To assess current situation properly is crucial for effective decision-making in crisis management. However, gathering accurate information from incidence sites and providing appropriate support for assessment practices faces several challenges. The unique information demands of each crisis situation, the information availability or inter-organizational problems and obstacles to information exchange are important factors that need to be considered in designing ICT. In this contribution we present results from an empirical study about decision- making practices in scenarios of medium to large power outages in Germany. We focused on the needs and practices on information exchange at the level of inter-organizational cooperation. We examined the cooperation of fire departments, police, public administration, electricity infrastructure operators and citizens. Our empirical material reflects particularly conditions and challenges in current situation assessment practices, and we were able to derive design requirements for an inter-organizational situation assessment client as a complementary tool for existing crisis management infrastructures.

1. University
of
Siegen
Ins0tute
for
Informa0on
Systems
CSCW
in
Organiza9ons/Coopera9on
Systems
ISCRAM
2012,
Vancouver,
April
23,
2012
SUPPORTING
INTER-­‐ORGANIZATIONAL
SITUATION
ASSESSMENT
IN
CRISIS
MANAGEMENT
Benedikt
Ley,
Volkmar
Pipek,
Chris9an
Reuter,
Torben
Wiedenhoefer
Source: www.lz-altstadt.de

2. Agenda
• Research
Field
• Methodology
• Research
Focus
• Empirical
Findings
• Challenges
in
current
Collabora9ve
Situa9on
Assessment
Prac9ces
• Features
for
poten9al
IT-­‐Support
1

3. Research
Field
Project:
InfoStrom
Learning
Informa0on
Infrastructures
for
Crisis
Management
in
Medium
to
Large
Electrical
Power
Breakdowns
Goal:
Development
of
a
“Security
Arena”,
to
support
inter-­‐organiza9onal
communica9on,
coordina9on
and
learning.
2

4. Methodology
Grounded
Theory
Oriented
Approach
(Strauss
1987)
User-­‐Centered
Design-­‐Approach
Empirical
Study
Development
Evalua9on
of
IT
3

5. Methodology
Empirical
Study
•
Document
analysis
•
Observa9ons
(n=4)
•
Group
discussions
(n=5)
•
Development
of
a
scenario
•
Interviews
(n=22)
Evalua9on
Development
of
IT
4

6. Research
Focus
• Examina9on
of
current
situa9on
assessment
prac9ces
of
professional
actors,
involved
in
situa9on
assessment
in
scenarios
of
medium
to
large
power
outages
• Focus
on
inter-­‐organiza9onal
level
• Deriving
requirements
for
poten9al
IT-­‐
support
of
collabora9ve
situa9on
assessment
using
digital
situa9on
Source: www.wikipedia.org
maps
5

7. Empirical
Findings
I
Improvisa0on
prac0ces
in
current
crisis
management
work
“Improvisa*on
is
essen*al,
next
to
extensive
planning.
You
can
have
the
best
predefined
response
plans,
but
there
is
always
a
situa*on,
where
you
have
to
improvise.”
(Regulatory
Authority,
Administra9on)
“No,
all
workflows
are
flexible.
This
is
necessary,
because
each
situa*on
is
different.”
(Head
of
Control
Center,
Police)
6

8. Empirical
Findings
II
Characteris0c
of
Situa0on
Assessment
Prac0ces
Individual
Work
Prac9ces:
Actors
individually
collect
supplementary
informa9on
from
various
sources
in
order
to
obtain
appropriate
overview
of
the
situa9on
Lack
of
Informa9on:
“The
other
actors
have
a
different
percep*on
because
–
they
concentrate
on
their
problems
and
not
on
providing
informa*on”
(Head
of
Control
Center,
Police)
Terminological
Differences:
"Even
if
the
police
are
talking
to
the
fire
department,
there
is
a
big
devia*on
in
the
terminology
and
consequently
terms
are
perceived
differently.”
(Head
of
Control
Center,
Police)
7

9. Empirical
Findings
III
Condi0ons
of
Situa0on
Assessment
Prac0ces
Use
of
official
systems
and
non-­‐digital
maps:
In
major
catastrophic
events
internal
informa9on
resources
are
enriched
by
many
external,
informal
informa9on
resources.
“40
windows
which
have
to
be
observed”
of
different
applica9ons
and
websites
(District
Fire
Chief,
Fire
Department)
Privacy:
“Maps
got
nothing
to
do
with
anyone
else
but
us,
because
we
do
not
reproduce
the
current
state
but
rather
try
to
imagine
what
will
happen
next“
(Chief
Officer,
Fire
Department)
Collabora9ve
Situa9on
Assessment:
“We
all
have
to
get
the
big
picture
of
the
scene
at
first.
Than
we
have
to
coordinate
ourselves:
finding
appropriate
ways
of
solving
the
problem
together
and
then
running
these
ac9ons”
(Patrol
Duty,
Police)
8

10. Summary
1. Informa9on
is
mostly
distributed
(weather
services,
electricity
providers,
logis9c
companies,
etc.)
2. Missing
awareness
about
informa9on
available
(meta-­‐informa9on
about
suitable
and
available
data
at
external
organiza9ons)
3. Accessibility
of
Informa9on/Policy
Issues
(9me-­‐consuming
or
even
not
a
possible
)
4. Handling
of
informa9on
uncertain9es
(shortcomings
in
accurate
visual
depic9ons
of
cri9cal
data
sets
from
different
domains)
5. Terminology
issues
(different
symbols
on
situa9on
maps
or
different
technical
terms)
6. Perceiving
interdependencies
between
informa9on
(certain
informa9on
resources
are
possibly
only
relevant
in
conjunc9on
with
others)
9

11. Features

Aggrega9on
and
visualisa9on
of
external
and
various
Informa9on

Individualiza9on
of
informa9on
composi9ons
ß
Water
Protec9on
Area

Suppor9ng
collabora9ve
situa9on
Police
Department
à
assessement

Accessability
of
Weather
Informa9onà
informa9on
ressources
1 0

12. Features

Aggrega9on
and
visualisa9on
of
external
and
various
Informa9on

Individualiza9on
of
informa9on
composi9ons
ß Hide/Show
Informa9on
Ressources

Suppor9ng
ß Add/Delete
various
collabora9ve
situa9on
Informa9on
Ressources
assessement

Accessability
of
informa9on
ressources
1 1

13. Features

Aggrega9on
and
visualisa9on
of
external
and
various
Informa9on

Individualiza9on
of
informa9on
composi9ons

Suppor9ng
collabora9ve
situa9on
assessement

Accessability
of
informa9on
ressources
1 2

14. Features

Aggrega9on
and
visualisa9on
of
external
ß Access
Control
and
various
Informa9on
+
Informa9on
Repository

Individualiza9on
of
informa9on
composi9ons

Suppor9ng
collabora9ve
situa9on
assessement

Accessability
of
informa9on
ressources
1 3

15. University
of
Siegen
Ins0tute
for
Informa0on
Systems
CSCW
in
Organiza9ons/Coopera9on
Systems
ISCRAM
2012,
Vancouver,
April
23,
2012
THANK
YOU
FOR
YOUR
ATTENTION!
DISCUSSION
Torben
Wiedenhoefer,
Benedikt
Ley,
Chris9an
Reuter,
Volkmar
Pipek
University
of
Siegen,
Germany
CSCW
in
Organiza9ons/Coopera9on
Systems
{torben.wiedenhoefer;
benedikt.ley;
chris9an.reuter;
volkmar.pipek}@uni-­‐siegen.de
hrp://www.cscw.uni-­‐siegen.de