google Wave : not sequential<br />
  29. 29. Coordination problem example 2<br />
  30. 30. With the Chat Tool<br />
  31. 31. Users have to ask for feedback<br />
  32. 32. Some Results<br />
  33. 33. Some Outcomes<br />The problems are well identified<br />The proposed model is sound<br />The experimentations generate expected behaviours<br />We need more executions<br />
  34. 34. Conclusions/Future Work<br />The domain is insightful and <br />The proposed model can be convincing<br />It requires more extensive validation<br />Questions avoided<br />Inter organisational governance issues<br />Importance of the stakeholder social network<br />Collective Mindfulness<br />
  35. 35. Collective Mindfullness (Weick)<br />a) Preoccupation with failure, <br />b) Reluctance to simplify <br />c) Sensitivity to operations, <br />d) Commitment to Resilience, and <br />e) Deference to Expertise.<br />