Modeling Emergency Response Systems - CiteSeerX

Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2007

Modeling Emergency Response Systems Murray E. Jennex San Diego State University [email protected]

Abstract This paper discusses a model for an emergency response system. The model is based on a review of the literature and the incorporation of lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina response. The paper takes a holistic view of a system in that an Emergency Response System is viewed as including emergency response members, procedures, and the organization as well as the ICT components of the system.

1. Introduction It is clear from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax events, the Slammer worm attack on the Internet, the London subway bombings, the 2004 tsunami, and now Katrina that terrorist attacks and/or disasters (henceforth referred to generically as emergencies) are increasingly involving the necessity to coordinate activities and responses by a much broader host of organizations involving the private sector, nonprofits and volunteer organizations. While some of these organizations are always involved in emergency response; the total span of organizations depends very much on the type of emergency, its location, and scale of impact. As a result one can not completely predict where and who are the people and units that will be gathering and supplying information as well as who will be responding and contributing resources. The most likely way this will be done effectively is by utilizing a centrally organized but fully distributed command and control center that can add functional nodes and linkages as needed and trigger by the occurring events [38]. Additionally, while we have intrusion detection systems, IDS, for monitoring for cyber attacks, we need to become aware that we need Emergency/Crisis Response systems that guide responders in the correct response actions and which facilitate communications between the various responding groups and managers. This paper presents research conducted on emergency/crisis response systems (henceforth

referred to generically as Emergency Response Systems, ERS) and presents a model that reflects current thought for them. The contribution of this paper is that it guides builders of these systems with guidance in the construction of these systems through use of the generated model.

2. Emergency Response System Research Emergency Response Systems are used by organizations to assist in responding to an emergency situation. These systems support communications, data gathering and analysis, and decision-making. Emergency Response Systems are rarely used but when needed, must function well and without fail. Designing and building these systems requires designers to anticipate what will be needed, what resources will be available, and how conditions will differ from normal. A standard model for an Emergency Response System is from Bellardo, Karwan and Wallace [4] and identifies the components as including a database, data analysis capability, normative models, and an interface. This model is only somewhat useful as it fails to address issues such as how the Emergency Response System fits into the overall emergency response plan, Emergency Response System infrastructure, multiple organization spanning, knowledge from past emergencies, and integrating multiple systems. Additionally, many organizations do not address the need for an Emergency Response System until an emergency happens, and then, only for a few months until something more pressing comes up [12]. The result is that many organizations have an Emergency Response System that may not be adequate. Emergencies are high stress situations that require organizations to respond in a manner that is different from their normal operating procedures [37]. Patton and Flin [27] discuss these stresses on emergency managers and how to reduce them. Emergency stressors, in addition to fatigue, include dealing with a complex, unpredictable and dynamic response, time

1530-1605/07 $20.00 © 2007 IEEE

1


pressure, and communications, dealing with the media, and operating within an integrated emergency management context. Emergencies are also a series of four phases: situational analysis (SA), initial response (IR), emergency response (ER), and recovery response (RR); and five decision/hand off points: the initiating event (IE), the control event (CE), the restoration event (RE), the normalizing event (NE), and a terminating event (TE). Figure 1 shows the phases and decision points and includes a general plot of the amount per unit time of immediate responses and decisions that need to be made as a timeline plot following some initiating event, IE. Note that figure 1 is not drawn to scale and is a generic drawing of an emergency timeline. Also, a TE point is not shown. The TE is for ending the emergency and would occur if the emergency was determined to be false, or if another emergency took precedence, or any event that would cause the cessation of response to the emergency. The TE can occur in any phase and at any time so for that reason is not shown.

SA

IR

ER

RR

SA

Phase

IE

CE

RE

NE

Activity Level

Figure 1, Phases and timeline of activity level for a typical emergency

Figure 1 shows that organizations are constantly in the first emergency phase, SA, which is a data gathering and assessment phase that has a base level of activity. These base level activities are monitoring of a set of predetermined conditions, analysis of these conditions for unusual or pre-identified deviations, identification of the IE, and training and preparation of the emergency response team. An emergency begins when during the SA phase an IE is observed. This causes the IR phase to be entered. This is expected to be a very short duration phase that consists of confirming the emergency, generating early warning notices, initiating preplanned initial actions, and entering the emergency response plan. The ER phase

is entered immediately upon assumption of control by the emergency response team, the CE, and generally after completion of the immediate response actions and early warning notifications. The ER phase implements the emergency response plan and begins coordinating responders and other resources. Additionally, this phase is the command and control phase that requires the emergency response team to monitor conditions and to coordinate response accordingly. This phase rises to the peak activity level. This phase ends with the RE. The RE is the point where the emergency response team concludes that the emergency conditions are over or are under control and emergency response actions are no longer needed and the emergency control center can cease command operations. At this point the emergency enters the RR phase. This phase confirms the emergency is under control, controls and coordinates long term actions and reconstruction, guides the organization back to normal conditions, and identifies and captures lessons learned. This phase has a declining level of activity and concludes when the NE is announced. The NE is the point where all emergency response actions are completed, long term emergency response actions and a base level of reconstruction is completed, the emergency response team is secured, and the organization returns to normal operating procedures and the routine SA phase. Each of these phases has their own stresses and support needs. To reduce these stresses, emergency response plans and systems should be based on operational demands, tested regularly, and have resources allocated. These plans should not be based on implicit and untested assumptions that reflect routine operational requirements and conditions as plans based on assumed capabilities are less effective than anticipated and will increase ad hoc demands on managers. Working in teams is required during emergencies and having a well trained, experienced team will reduce the impact of team dynamic stressor. Additionally, emergencies may require inter agency coordination and dealing with interagency conflict and terminology increases stress. These stresses can be reduced if these agencies are integrated in their response and participants train together so that they are familiar with each other and comfortable with the integrated emergency response plan. Finally, communication systems are necessary for getting the right information to the right people, but they will not reduce stress unless participants are trained and practiced in their use. In addition to the stresses identified by Patton and Flin [27], Bellardo, Karwan and Wallace [4] identify the stress of decision-making

2


during emergency response and recommend the creation of an Emergency Response System to assist decision makers. The components of the Emergency Response System, as suggested by Bellardo, Karwan and Wallace [4], were previously mentioned but several researchers have looked at decision stress and address methods for decreasing this stress. Turoff [37] expands the discussion on stressors by discussing the philosophy of the United States Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP) (Note: the OEP was disbanded in 1973 in the same executive order that also eliminated the Office of Science and Technology from the executive offices of the president. OEP was divided up and sent in pieces to different agencies. The disaster response function was sent to the General Services Administration (GSA).). Key points of this philosophy are: x An Emergency Response System not used regularly won’t be used in an actual emergency x People in emergencies don’t have time to deal with issues not related to the emergency x Learning what actually happened is extremely important to improving emergency response performance x It is difficult to predict exactly who will do what during an emergency x The crucial problem of the moment drives the allocation of resources x Roles can be planned but whoever steps into a role at any given moment defies the attempt to prescribe behavior x The need to have confidence in the currency and accuracy of the information provided to those making decisions greatly influences the generation of timely and effective decision making. x Exceptions to the planned behavior are crucial factors in determining minute to minute operations x Severe emergency situations require large numbers of individuals to share information without causing information overload x Exact actions and responsibilities of individuals cannot be predetermined due to unforeseen events occurring during the crisis To improve the Emergency Response System Turoff [37] suggests having multiple templates for a variety of actions that can be modified as needed. These templates should be able to be used by individuals initiating notifications using Personal Data Assistants (PDAs). Additionally, these notifications should be self-organizing and all entered data tagged with the name/ID and time entered of the person

entering the data. Finally, online communities of experts should be utilized to assist with the emergency. Lee and Bui [19] studied the Kobe, Japan earthquake disaster response and also propose using a template based Emergency Response System. However, they observed that: x The urgency in a disaster require that as much relevant information for resolving the disaster be gathered and stored prior to the disaster x Disaster information processing should be case based with lessons learned from previous disasters used to build new cases x To minimize stress the response processes and workflows should be as automated as possible Andersen, Garde and Andersen [2] investigated the use of Lotus Notes as a form/template driven Emergency Response System and identified several potential communication problems: x A sequence of messages from one organizational unit to another is misunderstood due to the initial message not being opened or lost x A command is misinterpreted as information (and not recognized as a command) by the receiver due to grammar issues x Decision makers and other personnel at emergency response centers are overwhelmed by bookkeeping while keeping track of responses to commands and messages x The meaning of a message is misunderstood when the message is not seen in the context of other messages to which it is related x Even though the emergency plan is well known there are still delays in communicating alarms and commands to relevant organizations and getting responses. Fischer [8] discussed the application of new technologies to emergency mitigation, response, and recovery and observed some issues associated with the technology used in an Emergency Response System. These issues include information overload, loss of information, retention of outdated information, the greater likelihood of the diffusion of inappropriate information, further diminution of non-verbal communication, and the inevitability of computer failures. To improve the effectiveness of an Emergency Response System and the emergency response team

3


several researchers recommend training [2], [8], [19], [27], [30], [37]. Patton and Flin [27] found that training exercises and simulations must test assumptions and examine procedural and conceptual issues to ensure the Emergency/Crisis Response System and emergency response processes will work when needed. Fischer [8] proposes the use of distance learning technologies to ensure distributed emergency response teams are trained. Turoff [37] discusses how an Emergency Response System that isn’t normally used won’t be used in an emergency. Others suggest modifications and/or additions to the Emergency Response System. Fischer [8] advocates using technologies such as CD/DVD based storage media, Web/Internet sites as a common infrastructure providing access for disaster response teams distributed across multiple locations/organizations, and e-mail for improving communications. Gheorghe and Vamanu [10] suggest adding Geographical Information System (GIS) and satellite capabilities to the Emergency/Crisis Response System. Nisha de Silva [25] expands on using GIS to aid decisionmaking during emergencies but warns of integration difficulties with other technologies. Gadomski, et al. [9] discusses using case based reasoning, artificial intelligence and intelligent agents to aid decision makers during an emergency. They advocate the need for real time operational data as decision makers need data from operational systems, and a user-friendly interface. Finally, as a response to possible loss of the Emergency Response System infrastructure, Renaud and Phillips [30] discuss the creation of Infrastructure Continuity Plans for Infrastructure Continuity Units (usually buildings). These were created for Y2K and incorporated detailed equipment information, data on failures, and detailed response procedures. This effort was coordinated across the Public Works and Government Services of Canada and is being evaluated for application by commercial organizations. The real demonstration of the 9/11 event is the strategic and technical fallacy of making the integration of communications between incompatible systems (fire, police, medical, etc.) dependent upon a single physical command and control center. Such centers are vulnerable to a planned act of sabotage. If there is any strong technical conclusion from the events of 9/11 it is the requirement to develop an integrated communications capability that can react as a distributed virtual system with no required need for the humans involved to be in a single location [34]. A

virtual command center can be created when the authorities, decision and reporting responsibilities, the accountability tracking and the oversight monitoring functions are explicitly represented and present in the supporting communications software for the operation of such a human network. In fact, those involved should be able to operate from wherever they happen to be at the start of the crisis: their home, office, or in transit. Very little has been published recently on specific functional requirements for the first responders to an emergency based situation. It is also noted that a great deal of the literature on emergency response prior to 9/11 focuses on the response of commercial firms to emergencies or crises largely restricted to the corporate environment [3], [5], [17], [20], [22], [23], [28], [31], [32], [33] or focused on the public relations aspects of a crisis [6], [7]. When an organizational emergency has macro-social effects and causes potential or actual physical harm to people or facilities, it usually leaves the jurisdiction of the single organization and can evolve to be the concern of local, state, and federal agencies depending on the scope and nature of the emergency (e.g. Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Tylenol, and Exxon Valdez). However, there are a number of significant observations that apply to crisis situations regardless of the organizations involved. An important source for requirements will be the past operation and extensive experience of the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP) which existed over 25 years until 1973 and was the only civil agency, prior to the new Department of Homeland Security, which could assume total control of a crisis or disaster situation via executive order of the president and execute the command and control function over all other federal agencies including the military. To address this need Turoff, et al. [38] propose using a distributed command and control emergency information/crisis response system and identified design requirements that expand Emergency/Crisis Response System capabilities in group communication and data/information/ knowledge management.

3. Expanded Emergency Response Model Jennex [13] summarized the above findings into an expanded emergency information response system model. These systems are more than the basic components of database, data analysis, normative models, and interface outlined by Bellardo, Karwan and Wallace [4]. A more complete emergency response system model includes these basic

4


components plus trained users (where users are personnel using the system to respond to or communicate about the emergency and consist of first responders, long term responders, the emergency response team, and experts), dynamic, integrated, and collaborative (yet possibly physically distributed) methods to communicate between users and between users and data sources, protocols to facilitate communication, and processes and procedures used to guide the response to and improve decision making during the emergency. The goals of the emergency information response system are to facilitate clear communications, improve collaboration between users needing to collaborate, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-making, and manage data to prevent or at least mitigate information overload. Designers use technology and work flow analysis to improve system performance in achieving these goals.

4. Knowledge Management Emergency Response

and

Jennex [14] defines knowledge management, KM, as the practice of selectively applying knowledge from previous experiences of decision making to current and future decision making activities with the express purpose of improving the organization’s effectiveness. KM is an action discipline; knowledge needs to be used and applied for KM to have an impact. Emergency response relies on the use of knowledge from past situations to generate current and future response procedures. Lessons learned and the understanding of what works best in given situations (both examples of knowledge) enables emergency managers to prepare planned responses as a counter to the stress of the emergency and to ensure all relevant issues are considered during emergency response decision making. Alavi and Leidner [1, p. 114] defined a Knowledge Management System, KMS, as “IT (Information Technology)-based systems developed to support and enhance the organizational processes of knowledge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer, and application.” They observed that not all KM initiatives will implement an IT solution, but they support IT as an enabler of KM. Maier [21] expanded on the IT concept for the KMS by calling it an ICT (Information and Communication Technology) system that supported the functions of knowledge creation, construction, identification, capturing, acquisition, selection, valuation, organization, linking, structuring, formalization, visualization, distribution, retention,

maintenance, refinement, evolution, accessing, search, and application. Stein and Zwass [35] define an Organizational Memory Information System (OMS) as the processes and IT components necessary to capture, store, and apply knowledge created in the past on decisions currently being made. Jennex and Olfman [16] expanded this definition by incorporating the OMS into the KMS and adding strategy and service components to the KMS. Integration of KM and KMS into Emergency Response systems is a recent development as discussed in the following examples. The large number of groups that may respond to an emergency all need access to a wide range of real-time information and knowledge that requires coordination. Groups have proposed and created KM enhanced Emergency Response systems that allow for more efficient use of data and faster response. One example that has been proposed is the Information Management System for Hurricane disasters (IMASH) [11]. IMASH is an information management system based on an object-oriented database design, able to provide data for response to hurricanes. IMASH was designed with the premise that the World Wide Web is the medium of choice for presenting textual and graphical information to a distributed community of users. This design is much more effective in the fast-changing environment of a natural disaster than the historical use of static tools which, out of necessity, have been the tools used in disaster response. Kitamato [18] describes the design of an information management system, Digital Typhoon, designed to provide a hub of information on the Internet during a typhoon disaster. The Digital Typhoon provides access to information from official sources (news, satellite imagery) as well as a forum for individuals to provide information (local, personal). It effectively became a hub of information, but created questions about organization, filtering, and editing. Systems used for Hurricane Katrina response realized the benefits and difficulties of these systems. Like IMASH, the systems described below use the Internet to distribute data to a community of users, and like the Digital Typhoon, the knowledge management systems described for Hurricane Katrina response became hubs of information that required data management to reduce repetition and allow for editing. Murphy and Jennex [24] added knowledge management, KM, to the expanded Emergency Response System model proposed by Jennex [13] and showed how it was used in open source developed systems used to aid in the response to Katrina through the implementation of the Peoplefinder and Shelterfinder systems. These systems were unique in that they were developed

5


independent of government support or resources. Development was through volunteers and the systems used a web interface tied to a knowledge base to gather information and knowledge on survival stories and sources of shelter. Experience with these systems showed the value of using open source, commercial tools, and wikis to build Emergency Response Systems. Success of these systems was dependent upon the interface and the quality of the knowledge stored and retrieved from the systems. Another application of KM to emergency response is in identification of the decision/hand off points. KM is applied through the generation of guidelines, rules, and procedures that govern these points. As experience is gained and lessons learned, the criteria guiding the declaration of these points is modified to incorporate this experience. The benefit to emergency responders is that decision making with respect to these points is simplified and guided, reducing the stress on the decision maker. Finally, future trends into emergency response systems were demonstrated during the Strong Angel III civilian-military integrated disaster response demonstration held in San Diego, California during August 2006. Demonstrations were held integrating knowledge bases into visualization systems resulting in smart displays. In particular, the use of knowledge bases within a GIS as demonstrated by the San Diego State University Visualization Laboratory illustrated the power of tying social and demographical data and knowledge to images and maps. This integration created an emergency response system that could be ad hoc queried with results displayed visually. This facilitated knowledge creation and knowledge transfer among emergency response personnel. In summary, there is a fusion of Emergency Response systems with KM. This is because decision makers, when under stress, need systems that do more than just provide data, they need systems that can quickly find and display knowledge relevant to the situation in a format that facilitates the decision maker in making decisions. It is expected that Emergency Response System evolution will continue to utilize KM concepts and approaches as experience in responding to disasters is showing that these systems are more effective than traditional Emergency Response Systems. Examples of how KM aids emergency/crisis response includes using knowledge of past disasters to design communication and data/information capture protocols and templates, capturing emergency response knowledge in procedures and protocols; incorporating

lessons learned into response team training, interface and display design, and the generation of heuristics guiding decision making; and using knowledge to guide the creation of experience knowledge bases that responders can use to generate emergency response actions.

5. Future Trends Wide spread emergencies such as Katrina and the 2004 Tsunami have shown the difficulty of building stand alone Emergency Response Systems (systems whose sole purpose is to respond to emergencies). These systems are expensive and it is difficult to not use them for routine activities when resources are low. Exercises preparing for a possible avian flu pandemic and for a pandemic coupled with a terrorist attack on critical infrastructure (Operation Chimera and Strong Angel III) are focusing on training large numbers of people in emergency response while using and developing open source emergency response systems [15]. Strong Angel III in particular focused on creating and using an emergency response system based on open source development and commercial off the shelf components. The goal is to reduce the cost, time, and effort involved in building and implementing an emergency response system while maintaining system security, especially when using the Internet and other commercial, civilian communication networks, and providing a structure for integrating diverse data and knowledge sources and bases. Additionally, Raman, et al. [29] discusses the use of wiki technology to facilitate KM for emergency response systems. It is expected that open source technologies such as wiki technology will be used to improve connectivity and communications between diverse groups needing to communicate during an emergency. It is expected that increased use of knowledge based systems and KM will continue for emergency response. Improved KM technologies for storing, searching, and retrieving knowledge will be used to integrate KM into emergency decision making [24]. Finally, worms like Slammer which infected 90% of all vulnerable systems connected to the Internet within 10 minutes of its release in 2003 [26] show the vulnerability of cyber emergency response. Currently organizations rely on intrusion detections systems, IDS, which have some alarm functions, to detect such attacks and on firewalls to protect their networks. Emergency response under these conditions is still primitive with most organizations relying on emergencies being recognized and then responded to

6


via sets of incident response procedures. It is expected that new, fast acting emergency response systems will have to be developed that will rely on knowledge based analysis and decision support to improve emergency response times to fit emergencies such as Slammer.

6. Conclusions Emergency response in the United States of America, USA, is evolving from something that was locally handled to something that is standardized under Federal control. The USA implemented the National Incident Management System, NIMS, in 2004. NIMS established standardized incident management protocols and procedures that all responders are to use to conduct and coordinate response actions [36]. Townsend [36] discusses lessons learned from Katrina that include communications infrastructure, knowledge about emergency response plans, integration of civilian and military response activities, and critical infrastructure and impact assessment issues. Review of these issues suggests there were failings in the emergency response systems that the expanded model with KM would have prevented or at least mitigated. What is certain is that emergency response systems will rely on communications, training, integration of knowledge, dynamic infrastructure, and all the other components of the expanded emergency response system model with KM. KM will be a key contributor to building emergency response systems that can react quickly to emergencies. Open source and commercial off the shelf components will be increasing used for emergency response system infrastructures to support cost cutting and simplifying system complexity and setup.

7. References [1] Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. [2] Andersen, H.B., Garde, H., and Andersen, V., (1998). MMS: An Electronic Message Management System for Emergency Response. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45(2), 132-140. [3] Barton, L., and Hardigree, D. (1995). Risk and crisis management in facilities: Emerging paradigms in assessing critical incidents. Facilities Journal, 13(9), 10-11.

[4] Bellardo, S., Karwan, K.R., and Wallace, W.A., (1984). Managing the Response to Disasters Using Microcomputers. Interfaces, 14(2), 29-39. [5] Braverman, M., (2003). Managing the human impact of crisis. Risk Management, 50(5), 10-19. [6] Coombs, W.T., (2000). Designing post crisis messages: Lesson for crisis response strategies. Review of Business, 21(3/4), 37-41. [7] Dyer, S.C., (1995). Getting People into the crisis communication plan. Public Relations Quarterly, 40(3), 3841. [8] Fischer, H.W., (1998). The Role of the New Information Technologies in Emergency Mitigation, Planning, Response, and Recovery. Disaster Prevention and Management, 7(1), 28-37. [9] Gadomski, A.M., Bologna, S., Costanzo, G.D., Perini, A., and Schaerf, M., (2001). Towards Intelligent Decision Support Systems for Emergency Managers: the IDS Approach. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 2(3/4), 224-242. [10] Gheorghe, A.V., and Vamanu, D.V., (2001). Adapting to New Challenges: IDSS for Emergency Preparedness and Management. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 2(3/4), 211-223. [11] Iakovou, E. and Douligeris, C. (2001) An information management system for the emergency management of hurricane disasters, International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 2, 3/4, 243-262. [12] Jennex, M.E., (2003). Information Security in the Era of Terrorist Attacks. Information Resource Management Association International Conference Panel. [13] Jennex, M.E., (2004). Emergency Response Systems: The Utility Y2K Experience. Journal of IT Theory and Application (JITTA), 6(3), 85-102. [14] Jennex, M.E., (2005). Management? International Management, 1(4), i-iv.

What is Journal of

Knowledge Knowledge

Open Source Knowledge [15] Jennex, M.E., (2006). Management. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(4), i-iv. [16] Jennex, M. E. and Olfman, L. (2006). A Model of Knowledge Management Success. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(3), 51-68. [17] Kim, L., (1998). Crisis Construction and organizational learning: Capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9(4), 506-521.

7


[18] Kitamato, A. (2005) Digital typhoon: Near real-time aggregation, recombination and delivery of typhoon-related information. Proceeding of the 4th International Symposium on Digital Earth. Retrieved October 26, 2005 from http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~neela/MTP/Stage1-Report.pdf [19] Lee, J. and Bui, T., (2000). A Template-based Methodology for Disaster Management Information Systems. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. [20] Lukaszewski, J.E., (1987). Anatomy of a Crisis Response: A Checklist. Public Relations Journal. [21] Maier, R. (2002). Knowledge Management Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. [22] Massey, J.E., (2001). Managing Organizational Legitimacy: Communication Strategies for organizations in crisis. Journal of Business Communications, 38(2), 153-182. [23] Mork, L., (2002). Technology Tools for Crisis response. Risk Management, 49(10), 44-50. [24] Murphy, T. and Jennex, M.E., (2006). Knowledge Management Systems Developed for Hurricane Katrina Response. Third International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. [25] Nisha de Silva, F., (2001). Providing Spatial Decision Support for Evacuation Planning: a Challenge in Integrating Technologies. Disaster Prevention and Management, 10(1), 11-20. [26] Panko, R.R., (2003). SLAMMER: The First Blitz Worm. Communications of the AIS, CAIS, 11(12). [27] Patton, D., and R. Flin, “Disaster Stress: An Emergency Management Perspective,” Disaster Prevention and Management, 1999, 8:4, pp. 261-267. [28] Pearson, C.M., Misra, S.K., Clair, J.A., and Mitroff, I.I., Organizational (1997). Managing the Unthinkable. Dynamics, 26, 51-64.

Preparedness: The Claremont University Experience. International Journal of Management, 2(3), 33-50.

Consortium Knowledge

[30] Renaud, R., and Phillips, S., (2003). Developing an Emergency Response Programme for Integrated Facilities:The Experience of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Journal of Facilities Management, 1(4), 347-364. [31] Smart, C.F., and Vertinsky, I., (1984). Strategy and environment: A study of corporate response to crises. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 199-213. [32] Smart, C.F., and Vertinsky, I., (1977). Designs for Crisis Decision Units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 639-657. [33] Smart, C.F., Thompson, W., and Vertinsky, I., (1978). Diagnosing Corporate Effectiveness and susceptibility to Crises. Journal of Business Administration, 9(2), 57-96. [34] Smith, C.A.P., and Hayne, S. (1991). A Distributed System for Crisis Management. Proceedings of the 24th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, 3, 72-81. [35] Stein, E.W. and Zwass, V., (1995). Actualizing Organizational Memory With Information Systems. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 85-117. [36] Townsend, F.F., (2006). The Federal Response to Department of Hurricane Katrina, Lessons Learned. Homeland Security, United States of America. [37] Turoff, M., (2002). Past and Future Emergency Response Information Systems. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 29-32. [38] Turoff, M., Chumer, M., Van de Walle, B., and Yao, X., (2004). The Design of a Dynamic Emergency Response Management Information System (DERMIS). The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5:4, 2004, 1-35.

[29] Raman, M., Ryan, T., and Olfman, L., (2006). Knowledge Management Systems for Emergency

8