Uploaded byGlobal Risk Forum GRFDavos
Systematic Knowledge Sharing of Natural Hazard Damages in Public-private Partnerships in Sweden, Monika Carina RYDSTEDT NYMAN
The document discusses the role of public-private partnerships in managing risks related to natural hazards in Sweden, focusing on a case study from the Swedish National Transport Administration. It highlights the importance of systematic knowledge sharing and collaboration amid changing political climates and market conditions. The author concludes that there are weak incentives and feedback loops in the current system, underscoring the need for improved communication and trust between stakeholders.
More Related Content
Similar to Systematic Knowledge Sharing of Natural Hazard Damages in Public-private Partnerships in Sweden, Monika Carina RYDSTEDT NYMAN
Systematic Knowledge Sharing of Natural Hazard Damages in Public-private Partnerships in Sweden, Monika Carina RYDSTEDT NYMAN
- 1. 6th International Disaster andRisk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Systematic Knowledge Sharing of Natural Hazard Damages Lessons Learned in Public Private Partnerships in Sweden Monika Rydstedt Nyman, PhD Candidate Center for Climate and Safety, National Research School, CNDS, Karlstad University, Sweden
- 2. 6th International Disaster andRisk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Public Private Partnership • Neoliberal shift 1980s 1990s Europe Sweden • Outsourcing of services – concentrate on control of processes • Strategic collaboration and cooperation • Innovation
- 3. 6th International Disaster andRisk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Sharing of information and experience • Where does it take place? • Who is involved? • What does one share?
- 4. 6th International Disaster andRisk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Case study • Swedish National Transport Administration: • Maintenance - state roads • Semi structured interviews (28) • Contractors, 2 companies, and STA personnel • 2 different geographical areas, Sweden • Socio technical system approach
- 5. 6th International Disaster andRisk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Work Environment Staff Management Company Regulator Government International Work Changing political climate and public awareness Changing market conditions and finance pressure Fast pace of technological changes Public opinion Environment Climate change International Government Company Management Regulator Staff Work Work Environment Natural Hazard Damages • Laws • Goals • Plans • Resources • Risk analysis • Acute actions • Discussions • Incremental changes Steering signals Feedback signals
- 6. 6th International Disaster andRisk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org 1. Nested loops 2. Info fr. public t private 3. Info fr. private t public
- 7. 6th International Disaster andRisk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Conclusions • Weak incentives top-down • Weak feedback loops bottom-up • Weak nested loops Listen to Trust Win-Win
- 8. 6th International Disaster andRisk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Thank you! Monika Rydstedt Nyman Center for Climate and Safety & CNDS Karlstad University, Sweden monika.nyman@kau.se
Editor's Notes
- #2 Thank you for the introduction. Thank you for having me here.
- #3 During the 1980s and 1990s, a shift in society took place when neoliberal ideas of freedom through deregulation, smaller government and market facilitation became the norm to steer and govern society. As a result, deregulation and liberalization of the public sector in Sweden and Europe evolved. The competitive tendering processes became a tool to operate through strategic collaboration and cooperation across boundaries in society, The public entities could concentrate on their core functions and control the tenders/contractors The idea of collaboration and cooperation rest on the notion of the possibility to build a resilient society
- #4 With this in mind one can start ask the question Why is feedback and learning important? How does it fit in the picture? The idea is that To use contractors experiences of feedback to build knowledge bases and exceed in innovations In short: Build a society that is well informed and prepared for the challenges that lay ahead. We talk about lessons learned as means to build a stronger and resilient society BUT does all understand the importance of sharing information and experiences? IF SO where does the sharing take place? Who is involved? What do one share?
- #5 I performed case study on the Swedish National Transport Administration The STA governs all state roads in Sweden All maintenance contracts are tendered I gathered my data through Semi structured interviews, with 28 respondents from the STA and two contracting companies In 2 different geographical areas in mid Sweden I gathered data The areas were chosen by their experiences of flooding and its impact on the state roads in the areas. One has reoccurrence of floodings One has newly experiences of floodings The result was analyzed through a socio technical system approach and resulted in a somewhat complex picture over how sharing of experiences and knowledge take place.
- #6 The STS give us an idea of how integrated society is. Here represented by to overlapping figures aka two organizations with top down steering signals (on the left) and upward feedback signals (on the right). On the outside (to the far right) we can see other signals and factors that play role in shaping our society. In this case where these factors not discussed, but these factors do have influences on goals and means for society and of different organizations. When it comes to learning and sharing does the theory of how we learn say that top-down incentives and feedback loops build a knowledge base for incorporating changes and learn from experiences. The processes are driven by differences of top-down steering signals but also in what is given back through the feedback signals on the right hand in the picture. The idea is that relationships evolve and the understanding of problems and their solutions are the same. During the analysis parallels emerged, intra-organizational relations play a stronger part then anticipated by legislators. ALSO The parallels could be explained by the differences of goals and means of the two different entities The means and goals are quite different between the public and private actors. One the public actor is to save money and use resources wisely in shorter relationships (due to corruption allegations) The other private entity wants long-lasting relationships, with profit as a end result I’ll elaborate a bit more in the next picture.
- #7 In this picture are the top levels in society diffused. This represent lack of incentives, strategies and policies for sharing of experiences and knowledge The diffusion can be understood as lack of trust upwards but also across tiers , Lack of a strong understanding of why sharing of experiences are important, but could also be part of how contracts and the tender process is handled which I did not discuss but could sense in answers. The theory of how we learn say that top-down incentives and feedback loops build a knowledge base for incorporating changes and learn from experiences. In both single and double loops of learning. The drive for feedback signals is influencing how well the organizations can adopt and use the lessons that are learned by the individuals. Importance for the individuals to sense that their experiences make a difference. Including incentives of reporting, discussing and thinking outside the box and less scapegoat mentality. The differences mentioned before as means and goals are a hindrance for sharing of lessons learned to occur. The contractors are the ones with the experience they share in what we can call incremental changes. The real knowledge is kept to their organizations or to themselves as a an advantage point for future tenders and negotiations. To achieve a systematic learning over organizational borders In this study was it clear that the respondent trusted the close groups of people but did not reveal any trust in other directions. Nested loops exist NO 1 in groups and among individuals that trust each other find that there is some sort of win-win situation (can solve a problem quicker and better) but the feedback is also selective in content, if finding the experience being of benefit for their own professional future. The respondents all claimed to share and discuss acute problems, is of incremental art. BUT a longer perspectives were lacking. Sort of lack of incentives, understandign or maybe even will to why sharing and why it is important When it comes to sharing information of importance for solving problems there is a discrepancy The public actor claimed to give extensive information of a project the full arrow 2 to fulfil requirements to solve problems and work efficient. The private actor give away knowledge and experiences to a trusted group within the public entity (as well as the other way around) The shattered arrow 3. The nested loops could stand a chance if incentives from the top down are known and understood, Other important features for succeeding in sharing and trust in each other are: Trust between individuals at all levels is another strong feature for succeeding in sharing Same background, education, training - all help to build a common ground for sharing and trust to occur. Incentives of thinking outside the box, build a culture of no blame, something rather easy to say and hard to fulfil. Other ways are Tools that are known for Risk analysis, analysis and statistics of reported accidents and incidents.
- #8 I found weak steering signals for sharing of experiences I found weak feedback loops And weak nested loops of sharing Much of this could be explained by lack of trust upwards, and among individuals and groups Lack of sensing a win-win situation and to be listen to Resulting in a selective approach on feedback Experience was sensed as an advantage point something to negotiate with and use as a leverage point in tenders.
- #9 Thank you for your attention.