Advertisement

Records-Making During Crisis Management – Rule Based or Discretion Driven?

  • Erik A. M. BorglundEmail author
Conference paper
  • 200 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12051)

Abstract

During large crises, e.g. forest fires, flooding, terrorist attacks, or aircraft crashes, temporal organizations are set up to manage the crisis and minimize negative impacts on society. These temporal organizations are often called situation rooms. The purpose of this paper is to study what regulates the record-making practice in a police situation room. Qualitative research methods were used. Data was sourced from five different case studies in the Swedish police service. The tension between discretion and rule-based regulation has been used as the theoretical lens in this paper. Through the application of this theoretical lens of regulation, whereby the two extremes found were discretionary creation on the one hand and rule-based creation on the other, one can identify a real challenge in record-making practice. Much of the record-making was regulated discretionary, i.e. each regulated and motivated by a police officer’s own judgment. This kind of record-making is difficult to predict and consequently the created records may also be difficult to capture, simply because no-one knows that they exist. In non-temporal organizations’ recordkeeping practice, entire work processes can be identified, the records created in the processes can be identified in advance and the process can be supported by various information systems. But in the temporal organization, proactivity is more difficult to achieve and thus records created based upon discretion will probably not be proactively identified as being part of an activity in a process.

Keywords

Crisis management Discretion Police Records-making Situation room 

References

  1. 1.
    Bohn, M.K.: Nerve Center: Inside the White House Situation Room. Brassey’s, Washington, D.C. (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap: Ansvar, samverkan, handling: åtgärder för stärkt krisberedskap utifrån erfarenheterna från skogsbranden i Västmanland 2014. Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap, Stockholm (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Skogsbrandsutredningen: Rapport från Skogsbrandsutredningen. In: Regeringskansliet (ed.). Regeringen (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Landgren, J.: “Glöm inte dokumentera!” Hantering av dokumentation vid krishantering. vol. MSB 315. MSB (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borglund, E.A.M., Öberg, L.-M.: How are records used by organizations? Inf. Res. 13 (2008). Paper 341 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borglund, E.A.M.: Electronic records use changes through temporal rhythms. Arch. Soc. Stud.: J. Interdisc. Res. 2, 103–134 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sundqvist, A.: The use of records – a literature review. Arch. Soc. Stud.: J. Interdisc. Res. 1, 623–653 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Valtonen, M.R.: Documentation in pre-trial investigation: a study of using the records continuum model as a record management tool. Rec. Manag. J. 17, 179–185 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kostiainen, E., Valtonen, M.R., Vakkari, P.: Information seeking in pre-trial investigation with particular reference to records management. Arch. Sci. 3, 157–176 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schellenberg, T.R.: Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques. SAA (Original work published 1956), Chicago (1956/1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foscarini, F.: Organizational records as genres: an analysis of the “Documentary Reality” of organizations from the perspectives of diplomatics, records management, and rhetorical genre studies. In: Theory in Information Studies, pp. 115–132 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Foscarini, F.: Diplomatics and genre theory as complementary approaches. Arch. Sci. 12, 389–409 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-012-9173-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foscarini, F.: Understanding the context of records creation and use: ‘Hard’ versus ‘soft’ approaches to records management. Arch. Sci. 10, 389–407 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-010-9132-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sahlén, T.: Informationsförvaltning i offentlig och privat sektor. Näringslivets arkivråd, Stockholm (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sahlén, T.: Kaos eller struktur - om modern dokumenthantering. In: Sundqvist, A. (ed.) Dokumentstyrning i processorienterade organisationer, pp. 7–56. Folkrörelsernas arkivförbund & Näringslivets arkivråd, Stockholm (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Upward, F.: The records continuum. In: McKemmish, S., Piggott, M., Barbara, R., Upward, F. (eds.) Archives: Recordkeeping in Society, pp. 197–222. Charles Sturt University, Centre for Information Studies, Wagga Wagga (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Upward, F.: Modeling the continuum as paradigm shift in recordkeeping and archiving processes, and beyond - a personal reflection. Rec. Manag. J. 10, 115–139 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borglund, E.A.M.: Design for recordkeeping: areas of improvement. Department of Information Technology and Media, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Borglund, E.: A first step towards general quality requirements for e-records. In: Nilsson, A.G., Gustas, R., Wojtkowski, W.G., Wojtkowski, W., Wrycza, S., Zupancic, J. (eds.) Advances in Information Systems Development: Bridging the Gap Between Academia & Industry, pp. 745–756. Springer, New York (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36402-5_64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borglund, E.: Operational use of electronic records in police work. Inf. Res. 10 (2005). Paper 236Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pettersson, M., Randall, D., Helgeson, B.: Ambiguities, awareness and economy: a study of emergency service work. Comput. Supp. Coop. Work 13, 125–154 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COSU.0000045707.37815.d1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heath, C., Luff, P.: Collaboration and control: crisis management and multimedia technology in London underground line control rooms. Comput. Supp. Coop. Work 1, 69–94 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00752451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Filippi, G., Theureau, J.: Analyzing cooperative work in an urban traffic control room for the design of a coordination support system. In: de Michelis, G., Simone, C., Schmidt, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 13–17 September 1993, Milan, Italy ECSCW 1993, pp. 171–186. Springer, Dordrecht (1993).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2094-4_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luff, P., Heath, C.: The collaborative production of computer commands in command and control. Int. J. Hum.-Comput Stud. 52, 669–699 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Department of Defense: Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. In: Department of Defense (ed.) Department of Defense (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    FEMA - Emergency Management Institute: National Incident Management System (NIMS) Student Manual IS-700.A. Communication and Information Management. In: Institute, F.-E.M. (ed.), vol. IS-700.A National Incident Management System, An Introduction, I-700.A (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nylén, L.: Operativ ledning: bedömande och beslutsfattande: lednings- och fältstaber vid särskild händelse: en handledning. Rikspolisstyrelsen. CRISMART, Försvarshögskolan, Stockholm (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Svensson, S.: Staber och stabsarbete vid kriser, risker och olyckor. Studentlitteratur, Lund (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Borglund, E., Landgren, J., Lintzen, M.: Lägesbilder: Att skapa och analysera lägesbilder vid samhällsstörning. Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap, Stockholm (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap: Gemensamma grunder för samverkan och ledning vid samhällsstörningar. Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap (MSB) (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap: Aktörsgemensamma former för inriktning och samordning vid samhällsstörningar: Vägledning för aktörer på lokal och regional nivå med utgångspunkt i geografiskt områdesansvar. In: Enheten för samverkan och ledning (ed.) Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap (2017)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmitdt, K.: Cooperative Work and Coordinative Practices: Contributions to the Conceptual Foundations of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). Springer, London (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-068-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schmidt, K., Simonee, C.: Coordination mechanisms: towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. Comput. Supp. Coop. Work (CSCW) 5, 155–200 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schmidt, K., Bannon, L.: Taking CSCW Seriously. Comput. Supp. Coop. Work 1, 7–40 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00752449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van Maanen, J.: Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1988)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Puddephatt, A.J., Shaffir, W., Kleinknecht, S.W.: Ethnographies Revisited: Constructing Theory in the Field. Routledge, London; New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Button, G., Harper, R.: The relevance of ‘work-practice’ for design Comput. Supp. Coop. Work (CSCW) 4, 263–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R.: Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. Wiley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kvale, S.: Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Studentlitteratur, Lund (1997)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Blomberg, J., Karasti, H.: Reflections on 25 years of ethnography in CSCW. Comput. Supp. Coop. Work (CSCW) 22, 373–423 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-012-9183-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schmidt, K., Bannon, L.: Constructing CSCW: the first quarter century. Supp. Coop. Work (CSCW) 22, 345–372 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-013-9193-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dourish, P.: Responsibilities and implications: further thoughts on ethnography and design. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing for User eXperiences, pp. 2–16. ACM, Chicago (2007)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dourish, P.: Implications for design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 541–550. ACM, Montreal (2006)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Carrington, P.J., Schulenberg, J.L.: Structuring police discretion: the effect on referrals to youth court. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 19, 349–367 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fukuyama, F.: What is governance? Governance 26, 347–368 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Upward, F.: The records continuum and the concept of an end product. Arch. Manuscr. 32, 40–62 (2004)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Polismyndigheten: Polismyndighetens riktlinjer för operativ ledning vid särskilda händelser. In: Polisen (ed.) (2016)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    McKemmish, S.: Placing records continuum theory and practice. Arch. Sci. 1, 333–359 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Benson, D.: The police and information technology. In: Button, G. (ed.) Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology, pp. 81–97. Routledge, London (1993)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pekkola, S.: Designed for unanticipated use: common artefacts as design principle for CSCW applications. In: GROUP 2003: Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Berlage, T., Sohlenkamp, M.: Visualizing common artefacts to support awareness in computer-mediated cooperation. Comput. Supp. Coop. Work 8, 207–238 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008608425504CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mid Sweden UniversitySundsvallSweden

Personalised recommendations