Abstract

This research investigates information behaviour of the strategic and tactical level commanders’ in emergency response context. The objective of the research is to observe and analyse the information processing of the emergency staff while carrying out complex, time critical tasks in emergency settings. Task studies in the recent literature discuss laboratory cases; this research has originality in investigating the real phenomenon. Fieldwork was conducted in AKOM (Afet Kordinasyon Merkezi – Disaster Coordination Centre) and Istanbul Fire Brigade settings. Data was collected via qualitative methods such as interviews and field observations. Emergency response tasks were analysed and categorised using Byström and Jarvelin’s (1995) conceptual framework. Cultural Historical Activity Theory is used as a theoretical framework and conceptual data analysis tool. Leont’ev (1978) and Wilson’s (2006b, 2008) activity system hierarchical structure was used to deconstruct tasks and scrutinise subtasks that has supporting role in emergency response context. Findings reveal that time pressure and task complexity has significant role on emergency response decision tasks and the way of responders’ information processing. To hedge uncertainty and make effective timely decisions, tactical and strategic level commanders collaboratively share information using abstract and concrete tools such as ICT, language, mobile devices and radio. As practical implications, the results of this research shed lights onto redesign of ICT tools used during disaster times, and restructuring the disaster management organisations to facilitate effective knot working while emergency response.

Keywords: Task complexity, information behaviour, emergency response

References

  1. Aydın, A. M. (2015). The influence of task and time on information behaviour in organisations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leeds University Business School, UK.
  2. Byström, K. (1999). Task complexity, information types and information sources: examination of relationships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tampere, Finland.
  3. Byström, K. (2002). Information and information sources in tasks of varying complexity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 53, 581-591.
  4. Byström, K. (2007). Approaches to “task” in contemporary information studies. Information Studies, 12, 1-12.
  5. Byström, K., & Hansen, P. (2005). Conceptual framework for tasks in information studies. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56, 1050-1061.
  6. Byström, K., & Jarvelin, K. (1995). Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Information Processing & Management, 31, 191-213.
  7. Case, D. O. (2002). Looking for information: a survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. San Diego: Academic Press.
  8. Cyert, R. M., & Williams, J. R. (1993). Organizations, decision making and strategy: Overview and comment. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 5-10.
  9. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1983). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design (No. TR-ONR-DG-02). Texas A and M Univ. College Station Coll. of Business Administration.
  10. Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 21, 3-33.
  11. Franz, T. M., & Larson, J. R. (2002). The impact of experts on information sharing during group discussion. Small Group Research, 33, 383-411.
  12. Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psyhology, 65, 959-974.
  13. Hickson, D. J., Butler, R. J., Cray, D., Mallory, G. R., & Wilson, D. C. (1986). Top decisions: Strategic decision-making in organizations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  14. Hyldegård, J., & Ingwersen, P. (2007). Task complexity and information behaviour in group based problem solving. Information Research, 12, Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis27.html
  15. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47, 61-79.
  16. Kaptelinin, V. (ed.) (1996). Activity theory: Implications for human-computer interaction. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  17. Karunakaran, A., Reddy, M. C., & Spence, P. R. (2013). Toward a model of collaborative information behavior in organizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 2437-2451.
  18. Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50, 456-460.
  19. Klein, G. A., & Calderwood, R. (1991). Decision models some lessons from the field. Ieee Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, 21, 1018-1026.
  20. Kulthau, C. (2004). Seeking meaning. Greenwich: Ablex Publishing Co.
  21. Kuutti, K. (Ed.). (1995). Activity Theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  22. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1978/index.htm
  23. March, J. G. (1996). Understanding how decisions happen in organizations. In Z. Shapira (Ed.), Organizational Decision Making (pp. 9-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Mckenzie, M. L. (2005). Managers look to the social network to seek information. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 10(2).
  25. Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2004). Decision making in organizations hostile to knowledge sharing. Journal for East European Management Studies, 9, 7-19.
  26. Mishra, J. L., Allen, D. K., & Pearman, A. D. (2011a). Activity Theory as a methodological and analytical framework for information practices in emergency management. Proceedings of 8th International ISCRAM Conference. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.7940&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  27. Mishra, J. L., Allen, D. K., & Pearman, A. D. (2011b). Information sharing during multi-agency major incidents. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1-10.
  28. Mishra, J. L., Allen, D. K., & Pearman, A. D. (2013). Information use, support and decision making in complex, uncertain environments. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 50(1), 1-10.
  29. O’Reilly, C. A. (1982). Variations in decision makers’ use of information sources: the impact of quality and accessibility of information. The Academy of Management Journal, 25, 756-771.
  30. Paul, S. A. (2010). Understanding together: Sensemaking in collaborative information seeking (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
  31. Reddy, M. C., & Jansen, B. J. (2008). A model for understanding collaborative information behavior in context: A study of two healthcare teams. Information Processing & Management, 44, 256-273.
  32. Reddy, M. C., & Spence, P. R. (2008). Collaborative information seeking: A field study of a multidisciplinary patient care team. Information Processing & Management, 44, 242-255.
  33. Savolainen, R. (2006). Time as a context of information seeking. Library & Information Science Research, 28, 110-127.
  34. Scholten, L., Van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 539-552.
  35. Simon, H. A. (1987). Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. The Academy of Management Executive (1987-1989), 1, 57-64.
  36. Schrah, G. E., Dalal, R. S., & Sniezek, J. A. (2006). No decision-maker is an Island: integrating expert advice with information acquisition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 43-60.
  37. Simon, H. A., Dantzig, G. B., Hogarth, R., Plott, C. R., Raiffa, H., Schelling, T. C., Shepsle, K. A., Thaler, R., Tversky, A., & Winter, S. (1987). Decision making and problem solving. Interfaces, 17, 11-31.
  38. Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: the importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244-265.
  39. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psyhology, 48, 1467-1478.
  40. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304-313.
  41. Vakkari, P. (1999a). Task complexity, information types, search strategies and relevance: integrating studies on information seeking and retrieval. In T. D. Wilson, & D. K. Allen (Eds.), Exploring the Contexts of Information Behaviour (pp. 35-85). London: Taylor Graham Publishing.
  42. Vakkari, P. (1999b). Task complexity, problem structure and information actions: Integrating studies on information seeking and retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 35, 819-837.
  43. Vakkari, P. (2003). Task-based information searching. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 413-464.
  44. Weick, K. E. (1993). Sense making in organizations: Small structures with large consequences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  45. Widén-Wulff, G., & Davenport, E. (2007). Activity systems, information sharing and the development of organizational knowledge in two Finnish firms: An exploratory study using Activity Theory. Information Research, 12(3). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1104883.pdf
  46. Wilson, T. D. (2006a). 60 years of the best in information research: On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 62, 658-670.
  47. Wilson, T. D. (2006b). A re-examination of information seeking behaviour in the context of activity theory. Information Research-an International Electronic Journal, 11(4), 1.
  48. Wilson, T. D. (ed.). (2008). Activity Theory and Information Science. Melford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
  49. Winquist, J. R., & Larson, J. R. (1998). Information pooling: When it impacts group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psyhology, 74, 371-377.
  50. Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71, 286-310.
  51. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. California, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.

License

Copyright (c) 2016 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to Cite

Aydın, A. M. (2016). Complexity of the Strategic Level and Tactical Level Disaster Management Tasks: Activity System Analysis Through the Lens of Information Behaviour. Information World, 17(2), 135-164. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2016.519