Complementarity of Communication and Coordination in Ensuring Effectiveness of Emergency Management Networks

Abstract

:

1. Introduction

1.
What relationships connect inter-organizational communication, inter-organizational coordination, and effectiveness of emergency management networks?
2.
How can the dimensions of inter-organizational communication and coordination affect effectiveness of emergency management networks?

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Emergency Management Network

  • Communication—transfer of information between organizations;
  • Cooperation—voluntary, unstructured, and short-term relationships that do not require adjusting individual actions;
  • Coordination—a permanent and formalized form of relationship consisting of mutual adaptation of organizations and connecting their interdependent elements of activity;
  • Collaboration—a long-term relationship with a high level of mutual interdependence, which requires changes in the way individual organizations operate.

2.2. Inter-Organizational Communication in Emergency Management Networks

2.3. Inter-Organizational Coordination in Emergency Management Networks

2.4. Effectiveness of Emergency Management Networks

3. Methods

3.1. Literature Review

1.
What relationships connect inter-organizational communication, inter-organizational coordination, and effectiveness of emergency management networks?
2.
How can the dimensions of inter-organizational communication and coordination affect effectiveness of emergency management networks?

3.2. Research Process and Questionnaire

3.3. Method of Analysis

  • The assessment of the measurement model:
  • The evaluation of the structural model:
    • Critical t-values for a two-tailed bootstrapping test are 1.65 (significance level = 10 percent), 1.96 (significance level = 5 percent), and 2.58 (significance level = 1 percent) [95].
  • Model comparisons:

4. Results

4.1. Identification of Variable Dimensions

  • COM1-communication capacity, which is formed by: up-to-date nature of transferred information (com6), precision of transferred information (com7), ability to reach an agreement (com8), and consulting action plans with other organizations (com10);
  • COM2-communication coherence, which includes: maintaining of constant contact during action realization (com2), information sharing during action realization (com3), and capabilities to develop of common solutions (com9);
  • COM3-fluency of vertical communication include: existence of a common communication ground (e.g., compatible ICTs) (com11), advantage of horizontal communication over vertical communication (com12), and continuity of vertical communication throughout the entire emergency management process (com13).
  • COORD1-organizational adjustment, which refers to: a clear division of responsibilities (coord1), transparency of each organization’s roles (coord2), clarity of each organization’s tasks (coord3), adapting resources to the needs (coord5), and fast flow of resources between organizations (coord7);
  • COORD2-steering of activities, which is formed by: formalization of procedures and rules (coord8), strong leadership during task realization (coord9), and possibility to make decisions on task force level (coord10);
  • COORD3: organizational integrity including such mechanisms as: capableness in achieving common goals (coord4), flexibility of joint actions (coord6), and quickness of adaptation to the conditions of action (coord11).

4.2. Correlation Analysis and Hierarchical Clustering

4.3. The PLS-PM Model

5. Discussion and Implications

6. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of Interest

References

  1. Gittell, J.H.; Weiss, L. Coordination networks within and across organizations: A multi-level Framework. J. Manage. Stud. 2004, 41, 127–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Comfort, L.K. Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Admin. Rev. 2007, 67, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kapucu, N. Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary spanners in multiagency coordination. Am. Rev. Public. Adm. 2006, 36, 207–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Al Ridhawi, I.; Otoum, S.; Aloqaily, M.; Jararweh, Y.; Baker, T. Providing secure and reliable communication for next generation networks in smart cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 56, 102080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pirzadeh, P.; Lingard, H.; Blismas, N. Effective communication in the context of safe design decision making. Saf. Sci. 2020, 131, 104913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Guler, A.; Pardo, T.A.; Burke, G.B. Characterizing the importance of clarity of roles and responsibilities in government inter-organizational collaboration and information sharing initiatives. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 101393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Presbitero, A. Communication accommodation within global virtual team: The influence of cultural intelligence and the impact on interpersonal process effectiveness. J. Int. Manag. 2021, 27, 100809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mutebi, H.; Muhwezi, M.; Ntayi, J.M.; Munene, J.C.K. Organisation size, innovativeness, self-organisation and inter-organisational coordination. Int. J. Emerg. Serv. 2020, 9, 359–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Molenveld, A.; Verhoest, K.; Voets, J.; Steen, T. Images of Coordination: How Implementing Organizations Perceive Coordination Arrangements. Public Adm. Rev. 2020, 80, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gao, L.; Zhao, Z.-Y. The evolutionary game of stakeholders’ coordination mechanism of new energy power construction PPP project: A China case. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  11. Christensen, T.; Lægreid, O.M.; Lægreid, P. Administrative coordination capacity; does the wickedness of policy areas matter? Policy Soc. 2019, 38, 237–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Christensen, T.; Ma, L. Coordination Structures and Mechanisms for Crisis Management in China: Challenges of Complexity. Public Organ. Rev. 2020, 20, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Hawkins, C.V. Interlocal Agreements and Multilateral Institutions: Mitigating Coordination Problems of Self-Organized Collective Action. Int. J. Publ. Admin. 2020, 43, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Song, Z.; Zhang, H.; Dolan, C. Promoting disaster resilience: Operation mechanisms and self-organizing processes of crowdsourcing. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  15. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. Antecedents of collaboration and drivers of relational risk in public safety networks. Int. J. Emerg. Serv. 2019, 9, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kożuch, B.; Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. Inter-Organisational Coordination for Sustainable Local Governance: Public Safety Management in Poland. Sustainability 2016, 8, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  17. Lie, A. Coordination processes and outcomes in the public service: The challenge of inter-organizational food safety coordination in Norway. Public Adm. 2011, 89, 401–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Van de Ven, A.H.; Walker, G. The dynamics of interorganizational coordination. Adm. Sci. Q. 1984, 29, 598–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Roberts, N.C. Beyond smokestacks and silos: Open-source, web-enabled coordination in organizations and networks. Public. Admin. Rev. 2011, 71, 677–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gittell, J.H. Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: Relational coordination as a mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator of performance effects. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48, 1408–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Malone, T.W.; Crowston, K. The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput. Surv. 1994, 26, 87–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  22. Malone, T.W.; Crowston, K. What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems? In Proceedings of the ACM conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, New York, NY, USA, 7–10 October 1990; pp. 357–370. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sun, Y.; Wang, T.; Gu, X. A sustainable development perspective on cooperative culture, knowledge flow, and innovation network governance performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  24. Christensen, T.; Laegreid, P.; Rykkja, L.H. The challenges of coordination in national security management-the case of the terrorist attack in Norway. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2015, 81, 352–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gulati, R.; Wohlgezogen, F.; Zhelyazkov, P. The two facets of collaboration: Cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2012, 6, 531–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ren, Y.; Kiesler, S.; Fussell, S.R. Multiple group coordination in complex and dynamic task environments: Interruptions, coping mechanisms, and technology recommendations. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2008, 25, 105–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kapucu, N. Collaborative emergency management: Better community organising, better public preparedness and response. Disasters 2008, 32, 239–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bond, B.J.; Gittell, J.H. Cross-agency coordination of offender reentry: Testing collaboration outcomes. J. Crim. Justice. 2010, 38, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ottens, M.; Edelenbos, J. Political leadership as meta-governance in sustainability transitions: A case study analysis of meta-governance in the case of the Dutch national agreement on climate. Sustainability 2018, 11, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  30. Wang, W.; Wu, Y. Exploring the coordination mechanism for public housing supply with urban growth management: A case study of Chongqing, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Comfort, L.K.; Ko, K.; Zagorecki, A. Coordination in rapidly evolving disaster response systems: The role of information. Am. Behav. Sci. 2004, 48, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bharosa, N.; Lee, J.; Janssen, M. Challenges and obstacles in sharing and coordinating information during multi-agency disaster response: Propositions from field exercises. Inf. Syst. Front. 2010, 12, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  33. Martin, E.; Nolte, I.; Vitolo, E. The Four Cs of disaster partnering: Communication, cooperation, coordination and collaboration. Disasters 2016, 40, 621–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Chen, R.; Sharman, R.; Rao, H.R.; Upadhyaya, S.J. Coordination in emergency response management. Commun. ACM 2008, 51, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gardet, E.; Mothe, C. The dynamics of coordination in innovation networks. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2011, 8, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  36. Gittell, J.H. Supervisory span, relational coordination and flight departure performance: A reassessment of postbureaucracy theory. Organ. Sci. 2001, 12, 468–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Castor, T.; Bartesaghi, M. Metacommunication during Disaster Response: ‘Reporting’ and the Constitution of Problems in Hurricane Katrina Teleconferences. Manag. Commun. Q. 2016, 30, 472–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  38. Vangen, S.; Huxham, C. Building and using the theory of collaborative advantage. In Network Theory in the Public Sector; Keast, R., Mandell, M.P., Agranoff, R., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 65–81. [Google Scholar]
  39. UNISDR. Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. 2009. Available online: https://www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2020).
  40. Boin, A.; Hart, P. Organising for Effective Emergency Management: Lessons from Research. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2010, 69, 357–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  41. Kożuch, B.; Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. Information sharing in complex systems: A case study on public safety management. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 213, 722–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  42. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. Relational behaviours and organisational capabilities in public safety networks. Manag. Decis. 2020, 58, 1067–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Andrew, S.A.; Hawkins, C.V. Regional cooperation and multilateral agreements in the provision of public safety. Am. Rev. Public. Adm. 2013, 43, 460–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Blackstone, E.A.; Buck, A.J.; Hakim, S. The economics of emergency response. Policy Sci. 2007, 40, 313–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. O’Toole, L.J. Networks and networking: The public administrative agendas. Public Adm. Rev. 2015, 75, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Provan, K.G.; Lemaire, R.H. Core Concepts and Key Ideas for Understanding Public Sector Organizational Networks: Using Research to Inform Scholarship and Practice. Public Adm. Rev. 2012, 72, 638–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Isett, K.R.; Mergel, I.A.; Leroux, K.; Mischen, P.A.; Rethemeyer, R.K. Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2011, 21, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  48. Song, M.; Jung, K.; Ki, N.; Feiock, R.C. Testing structural and relational embeddedness in collaboration risk. Ration. Soc. 2020, 32, 67–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Arntsen, B.; Torjesen, D.O.; Karlsen, T.-I. Associations between structures, processes and outcomes in inter-municipal cooperation in out-of-hours services in Norway: A survey study. Soc. Sci. Med. 2020, 258, 113067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cristofoli, D.; Martini, M.; Trivellato, B.; Cavenago, D. Management and culture in successful networks. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2019, 33, 381–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cristofoli, D.; Trivellato, B.; Sancino, A.; Maccio’, L.; Markovic, J. Public network leadership and the ties that lead. J. Manag. Govern. 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  52. Keast, R.; Mandell, M. The collaborative push: Moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence. J. Manag. Gov. 2014, 18, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Terman, J.N.; Feiock, R.C.; Youm, J. When Collaboration Is Risky Business: The Influence of Collaboration Risks on Formal and Informal Collaboration. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2020, 50, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Henstra, D. Explaining local policy choices: A multiple streams analysis of municipal emergency management. Can. Public Adm. 2010, 53, 241–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Murphy, P.; Wankhade, P.; Lakoma, K. The strategic and operational landscape of emergency services in the UK. Int. J. Emerg. Serv. 2019, 9, 69–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  56. Kuzior, A.; Sobotka, B. Key Competencies in the Modern Business Services Sector. Organization & Management Scientific Quarterly 2019, 2, 63–74. [Google Scholar]
  57. Palttala, P.; Vos, M. Quality indicators for crisis communication to support emergency management by public authorities. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2012, 20, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  58. Boholm, Å. Lessons of success and failure: Practicing risk communication at government agencies. Saf. Sci. 2019, 118, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Manoj, B.S.; Baker, A.H. Communication challenges in emergency response. Commun. ACM 2007, 50, 51–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Seeger, M.W. Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 2006, 34, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Brattberg, E. Coordinating for contingencies: Taking stock of post 9/11 homeland security reforms. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2012, 20, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Morris, J.C.; Morris, E.D.; Jones, D.M. Reaching for the philosopher’s stone: Contingent coordination and the military’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Public Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Boin, A.; Kuipers, S.; Overdijk, W. Leadership in times of crisis: A framework for assessment. Int. Rev. Public Adm. 2013, 18, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  64. Nolte, I.M.; Martin, E.C.; Boenigk, S. Cross-Sectoral Coordination of Disaster Relief. Public Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 707–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kapucu, N.; Garayev, V. Collaborative decision-making in emergency and disaster management. Int. J. Public Adm. 2011, 34, 366–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Okhuysen, G.A.; Bechky, B.A. Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2009, 3, 463–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kettl, D.F. Contingent coordination: Practical and theoretical puzzles for homeland security. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2003, 33, 253–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nowell, B.; Steelman, T.; Velez, A.L.K.; Yang, Z. The structure of effective governance of disaster response networks: Insights from the field. Am. Rev. Public. Adm. 2018, 48, 699–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  69. Klein, K.J.; Ziegert, J.C.; Knight, A.P.; Xiao, Y. Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 2006, 51, 590–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  70. Turrini, A.; Cristofoli, D.; Frosini, F.; Nasi, G. Networking Literature about Determinants of Network Effectiveness. Public Adm. 2010, 88, 528–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Provan, K.G.; Milward, B. A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems. Adm. Sci. Q. 1995, 40, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lucidarme, S.; Cardon, G.; Willem, A. A Comparative Study of Health Promotion Networks: Configurations of determinants for network effectiveness. Public Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 1163–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Piotrowska-Trybull, M.; Sirko, S. The impact of a military unit on the socio-economic situation of municipalities in the context of local development. Organ. Manag. Sci. Q. 2019, 2, 99–115. [Google Scholar]
  74. Provan, K.G.; Kenis, P. Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2008, 18, 229–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  75. Waugh, W.L., Jr.; Streib, G. Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Adm. Rev. 2006, 66, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nohrstedt, D. Does Adaptive Capacity Influence Service Delivery? Evidence from Swedish Emergency Management Collaborations. Public Manag. Rev. 2015, 17, 718–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Banasik, P.; Odlanicka-Poczobutt, M.; Morawska, S. The unsustainability of public-sector organizational networks: A case study of voluntary court. Sci. Pap. Sil. Univ. Technol. Organ. Manag. Ser. 2020, 148, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bodin, Ö.; Nohrstedt, D. Formation and performance of collaborative disaster management networks: Evidence from a Swedish wildfire response. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 41, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  79. Mandell, M.; Keast, R.L. Evaluating Network Arrangements: Toward Revised Performance Measures. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 2007, 30, 574–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Farazmand, A. Learning from the Katrina crisis: A global and international perspective with implications for future crisis management. Public. Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  82. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Newbert, S.L. Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 121–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wang, Z.; Wang, N. Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 8899–8908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ysa, T.; Sierra, V.; Esteve, M. Determinants of network outcomes: The impact of management strategies. Public Adm. 2014, 92, 636–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  86. Ryszko, A. Proactive environmental strategy, technological eco-innovation and firm performance—Case of Poland. Sustainability 2016, 8, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  87. Fidel, P.; Cervera, A.; Schlesinger, W. Customer’s role in knowledge management and in the innovation process: Effects on innovation capacity and marketing results. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2016, 14, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Aranda-Usón, A.; Portillo-Tarragona, P.; Marín-Vinuesa, L.M.; Scarpellini, S. Financial resources for the circular economy: A perspective from businesses. Sustainability 2019, 11, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  89. Rönkkö, M.; McIntosh, C.N.; Antonakis, J.; Edwards, J.R. Partial least squares path modeling: Time for some serious second thoughts. J. Oper. Manag. 2016, 47, 9–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  90. Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Thiele, K.O.; Gudergan, S.P. Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 3998–4010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  91. Lowry, P.B.; Gaskin, J. Partial least squares PLS structural equation modeling SEM for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 2014, 57, 123–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rigdon, E.E.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. On comparing results from CB-SEM and PLS-SEM: Five perspectives and five recommendations. Mark. Zfp. 2017, 39, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Owczarek, T.; Sojda, A.; Kaczmarek, K. The influence of number of predictors on accuracy of classification algorithms based on trees. Sci. Pap. Sil. Univ. Technol. Organ. Manag. Ser. 2015, 86, 507–517. [Google Scholar]
  94. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Chin, W.; Cheah, J.H.; Liu, Y.; Ting, H.; Lim, X.J.; Cham, T.H. Demystifying the role of causal-predictive modeling using partial least squares structural equation modeling in information systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Sekhon, J.S. Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The matching package for R. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 42, 1–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  98. Wolny, M.; Kmiecik, M. Forecasting Demand for Products in Distribution Networks Using R Software. Sci. Pap. Sil. Univ. Technol. Organ. Manag. Ser. 2020, 142, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kline, R. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Applied Quantitative Analysis in Education and Thesocial Sciences; Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., Compton, D.L., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 171–207. [Google Scholar]
  100. Murtagh, F.; Legendre, P. Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: Which algorithms implement Ward’s criterion? J. Classif. 2014, 31, 274–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
No. Mechanism of Inter-Organizational Communication Source
1 Communication frequency during emergency management process [18,28,33,36]
2 Maintaining of constant contact during action realization [2,3,59]
3 Information sharing during action realization [3,19,25,32]
4 Formalization of communication channels [18,32,59]
5 Communication informality [3,19,25,36]
6 Up-to-datedness of transferred information [21,28,33,57,60]
7 Precision of transferred information [28,57,60]
8 Ability to reach an agreement [33,60]
9 Capabilities to develop common solutions [2,22,33]
10 Consulting action plans with other organizations [2,33,57,60]
11 Existence of a common communication ground (e.g., compatible ICTs) [2,3,21,31,32,59]
12 Advantage of horizontal communication over vertical communication [25,36,59,60]
13 Continuity of vertical communication throughout the entire emergency management process [3,31,60]
No. Mechanism of Inter-Organizational Coordination Source
1 Clear division of responsibilities [18,21,22,52,61,64,66]
2 Transparency of each organization’s roles [22,52,61,62,66]
3 Clarity of each organization’s tasks [18,52,61,62,65]
4 Capableness in achieving common goals [20,22,28,33,64,70]
5 Adapting resources to the needs [21,25,33,61,64,68]
6 Flexibility of joint actions [24,67,68]
7 Fast flow of resources between organizations [21,22,61,66]
8 Formalization of procedures and rules [20,25,52,62,67]
9 Strong leadership during task realization [40,62,69]
10 Possibility to make decisions at task force level [19,63,65,69]
11 Quickness of adaptation to the conditions of action [18,67,68,69]
12 Reciprocal adaptation of the organization [2,18,21,22,25,33,61,66,67]
No. Mechanism of Network Effectiveness Source
1 Increasing the adaptability of the organization in the network to take actions adequate to current conditions [70,75,76,80]
2 Increasing the capability to conduct actions [75,76]
3 Increasing the speed of action [65,76]
4 Applying a proper action strategy [38,65]
5 Achieving common goals [38,70,72]
6 Increasing the quality of actions [75,76]
7 Increasing the innovativeness of implemented actions [70,72]
8 Increasing flexibility of actions [65,80]
Mechanism Question in the Survey * Code
Communication
Communication frequency during emergency management process Organizations in emergency management networks communicate with each other on a daily basis com1
Maintaining of constant contact during action realization During the realization of joint actions organizations in emergency management networks are in constant contact with each other com2
Information sharing during action realization During the realization of joint actions organizations in emergency management networks always share the information they possess com3
Formalization of communication channels Transferring of information in emergency management networks is based on formal communication channels com4
Communication informality The nature of communication in emergency management networks is informal com5
Up-to-datedness of transferred information Information in emergency management networks is always transferred on time com6
Precision of transferred information Information transferred in emergency management networks is always precise com7
Ability to reach an agreement Organizations in emergency management networks are always able to reach an agreement com8
Capabilities to develop common solutions Inter-organizational meetings enable to agree solutions to problems connected with the realization of joint actions com9
Consulting action plans with other organizations Organizations in emergency management networks consult together their own action plans with other organizations of this system com10
Existence of a common communication ground (e.g., compatible ICTs) Organizations in emergency management networks have a developed common language, which facilitates their communication com11
Advantage of horizontal communication over vertical communication Horizontal (inter-organizational) communication dominates in emergency management networks com12
Continuity of vertical communication throughout the entire emergency management process The nature of vertical communication in emergency management networks is continuous com13
Coordination
Clear division of responsibilities In the realization of joint actions in emergency management networks it is always known, which organization is leading in a given situation coord1
Transparency of each organization’s roles The roles of each organization in emergency management networks are transparent coord2
Clarity of each organization’s tasks The responsibilities of each organization in emergency management networks are clear coord3
Capableness in achieving common goals The tasks of each unit in emergency management networks during joint actions are effectively realized coord4
Adapting resources to the needs The flow of resources during realization of actions in emergency management networks is suitable coord5
Flexibility of joint actions The realization of joint actions in emergency management networks is characterized by flexibility coord6
Fast flow of resources between organizations The needs of each unit in the scope of action realization are replenished on an ongoing basis coord7
Formalization of procedures and rules The realization of joint actions in emergency management networks is based on formal procedures and rules coord8
Strong leadership during task realization The realization of joint actions in emergency management networks is coordinated by one person who is responsible for the course of commonly realized endeavours coord9
Possibility to make decisions at task force level Joint actions in emergency management networks are conducted in task forces and the decisions are made at the level of these forces coord10
Quickness of adaptation to the conditions of action Organizations in emergency management networks adapt their activities to the situational conditions coord11
Reciprocal adaptation of the organization It is a norm in emergency management networks to organize common meetings, exercises, and training coord12
Network effectiveness
Increasing the adaptability of the organization in the network to take actions adequate to current conditions Conducting activities in emergency management networks based on inter-organizational collaboration enables to undertake actions appropriate for a given situation ne1
Increasing the capability to conduct actions Conducting activities in emergency management networks based on inter-organizational collaboration enables to realize the planned actions easier ne2
Increasing the speed of action Conducting activities in emergency management networks based on inter-organizational collaboration enables to realize the planned actions quicker ne3
Applying a proper action strategy Conducting activities in emergency management networks based on inter-organizational collaboration enables to realize the planned actions in an appropriate way ne4
Achieving common goals Conducting activities in emergency management networks based on inter-organizational collaboration enables to achieve the assumed goals ne5
Increasing the quality of actions Conducting activities in emergency management networks based on inter-organizational collaboration enables to increase the quality of jointly realized actions ne6
Increasing the innovativeness of implemented actions Conducting activities in emergency management networks based on inter-organizational collaboration increases possibilities of implementing the new methods of actions ne7
Increasing flexibility of actions Conducting activities in emergency management networks based on inter-organizational collaboration increases the flexibility of actions ne8
Dimension Mean Sd COM1 COM2 COM3 COORD1 COORD2 COORD3
COM1 3.64 0.64
COM2 4.19 0.51 0.48
COM3 3.69 0.53 0.32 0.39
COORD1 4.04 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.29
COORD2 4.00 0.70 0.43 0.49 0.43 0.41
COORD3 3.90 0.50 0.45 0.52 0.22 0.63 0.43
NE 4.27 0.50 0.32 0.52 0.38 0.38 0.51 0.39
Item COM1 COORD3 COORD1 COM3 COM2 COORD2 NE
com6 0.89 0.37 0.49 0.36 0.43 0.42 0.30
com7 0.84 0.38 0.46 0.28 0.40 0.41 0.30
com8 0.80 0.46 0.56 0.28 0.43 0.29 0.32
com10 0.69 0.34 0.38 0.16 0.31 0.30 0.18
coord4 0.46 0.83 0.65 0.20 0.38 0.26 0.29
coord6 0.39 0.82 0.59 0.18 0.47 0.47 0.42
coord11 0.29 0.75 0.33 0.14 0.40 0.29 0.25
coord1 0.49 0.45 0.78 0.27 0.37 0.33 0.35
coord2 0.57 0.60 0.87 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.39
coord3 0.45 0.45 0.83 0.14 0.33 0.37 0.30
coord5 0.44 0.62 0.75 0.19 0.31 0.29 0.27
coord7 0.42 0.59 0.78 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.29
com11 0.32 0.16 0.31 0.81 0.38 0.41 0.31
com12 0.21 0.14 0.04 0.70 0.34 0.23 0.26
com13 0.19 0.20 0.27 0.67 0.14 0.36 0.31
com2 0.46 0.43 0.44 0.42 0.88 0.58 0.48
com3 0.44 0.43 0.34 0.31 0.76 0.24 0.34
com9 0.27 0.40 0.20 0.24 0.76 0.42 0.44
coord8 0.44 0.37 0.44 0.47 0.49 0.81 0.49
coord9 0.24 0.31 0.29 0.34 0.40 0.80 0.42
coord10 0.37 0.37 0.30 0.28 0.40 0.83 0.39
ne1 0.39 0.38 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.52 0.84
ne2 0.33 0.35 0.42 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.90
ne3 0.34 0.35 0.44 0.39 0.44 0.47 0.91
ne4 0.23 0.34 0.29 0.37 0.38 0.43 0.82
ne5 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.54 0.52 0.73
ne6 0.24 0.37 0.32 0.28 0.45 0.34 0.84
ne7 0.17 0.29 0.18 0.22 0.39 0.39 0.79
ne8 0.18 0.24 0.14 0.14 0.43 0.39 0.79
Dimension alpha-C CR AVE R2 HTMT
COM1 COM2 COM3 COORD1 COORD2 COORD3
COM1 0.82 0.88 0.67
COM2 0.72 0.85 0.65 0.36 0.63
COM3 0.58 0.78 0.54 0.12 0.47 0.59
COORD1 0.86 0.90 0.65 0.55 0.70 0.52 0.40
COORD2 0.75 0.86 0.66 0.40 0.54 0.68 0.67 0.52
COORD3 0.73 0.85 0.64 0.23 0.61 0.72 0.34 0.82 0.57
NE 0.93 0.95 0.69 0.38 0.38 0.63 0.53 0.43 0.62 0.47

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K.; Owczarek, T. Complementarity of Communication and Coordination in Ensuring Effectiveness of Emergency Management Networks. Sustainability 2021, 13, 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010221

Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek K, Owczarek T. Complementarity of Communication and Coordination in Ensuring Effectiveness of Emergency Management Networks. Sustainability. 2021; 13(1):221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010221

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, Katarzyna, and Tomasz Owczarek. 2021. “Complementarity of Communication and Coordination in Ensuring Effectiveness of Emergency Management Networks” Sustainability 13, no. 1: 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010221

You are watching: Complementarity of Communication and Coordination in Ensuring Effectiveness of Emergency Management Networks. Info created by GBee English Center selection and synthesis along with other related topics.