Towards Coordination Preparedness of Soft-Target Organisation
In this paper, we introduce a network enabled coordination model to examine the coordination preparedness of soft-target organisations such as common public access areas including transit hubs, schools, parks, and sports areas. It is apparent that little attention is given in recent research focusing on the use of network analysis as a way to explore coordination preparedness for this type of organisation. In this study, we emphasise this type of soft-target organisation and propose a model to examine the coordination preparedness to any disasters by testing hypothesis related to network relationship and coordination preparedness. We analyse the dataset entitled Preparedness of Large Retail Malls to Prevent and Respond to Terrorist Attack, 2004, which contains a total of 120 completed surveys of security directors of retail malls. The following questions form the basis of this study: What do soft-target organisations need to be better prepared to respond to disaster? How does network relationship between soft-target organisation and emergency agencies affect the coordination preparedness of soft-target organisation for disaster recovery? Which degree of centrality measure needs to be followed to measure network variables in order to analyse the coordination preparedness? Result shows that soft-target organisation with high level of network relationship with other emergency agencies are better prepared to disaster response. Using this result, the preparedness of a soft-target organisation might be judged for successfully participation in an actual emergency.
KeywordsSoft-Target Organisation coordination preparedness network relation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Beaumont, P., Chaib-draa, B.: Multi-Platform Coordination in Command and Control. National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (2005)Google Scholar
- 4.Comfort, L., Kapucu, N.: Inter-organisational coordination in extreme events: The World Trade Center attacks, September 11, 2001. Natural Hazards, 309–327 (2003)Google Scholar
- 5.Davis, R.C., Ortiz, C., Rowe, R., Broz, J., Rigakos, G., Collins, P.: An Assessment of the Preparedness of Large Retail Malls to Prevent and Respond to Terrorist Attack, A report submitted to U.S. Department of Justice (2006)Google Scholar
- 6.Donini, A., Niland, N.R.: Lessons Learned, A Report on the Coordination of Humanitarian Activities. United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs, New York (1994)Google Scholar
- 7.Freeman, L.C.: Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Classification. Social Networks, 215–239 (1978)Google Scholar
- 8.Kapucu, N.: Inter-organisational Coordination in Dynamic Context: Network in Emergency Response Managements. Connections, 33–48 (2005)Google Scholar
- 9.Kirn, S., Gasser, L.: Organisational Approaches to Coordination in Multi-Agent Systems. National Science Foundation, Arlington (1998)Google Scholar
- 10.Krugman, P.: A Can’t-Do Government, The New York Times, published on September 2 (2005)Google Scholar
- 12.Kuti, M.: Cordnet – Towards a distributed behavioral model for emergency response coordination, A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Sydney (2007)Google Scholar
- 14.Malone, T.W.: What is Coordination Theory? National Science Foundation Coordination Theory Workshop, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA (1988)Google Scholar
- 15.Malone, T.W., Crowston, K.: The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination. ACM Computing Surveys 26(1) (1994)Google Scholar
- 18.Riley, K.J., Hoffman, B.: Domestic Terrorism, A National Assessment of State and Local Preparedness. RAND (1995)Google Scholar