JDR Vol.10 No.2 pp. 246-251
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2015.p0246


Manage Everything or Anything? Possible Ways Towards Generic Emergency Management Capabilities

Jonas Borell

Department of Design Sciences, Lund University
Sölvegatan 26, Lund, Sweden

October 24, 2014
January 28, 2015
April 1, 2015
emergency management, generic capability, all-hazards approach, learning, training
This paper explores two approaches to information processing and learning in societal safety efforts: (1) stressing specifics and (2) aiming at generalities. It discusses how the two approaches are related to each other and to high-level efforts to achieve societal safety. As background, this paper briefly explores the concept of generic capability – what is it? How is it to be understood? How can it be developed? – and relates it to the interplay between specifics and generalities. The paper gives examples of the factors that may contribute to generic capabilities represented in literature related to safety and emergency management. Examples from continuity management, resilience engineering and high reliability organizations are given and discussed concerning their focus on specifics and/or generalities. The paper also discusses scenario-based learning and the perspective of semantic hierarchies, which explains how a move to more abstract concepts, encompassing the main meaning of more concrete instances, may support the development of generic capability. It ends with a summary and suggestions for practice and the need for further research.
Cite this article as:
J. Borell, “Manage Everything or Anything? Possible Ways Towards Generic Emergency Management Capabilities,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.10 No.2, pp. 246-251, 2015.
Data files:
  1. [1] O. E. Olsen, B. I. Kruke, and J. Hovden, “Societal safety: Concept, borders and dilemmas,” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol.15, No.2, pp. 69-79, 2007.
  2. [2] ISO31000:2009, “Risk management -- Principles and guidelines” ISO, 2009.
  3. [3] S. Kaplan and B. J. Garrick, “On the quantitative definition of risk,” Risk Analysis, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 11-27, 1981.
  4. [4] D. McLoughlin, “A framework for integrated emergency management,” Public Administration Review, Vol.45 (Special), pp. 165-172, 1985.
  5. [5] FEMA, “Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning,” 1996.
  6. [6] S. Kaplan, Y. Y. Haimes, and B. J. Garrick, “Fitting hierarchical holographic modeling into the theory of scenario structuring and a resulting refinement to the quantitative definition of risk,” Risk Analysis, Vol.21, No.5, pp. 807-819, 2001.
  7. [7] T. T. Baldwin and J. K. Ford, “Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research,” Personnel Psychology, Vol.41, No.1, pp. 63-105, 1988.
  8. [8] ISO22313:2012, “Societal security -- Business continuity management systems -- Guidance” ISO, 2012.
  9. [9] E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods, and N. Leveson, “Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts,” Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2006.
  10. [10] K. E. Weick, “Organizational culture as a source of high reliability,” California Management Review, Vol.XXIX, No.2, pp. 112-127, 1987.
  11. [11] K. E. Weick and K. M. Sutcliffe, “Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty,” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.
  12. [12] J. Borell, “Learning for safety: Improvements of Swedish authorities” toolkits for societal resilience,” 2013.
  13. [13] E. Hollnagel, “Prologue: the scope of resilience engineering,” Resilience engineering in practice: A guidebook, pp. xxix-xxxix, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2011.
  14. [14] D. D. Woods and E. Hollnagel, “Prologue: Resilience engineering concepts,” Resilience Engineering, Concepts and Precepts, pp. 1-16, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2006.
  15. [15] J. Borell and K. Eriksson, “Improving emergency response capability: An approach for strengthening learning from emergency response evaluations,” Int. Journal of Emergency Management, Vol.5, No.3, pp. 324-337, 2008.
  16. [16] J. Borell and K. Eriksson, “Learning effectiveness of discussion-based crisis management exercises,” Int. Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.5, pp. 28-37, 2013.
  17. [17] R. M. Gagné, “Domains of learning,” Interchange, Vol.3, No.1, pp. 1-8, 1972.
  18. [18] D. Alexander, “Scenario methodology for teaching principles of emergency management,” Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 89-97, 2000.
  19. [19] R. M. Harden, “Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: Is there a difference?” Medical Teacher, Vol.24, No.2, pp. 151-155, 2002.
  20. [20] T. Hussey and P. Smith, “The trouble with learning outcomes,” Active learning in higher education, Vol.3, No.3, pp. 220-233, 2002.
  21. [21] L. K. Comfort, “Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control,” Public Administration Review, Vol.67, pp. 189-197, 2007.
  22. [22] D. H. Jonassen, “On the role of concepts in learning and instructional design,” Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol.54, No.2, pp. 177-196, 2006.
  23. [23] J. Rasmussen, “Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models,” IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol.13, No.3, pp. 257-266, 1983.
  24. [24] J. Bowden and F. Marton, “The university of learning -- Beyond quality and competence,” Routledge, 2004.
  25. [25] F. Marton and S. Booth, “Learning and awareness,” Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
  26. [26] F. Marton, “Sameness and difference in transfer,” Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol.15, No.4, pp. 499-535, 2006.
  27. [27] D. A. Cruse, “Hyponymy and its varieties,” The semantics of relationships: An interdisciplinary perspective, Vol.3, pp. 3-21, Springer, 2002.
  28. [28] R. J. Hutton and G. Klein, “Expert decision making,” Systems Engineering, Vol.2, No.1, pp. 32-45, 1999.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on May. 19, 2024