Collaboration in the American Red Cross Disaster Operations Center: A study of the response to Hurricane Dennis
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Collaboration in the American Red Cross Disaster
Operations Center:
A study of the response to Hurricane Dennis
A Major Paper presented to the Faculty of the School of Public and International
Affairs
Committee:
Max Stephenson, Jr., UAP and CPAP, committee chair
Casey Dawkins, UAP
Presented by:
Natalie Hart, Public and International AffairsCollaboration in disaster response
Table of Contents
Abstract ………………………………… 3
Introduction ………………………………… 4
Collaboration …………………………………
What is collaboration? 5
How does collaboration occur? 6
Why collaborate? 9
Collaboration & boundary spanning in disaster response 10
Case Study …………………………………
Methodology 11
The American Red Cross 13
Disaster Operations Center (DOC) 15
Observation …………………………………
Internal DOC Operations 18
External Collaborative Relationships 23
Analysis ………………………………… 24
Collaboration in the internal environment 25
Collaboration in the external environment 26
Conclusion and Reflections ………………………………… 28
References Cited ………………………………… 31
2Collaboration in disaster response
Abstract
Collaboration within and among organizations responding to a disaster is
essential. If collaboration does not occur response is delayed, inefficient,
inconsistent, and often ineffective. In order to understand better collaboration in
disaster response, this paper presents a case study of the American Red Cross’
response to Hurricane Dennis in July of 2005. The case provides a platform for
analyzing collaboration during response to a crisis through an internal,
organizational lens. Focus is placed on defining collaboration, the American Red
Cross (ARC) as an organization, the ARC-Disaster Operations Center’s (DOC)
role in disaster response, observations of the organizational response to Hurricane
Dennis, and analysis of that response.
Keywords: collaboration, boundary spanning, Hurricane Dennis, American Red
Cross, Disaster Operations Center
3Collaboration in disaster response
Introduction
It was Sunday, July 10. Not a particularly significant Sunday, but I was embarking on a trip from
Blacksburg to Washington, D.C. My research was taking me to the American Red Cross National
Headquarters to study the organization. Unfortunately, this Sunday did turn out to be important. The
further into the trip I got, the more I realized just how incredible it was going to be. Something that
seemed like an army of cherry-picker trucks was passing me going in the opposite direction. They
were almost certainly headed in the direction of what was to be the first, and what was predicted to be
the largest, hurricane of the already record-breaking 2005 season; Hurricane Dennis. It was the
strongest storm in any hurricane season ever to form earlier than August (en.wikipedia.org).
The week prior to my trip Tropical Storm Dennis had formed and turned into a category 4 storm. After
hitting Cuba with winds reaching 150 mph, Dennis weakened to a category 1 hurricane
(www.nhc.noaa.gov). Once over the open water of the Gulf of Mexico, however, Dennis regrouped and
became as strong as it had ever been. On the morning of July 10th, Hurricane Dennis was again a
category 4 storm. It was set to hit the western coast of Florida either that night or early Monday
morning.
Hurricane Dennis ended up hitting Florida at 2:25pm on Sunday, July 10th as a category 3 hurricane.
The winds reached upwards of 115-121 mph (www.cnn.com). Dennis hit in exactly the same location
that Hurricane Ivan had devastated 10 months before. Fortunately, Dennis was smaller and faster than
Ivan (en.wikipedia.org).
As I continued to make my way north I realized it was going to be an interesting few days. Monday
morning I was to be in the hub of relief operations for the American Red Cross (ARC) and I was going
to experience it first hand. When I arrived that Monday morning at the ARC National Headquarters
4Collaboration in disaster response
and checked in I was met by a DOC staffer. She took me upstairs and I walked into a flurry of activity
in the DOC. Relief operations were definitely in full swing. Right away I could see that collaboration
in this scenario was important. Disaster relief is too complex an endeavor for an individual or
organization to go it alone.
Collaboration
What is collaboration?
Collaboration is a process of give and take that provides space for the construction of solutions that no
individual actor could achieve alone. It is the only method for dealing with, “complex and interrelated
problems that cross…administrative and jurisdictional boundaries” (Williams 2002: p.120).
Additionally, collaboration is, “the most effective and efficient way of using an organization’s
resources, avoids duplication and overlaps, and can produce synergistic outcomes” (Williams 2002:
p.120).
In his article, The Competent Boundary Spanner, Paul Williams describes collaboration as “the
management of difference” (Williams 2002: 115). Barbara Gray supports this idea by suggesting,
“Collaboration is a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can
constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited
vision of what is possible.” Gray goes on to say further that collaboration is the coming together of
stakeholders in order to transform conflicts into a search for equally beneficial information and
solutions for all involved (Gray 1991: 7). Therefore, rather than vying for dominance, stakeholders
share information and power to define mutually obtainable objectives.
Collaboration is characterized by, “…power relationships that are more contested and dispersed than is
often the case in traditional bureaucracies where power, authority and control over resources are often
5Collaboration in disaster response
exercised by individuals drawing on their position and status in the hierarchy” (Williams 2002: p.116-
117). According to Edward Weber, the dispersion of power is the only way to reach full collaboration.
In his book, Pluralism by the Rules, he states, “Instead of grabbing power through the imposition of
strict command-and-control hierarchies, [collaboration] is about sharing power and emphasiz[ing] a
greater degree of discretion and flexibility” (Weber 1998: 9).
How does collaboration occur?
Collaboration is an evolutionary process. The search for mutual solutions involves, “a great deal of
negotiation – over aims, funding proposals, operational programs, priorities, resource allocation and so
on” (Williams 2002: p.117). Within these negotiations there are several steps that must occur for
collaboration to be realized. Barbara Gray provides a roadmap that she has divided into phases. She
argues that together, these characterize the process of collaboration (see List 1, p.6).
According to Gray, the collaborative process takes place in three phases. The three phases are:
problem setting, direction setting, and implementation. Each stage has anywhere from 4 to 6 steps.
Gray deems each of these necessary for collaboration to occur, with every stage building on the
previous one. An outline of the principal stages of the collaborative process, according to Gray,
follows:
The Collaborative Process:
______________________________________________________________________
Phase 1: Problem Setting
• Common definition of problem
• Commitment to collaborate
• Identification of stakeholders
• Legitimacy of stakeholders
• Convener characteristics
• Identification of resources
Phase 2: Direction setting
• Establishing ground rules
6Collaboration in disaster response
• Agenda setting
• Organizing subgroups
• Joint information search
• Exploring options
• Reaching agreement and closing the deal
Phase 3: Implementation
• Dealing with constituencies
• Building external support
• Structuring
• Monitoring the agreement and ensuring compliance
______________________________________________________________________
List 1 (Gray 1991: p.57)
Phase 1: Problem setting -
The goal of Phase 1 is to bring stakeholders together so that face-to-face dialogue can begin. This is
the responsibility of the individual or organization with ‘convener characteristics’, a vital role that will
be discussed later. A determination of with whom, and how the process moves forward is made by the
convener and is integral to the success of collaborative efforts. Stakeholder representation and support
of the process is essential to ensuring that an environment in which negotiation can take place is
created. Gray labels this phase “prenegotiation” (1991: 57). If an agreement on the elements of Phase
1 cannot be reached, it is highly unlikely that collaboration will ensue.
Phase 2: Direction setting –
A key to Phase 2 is allowing each stakeholder to inform others what brought them ‘to the table’ to
collaborate. Negotiations begin in this phase to ensure that each party’s interests are recognized as part
of the collaboration. Similarities and differences between stakeholders are defined in this stage and
potential compromises begin to take shape. The main goal of this phase is to develop a ‘co orientation’
among stakeholders through which each side can begin to understand the views of the other parties in a
realistic fashion. Once ‘co orientation’ is obtained, the process of assessing mutually beneficial
solutions can ensue (Gray 1991: 74-75).
7Collaboration in disaster response
Phase 3: Implementation –
Processes that take place during this stage must be discussed and agreed upon before it begins. Lack
of preparation for the steps in Phase 3 can lead to diminished trust among stakeholders. As Gray
observes, “Insufficient consideration of implementation may result in settlements that create
devastating precedents that may result in reluctance to negotiate in the future; damage interpersonal
relationships” (Gray 1991: 93). Gray goes on to observe further that a lack of preparation also results
in a loss of time and money (Gray 1991: 93). All factors considered, if proper planning does not occur
the collaboration is most vulnerable and susceptible to collapse during this part of the process (Gray
1991: 92).
All three phases, as well as the steps within them, are not exclusive occurrences according to Gray.
Each stage is conducted in a linear fashion with each step taking place in the order presented in List 1.
There is one step, however, that is central to the collaborative process as a whole, and without which
efforts would certainly fail; “The identity and role of the convener are [a] critical component” (Gray
1991: p.70). The ‘convener’ is the nucleus from which successful collaboration stems.
The convener is in a powerful position due to the fact that whether or not particular stakeholders come
to the collaboration hinges on this role. As Gray states, “…it is up to the [convener] to invite and/or
persuade other stakeholders to participate” (Gray 1991: p.70). If a stakeholder is unattractive to the
convener, that stakeholder may not be invited to participate in the process. Therefore, in order to have
a successful process and ensure all stakeholders are at the table, the convener, “need[s] to appreciate
the potential value of collaboration. The skill of a convener is to see the wisdom in collective appraisal
of the consequences of contemplated future actions” (Gray 1991: p.73). Additionally, “…successful
conveners have a sense of timing and the ability to create the appropriate context for the negotiations”
8Collaboration in disaster response
(Gray 1991: p.73). And, as was previously determined, negotiations are a large part of collaboration.
Without a good sense of context and timing, the entire process could fall apart.
In recent literature a term has emerged that is similar to, and points to the importance of, the role Gray
defines as the convener. The convener is strikingly similar to the boundary spanner – a person who
communicates across organizational boundaries to bring organizations together. Boundary spanning is
defined as, “extensive communications carried out through individual ties crossing the organizational
boundary and connecting organization members with members of external organizations” (Manev &
Stevenson 2001: p.185). These extensive communications represent, “the main channel through which
interorganizational networks function” (Manev & Stevenson 2001: p.199). It is through these inter-
organizational networks that organizations are able to understand and function in unstable
environments. Therefore, the boundary spanner, much like the convener, is embedded in a network
that allows them to bring stakeholders face-to-face so that collaboration can occur.
Why collaborate?
Collaboration not only allows actors within an organization to see beyond its own boundaries and
limitations, but it also supports an atmosphere of effectiveness. In a report discussing the attacks of
September 11, 2001, the General Accounting Office (GAO) argued, “Private and public agencies could
better assist those in need of aid by coordinating, collaborating, sharing information with each other,
and understanding each other’s roles and responsibilities. This requires effective working relationships
with frequent contacts” (2002: p.25). Kilduff and Tsai support this point by stating, “The network of
relationships within which we are embedded…have important consequences for the success or failure
of projects” (2003; p.1-2). According to Williams, that network of relationships often involves,
“building and sustaining effective personal relationships” with external organizations (2002: p.115).
9Collaboration in disaster response
Recent research has highlighted the increasing significance of relations with external organizations in
order to be successful (Manev & Stevenson 2001: 184). In other words, boundary spanning can aid in
collaborative processes by forming new relationships and overcoming barriers between organizations.
Overcoming barriers enables a boundary spanners “to understand the social constructions of other
actors and how they define issue[s] in relation to their own values and interests, know what ‘outcomes’
and processes each would value, know who needs to be involved, know who could mobilize influence,
and so on” (Williams 2002: p.110 – original Hoskins and Morley).
Once barriers are overcome and understanding arises, adversaries see beyond themselves, share in the
responsibility for implementing proposed solutions, and are made aware of other’s perspectives. This
creates a, “richer, more comprehensive appreciation of the problem among stakeholders” (Gray 1991:
5 & 11). Awareness and shared responsibility lead to transfers of knowledge, understanding, and
respect that are long-term and beneficial not only to participants, but to the collaborative effort as a
whole.
Collaboration & Boundary Spanning in Disaster Response
Disasters require collaboration “in order to meet the unusual demands of emergency response” (Granot
1997: 309). Collaborating in crisis situations helps organizations avoid service gaps as well as
duplication of their relief efforts (McEntire 1998: 7). After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the
GAO came to the supporting conclusion that, “…collaboration among charitable organizations are
clearly essential elements…of creating a more accessible and transparent service delivery system in
any future disasters” (GAO 2002: p.27). Lack of collaboration in a disaster situation results in a
response that is delayed and less effective than it could otherwise have been. The Overseas
Development Institute points to this fact in an organizational briefing by stating that, “In most
emergencies, even the largest NGO [non-governmental organization] is incapable of launching an
10Collaboration in disaster response
effective response individually.” (HPG 2003: 4). Because of this increasing need for collaboration,
Williams argues that, “…given that the problems are cross-boundary in nature, the focus of
organizational action needs to move from a preoccupation with intra-organizational imperatives more
to a commitment to the building of inter-organizational capacity” (Williams 2002: p.105). Therefore,
“…efficient and effective [collaboration] is crucial in that it promotes the achievement of the goals of
disaster relief: a reduction in the loss of life and prevention of human suffering” (McEntire 1997: 223).
Though collaboration may be essential to effective disaster response, challenges can and do arise as
organizations try to realize it. As David McEntire suggests, “It has been argued by many scholars that
the degree of [collaboration] by the many organizations is not sufficient to effectively meet the needs
of disaster victims” and that this lack of collaboration is an especially pressing problem (McEntire
1997: 223, McEntire 1998: 2). Rivalries among relief organizations for resources and salience often
cause an unwillingness to collaborate. As competition for funding, rivalry for public attention, and
pressures to perform continue to increase, the propensity to collaborate decreases (Granot 1997: 305).
As McEntire has suggested, “It is evident that [collaboration] has been and remains a significant
barrier in emergency management” (McEntire 2001: 2). Unfortunately, as Williams states, “…little
attention is accorded to the pivotal role of individual actors in the management of inter-organizational
[or collaborative] relationships” (Williams 2002: p.103). Granot suggests that boundary spanning
could play a key role in these relationships and that, “enhancing such activity would contribute to
emergency coordination” (Granot 1997: 308).
Case Study
Methodology
There are three components to this case study. First, I served as a participant observer in the Disaster
Operations Center (DOC) during relief efforts for Hurricane Dennis. My role as a participant observer
11Collaboration in disaster response
afforded opportunities for me to observe a range of activities that commonly take place in the Disaster
Operations Center (DOC) during disaster response operations. As a participant, I was stationed at the
front desk of the DOC to help direct incoming phone calls, take messages, and aid in creating records
on the relief efforts for Hurricane Dennis.
Secondly, I explored the American Red Cross (ARC) website (www.redcross.org) in order to gain a
better understanding of the organization as a whole. I was able to gather information on ARC’s
mission, congressional charter, and guiding principles (see page 9 & 10) that were adopted from the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. These principles serve as the cornerstone of
operations within the DOC.
Last, I conducted discussions with professional ARC staff, from DOC managers to the administrative
assistant, as well as ARC volunteers within the DOC. From these discussions I was able to understand
better the operating procedures when the DOC is activated in response to a disaster. In addition to
these discussions, I conducted informal interviews that lasted an average of 30 minutes with three of
the eight full-time DOC personnel (1 administrative person and 2 DOC workers). Both the discussions
and informal interviews provided insight into the functions of the ARC as an organization and more
particularly, the DOC during disaster response.
Questions asked in the discussions and informal interviews were of a very basic nature:
1. How does the DOC become activated?
2. What are the steps taken when the DOC is activated?
3. How are disasters tracked and documented?
4. How do the departments in the DOC work together?
5. Does the DOC work with external organizations? If so, how?
12Collaboration in disaster response
The goal of these questions was to gain a broad understanding of how the DOC operates during
response to a disaster. Identifying how internal collaboration among departments occurs was
important for informing the specific focus of the study. Equally important was gaining an
understanding of how collaboration with external partners transpires. Questions such as those
presented above were integral to assessing the degree of internal and external collaborative efforts and
occurrences.
The American Red Cross
The American Red Cross has three central foci that provide direction for the organization; its mission,
congressional charter, and fundamental principles. First is the mission statement:
The American Red Cross, a humanitarian organization led by volunteers and guided by its
Congressional Charter and the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross
Movement, will provide relief to victims of disasters and help people prevent, prepare for, and
respond to emergencies.
When written, this mission was a departure from the missions of other Red Cross and Red Crescent
organizations around the world. Other organizations are charged with aiding victims of war, while the
American Red Cross sought to branch out and aid victims of natural disasters. Because of this
departure from previous practice, the main service of the ARC is now disaster relief
(www.redcross.org/services/volunteer/0,1802,0_421_00.html). Though their missions may differ, Red
Cross and Red Crescent organizations are becoming more similar as they respond to unusual disasters
such as the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Asian tsunami of December 2004.
The second guiding directive of the ARC is the organization’s Congressional Charter, which assigns
the following responsibilities:
13Collaboration in disaster response
1. To fulfill the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is a signatory,
assigned to national societies for the protection of victims of conflict,
2. To provide family communications and other forms of support to the U.S. military, and
3. To maintain a system of domestic and international disaster relief, including mandated
responsibilities under the National Response Plan coordinated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
Though it is an independent, tax-exempt, nonprofit organization, the ARC is unlike any nonprofit in
the United States. In addition to the Congressional Charter, the ARC has been named a ‘federal
instrumentality’, which requires the organization to carry out tasks delegated to it by the national
government. This creates a unique bond between the ARC and the government, but does not
necessarily translate into funding. Only on occasion, when funding requirements are beyond what
ARC’s regular channels of support can provide, does the organization request and receive
governmental appropriations. (www.redcross.org/museum/history/charter.asp).
Last, the ARC is governed by the fundamental principles of the International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement. These are central, a fact symbolically made clear through their prominent display
in the entry of the ARC National Headquarters building. They are:
Humanity –
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance
without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, endeavors, in its international and
national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. Its
purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It promotes
mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace amongst all peoples.
Impartiality –
It makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious belief, class or political opinions. It
14Collaboration in disaster response
endeavors to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give
priority to the most urgent cases of distress.
Neutrality –
In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities
or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.
Independence –
The Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian
services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always
maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the
principles of the Movement.
Voluntary Service –
It is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain.
Unity –
There can be only one Red Cross or one Red Crescent Society in any one country. It must be
open to all. It must carry on its humanitarian work throughout its territory.
Universality –
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all Societies have equal
status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is worldwide.
(http://www.redcross.org/services/intl/0,1082,0_169_,00.html)
All Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations are bound by, and must follow, each of these principles.
Disaster Operations Center1
Disaster relief is the primary service provided by the ARC. The Disaster Operations Center (DOC) is
located on the second floor of the ARC National Headquarters building in downtown Washington,
1
Information adapted from materials provided by senior DOC staff
15Collaboration in disaster response
D.C. The DOC is charged with directing, supporting, and monitoring major American Red Cross
disaster relief operations whenever the need arises.
Though there are an estimated 70,000 responses to disasters by the American Red Cross each year, the
DOC only directly oversees approximately 600 of them. Local or regional ARC chapters oversee the
remainder. If a disaster is anticipated to exceed the capabilities of a local Red Cross chapter, the DOC
is activated to provide oversight and direction for relief operations.
Numerous areas within the DOC help to provide a more efficient and effective response to a disaster.
These include: full-time Center Staff, Communications, Staff Deployment/Human Resources, Disaster
Assessment, and Logistics, which includes Partner Services. Unless there is an activation of the DOC
personnel from all areas, except the full-time Center Staff, are dispersed throughout the National
Headquarters building. Once activation occurs, however, all senior personnel of these areas physically
locate themselves in the DOC.
Center Staff – The Center staff consists of eight full-time personnel in the DOC’s central office. A
DOC manager oversees all operations within the DOC. Two senior DOC directors and five DOC staff
are under the direction of the manager. The DOC directors oversee disaster response operations during
periods of activation while the staff maintains records and the flow of information across all Red Cross
response efforts. When the DOC is not activated these staff members make sure that the Center is
prepared to respond to the next disaster.
Communications area– The communications area oversees a sophisticated network of portable
communication devices, including Inmarsat satellite transmitters, cellular phones, and shortwave radio
16Collaboration in disaster response
equipment, that can be dispatched to a disaster scene quickly, thus ensuring more appropriate service
delivery.
Staff Deployment/Human Resources area– The Staff Deployment area recruits and deploys trained
personnel to disaster sites. The ARC maintains a database containing the contact information of an
estimated 24,000 trained personnel, most of whom are volunteers. This area is one of the most labor-
intensive, as the request for personnel and fulfillment of personnel assignments is an ongoing and very
labor-intensive process.
Disaster Assessment area – The Disaster Assessment area does just what the name implies – assesses
disasters. This area is vital to determining how many trained personnel, what types of equipment, and
what kinds of additional supplies must be sent to individual disaster sites. In order to make these
determinations the ARC maintains sophisticated computer mapping software and demographics data.
The Disaster Assessment teams are able to estimate needs before resource deployment on the basis of
this information.
Logistics area – The Logistics area coordinates and oversees the flow of resources to disaster response
sites. Logistics can dispatch over 274 relief vehicles and eight Disaster Field Supply Centers to
affected areas. In addition to these resources, the ARC has two Mobile Administrative Support Units
(MASUs) that contain support systems to run a major relief operation on-site if needed. The Logistics
department oversees two mobile kitchens that are capable of supplying over 10,000 hot meals per day.
Logistics also houses Partner Services. Partner Services is charged with making arrangements for
obtaining and maintaining the flow of resources from external entities. These include anything from
hotel stays for volunteers to bulk food items for victims.
17Collaboration in disaster response
In addition to the areas listed, the DOC houses both a technical support team and a briefing room that
allows for the flow of information among departments, disaster sites, and the National Headquarters.
Technical support provides guidance on ARC health, family (i.e. counseling), and community services
while the briefing room is a place where all of the DOC departments and technical services can
congregate. DOC leadership conducts operational/informational sessions, analyzes the severity and
needs of a disaster, and monitors forthcoming disaster situations in the briefing room. A sophisticated
communications network allows field personnel to teleconference into the DOC briefings with the
most current information from the field.
Observation
Internal DOC Operations
Collaboration is clearly a part of the culture of the DOC. There were many instances in which I
witnessed small, informal groups of people from different departments forming to tackle some aspect
of relief efforts. Indeed, the layout of the DOC was designed to facilitate such meetings. DOC
operations are geared toward facilitating collaboration within and among departments and field staff.
The DOC office bustles with activity when activated. Desks that are otherwise empty are filled. The
DOC manager decides when the center will be activated to respond to a disaster. The determination to
activate the DOC in preparation for a hurricane is made based in large part on information from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This information includes things such as
predicted storm severity and projected track. In addition to using NOAA information, the DOC
references a database of demographic information from which it can assess probable damage based on
a hurricane’s predicted path. Once the decision to activate the DOC is made, relevant personnel from
each department gather in the DOC to respond.
18Collaboration in disaster response
Central Office- Each department that works within the DOC during activation has ‘pods’ of desks to
facilitate operations (see Diagram 1, p.20). As Diagram 1 illustrates, the DOC office space is
organized in pods to encourage and enhance collaboration within and among the different departments.
All desks within a particular pod face the center and there are no walls above desk height. This allows
for easy communication and awareness among departments and individuals.
The organization of desks within the central office seemed to be a way to overcome the fact that most
people working within the DOC during activation do not work together on a regular basis. A sense of
familiarity and teamwork was quickly built among most workers in the DOC and that sense was
facilitated by the layout of the office. Communication and coordination within and between
departments in the DOC is essential, and the organization of the office was key to encouraging this
result.
Briefing Room – In addition to the ‘pod’ format within the central office area, the DOC office suite
includes a large briefing room that can accommodate all personnel working in the central office during
periods of activation. This room, which is enclosed on three sides with the fourth completely open,
facilitates operational briefings and discussion between the headquarters and field staff during disaster
response. Conference calls are used to allow field staff to participate regularly in the meetings – with
the capacity for over 100 external personnel to conference in meetings on a regular basis. Inclusion of
all staff, both in the office and in the field, encourages an understanding of the bigger picture, i.e. their
impact on where and how disaster response progress is occurring. Like the DOC central office, the
briefing room is set up to facilitate interaction and discussion among personnel (see Diagram 2, p.21).
19Representation of the Central Office area of the DOC
l Desk
Mapping Area (printing & To Technical Mapping Area
laminating) Services Kitchen
Desk TV TV - TV
Diagram 1
TV - TV
Communications* Staff Deployment*
desk desk desk desk
desk desk desk desk
Disaster Assessment*
desk desk
desk desk Doorway
Disaster Assessment* DOC staff
desk desk desk desk
desk desk desk desk
Logistics* Doorway
desk desk
desk desk
Logistics* Front Desk
Staff Deployment* area
desk desk
desk desk desk desk Front Desk/
desk desk DR Notebook
area
To Briefing Room DOC staff
To DOC manager area desk
*Staff placement in central office subject to change
20Collaboration in disaster response
21Collaboration in disaster response
During periods of activation, briefings are held each afternoon at 3:30p.m. Meetings begin with an
update on current conditions, damage that has occurred, and prospective damage. This information is
projected onto massive screens for all in the briefing room to see. These meetings allow leaders from
each area to give a report on the current state of their operations. Once reports are completed, the floor
is opened for questions, discussion, or comments on anything that has been mentioned. If no new
business is brought forward, the meetings are adjourned and work in the central office resumes.
Organizational notebooks for disaster response – A series of ‘disaster notebooks’ is created for every
disaster to which the DOC responds. Information gathered for, and kept in, these 3-ring binders
consists of entries such as the location of kitchen sites, number of clients helped, number of volunteers,
number of personnel deployed, number of meals served, and number of survival kits provided. Each
disaster to which the DOC responds results in multiple notebooks (e.g. response efforts for Hurricane
Dennis were recorded in five different notebooks). The number of notebooks generated depends on
the geographic reach of the disaster damage.
Notebooks concerning disasters that have occurred within the current fiscal year are kept on a
bookshelf that is located at the front desk of the DOC. This location allows quick and easy access to
pertinent information. Each notebook is coded to one of the eight service area color codes within the
United States. The bookshelf is similarly color-coded. Additionally, each book receives a Disaster
Response, or DR, number. Once a DR number is assigned, future response efforts in that area for that
specific disaster are referred to by this number. This system allows for better organization of materials
and quicker information searches.
Despite recent restructuring within the ARC National Headquarters, there was a general sense of
support among the areas operating in the DOC. A few employees expressed their unhappiness with the
22Collaboration in disaster response
recent restructuring and downsizing, but still seemed genuinely interested in being a part of the Center
team. This willingness appeared to come from an appreciation of the necessity to serve those in need.
External Collaborative Relationships
Though collaboration is clearly a part of internal DOC operations, there is less obvious emphasis on
external collaborative relationships. Throughout the observation period, I observed few conversations
about collaborating with external partners. This pattern surfaced during the daily afternoon operational
briefings.
During those briefings, when reports from the DOC departments were presented, the report from
Partner Services was by far the shortest and the least open to comments or questions. Partner Services,
a part of the Logistics department, is charged with forging and maintaining external relationships to aid
in the flow of resources for responding to disasters. With this charge in mind, it was clear that other
departments, such as Disaster Assessment, seemed to be picking up the slack of the Partner Services
area.
Reports from the different departments revealed that Disaster Assessment, for example, had worked
with GM/Chevrolet on obtaining vehicles for volunteers to use for relief efforts in Northern Florida.
The relationship between the American Red Cross and GM/Chevrolet was not forged by Partner
Services, but by Disaster Assessment, a department that has little to do with external relationships
other than with victims of the disaster. In addition, another area within the Logistics department that
dealt with setting up kitchens in affected areas spoke of the donations it had secured for stocking the
kitchens with food. Again, a partnership not forged by Partner Services, but a different department of
the DOC. The overlapping of departmental efforts within the DOC is inefficient, and could likely
weaken the ARC’s response to disasters.
23Collaboration in disaster response
From the perspective of a participant observer, it seemed as if the leader of Partner Services was
irritated and overwhelmed with the charge of forging and maintaining external relationships. The
ARC placed this enormous task, in an extremely complex environment, on one person within the relief
operation, and this person seemed to regard it as burdensome. This could be due in part to a recent
shuffling of personnel and departments within the National Headquarters and the DOC. Whatever the
reason, the leader of the Partner Services area was not the one extending the trusting hand of the
American Red Cross to possible external partners for collaboration in response to Hurricane Dennis
and seemed bothered by the fact that she was expected to do so.
Analysis
Collaboration is, “the most effective and efficient way of using an organization’s resources, avoids
duplication and overlaps, and can produce synergistic outcomes” (Williams 2002: p.120). These
factors are important for alleviating human suffering in disaster response. The response to Hurricane
Dennis by the ARC DOC illustrates how collaboration within that organization takes place during
disaster response. I turn to Barbara Gray’s description of the collaborative process (see below) to
analyze why collaboration was, or was not, realized within the DOC.
The Collaborative Process:
______________________________________________________________________
Phase 1: Problem Setting
• Common definition of problem
• Commitment to collaborate
• Identification of stakeholders
• Legitimacy of stakeholders
• Convener characteristics
• Identification of resources
Phase 2: Direction setting
• Establishing ground rules
24Collaboration in disaster response
• Agenda setting
• Organizing subgroups
• Joint information search
• Exploring options
• Reaching agreement and closing the deal
Phase 3: Implementation
• Dealing with constituencies
• Building external support
• Structuring
• Monitoring the agreement and ensuring compliance
______________________________________________________________________
List 1 (Gray 1991: p.57)
Barbara Gray’s depiction of the elements of the collaborative process is very informative in looking at
the individual aspects of collaboration, but does not seem to be an accurate portrayal of how the
collaborative process takes shape in response to a disaster. The differences between what Gray has
laid out, and how collaboration actually transpired in the DOC, are revealing. Gray’s model is very
linear, orderly, and easy to follow, while the actual process of collaboration is very fluid and often
chaotic. It became quite clear in observing collaboration in the DOC that it is an iterative, non-linear,
and complex process. Gray’s model, though informative on the individual elements of the process, is
lacking. A good example of this can be seen through the collaboration that took place within the DOC.
Collaboration in the internal environment
Collaboration within the DOC is facilitated by the organization of the office. Additionally, the
movement of personnel from outside departments into the DOC during periods of activation has
created an expectation of collaboration. That collaboration, however, does not follow the path laid out
by Barbara Gray.
Within the complex environment of disaster response there is no time to implement collaboration in a
step-by-step, linear fashion. The response efforts for Hurricane Dennis showed that Gray’s three
25Collaboration in disaster response
phases – problem setting, direction setting, and implementation – often occur simultaneously. In fact,
many of the steps within the phases are predetermined in disaster situations. For example, the DOC
has an established set of ground rules to which it must adhere in any disaster response situation.
Additionally, the organization of subgroups within the DOC has been laid out well in advance of any
response effort.
Though there are steps that are predetermined within the DOC, those that are not must be taken at once
and in a very rapid manner. For instance, identification of resources must be done through a joint
information search among the subgroups within the DOC. This search takes place in order to
understand better and deal with constituencies. However, the DOC cannot wait to deal with
constituencies until the search is over. Waiting would increase human suffering – something the DOC
is trying to alleviate. Also, because the identification of resources is such a continuous process in
disaster response, waiting to complete this step before proceeding would bring progress to a grinding
halt. Therefore, those responding to disasters are not afforded the luxury of time to run through the
collaborative process in a linear fashion. They must multitask in order to deal effectively with the
issue at hand.
Collaboration in the external environment
It is clear, especially in the external collaborative environment, that the role of the convener is much
more substantial than what Gray describes. As mentioned previously, the role of the convener in
Barbara Gray’s process can be seen as similar to the role of the boundary spanner. According to
Manev and Stevenson, “Boundary spanning is important to organizations because the flow of
information it generates helps them better understand and respond to turbulent environments” (2001:
p.185 – original Dollinger).
26Collaboration in disaster response
The role of the boundary spanner can make or break the entire process of collaboration. As Manev and
Stevenson point out, “Communication among individuals from different organizations has been shown
to have an effect on the ties between…organizations” (2001: p. 187). Additionally, “The ‘best’
boundary spanners are considered to be those with an easy and inviting personality” and who have
“extensive contacts with individuals both across and within the organization’s boundary” (Williams
2002: p.116; Manev & Stevenson 2001: p.199).
Though the literature points to the importance of boundary spanning in understanding the complex
external environment that the DOC is faced with on a regular basis, the organization has not embraced
it. The boundary spanner for the external collaborative environment was the leader of Partner
Services. By placing the responsibility of boundary spanning on one person within the highly stressed
environment of the DOC, the ARC is putting the ability to fulfill its mission to ‘provide relief to
victims of disasters’ in jeopardy. First, because the environment within which the DOC operates is
very broad it is close to impossible for one person to span the entire situation, and second, because
disaster relief is such a stressful environment one person could not possibly deal with the strain of the
disaster and the charge to constantly create and maintain the numerous relationships required for
success. Another factor in this particular case was a personality mismatch. The leader of Partner
Services did not seem to be satisfied with the position she held, nor did she seem to have a personality
that fit the position. This created even more strain than would otherwise be present in the external
collaborative environment of the DOC.
The lack of collaboration with external organizations was due in part to the, “complexity of
organizational systems [which] inhere not in rationally-planned structures but in fluid participations
and understandings between actors” (Kilduff & Tsai 2003: p.131). Because the ARC has made the
decision to place boundary spanning responsibilities in a disaster onto one person, the organization has
27Collaboration in disaster response
allowed the entire external collaborative process to be inefficient and at high risk of failure. In this
particular case, the leader of Partner Services was not comfortable with the role afforded that position
and therefore was unable to produce the ‘understandings between actors’ necessary for collaboration.
Perhaps if the ARC had taken a closer look at the fit between the role of the leader of Partner Services
and the person they put in that role, the external collaborations would not have seemed as so much of a
burden. A better personality fit, as well as assigning more than one person the role of boundary
spanning in disaster relief situations, would provide more successful external.
Conclusion and Reflections
Collaboration or, ‘the management of difference’, within and among organizations responding to a
disaster is essential. If collaboration does not occur response is delayed, inefficient, and inconsistent.
Through this paper I have presented and analyzed the organizational collaborative processes that took
place during the American Red Cross’ response to Hurricane Dennis. These are the conclusions and
reflections I took away from the experience.
Kilduff and Tsai state that, “The network of relationships within which we are embedded may have
important consequences for the success or failure of projects” (2003: p.1-2). This statement could not
ring more true than in the collaborative processes that I observed during the study. On one hand, the
internal relationships among DOC staff laid the groundwork for effective collaboration during disaster
response efforts. On the other hand, external relationships that were seen as burdensome by the leader
of Partner Services seemed to hold the DOC back from reaching full potential for external
collaboration. The lack of created and sustained external relationships hurt the ability of the Partner
Services area to garner the external support, such as transportation and lodging for volunteers and
families, that could have possibly helped alleviate more human suffering in a quicker manner.
28Collaboration in disaster response
Internal - The DOC was an intriguing place. The staff was very diverse and most people seemed
genuinely to enjoy each other and to care about their jobs. However, events following the September
11th attacks disrupted the American Red Cross as an organization, and the effects of that were still
being felt within the DOC four years later. Restructuring and downsizing had pushed some people into
positions that were not necessarily the best fit for them. This seemed especially true for the leader of
Partner Services. She was a very unapproachable person in general, and did not seem to enjoy her
position at all – traits that were obvious from the first dealings I had with her. While not in a disaster
relief situation, I contacted the DOC to inquire about carrying out an observation. The leader of
Partner Services was quite unwilling to work with me and said she just would not have the time to deal
with my visit. As a graduate student studying nonprofits this seemed very strange. Most nonprofit
employees I have come into contact with through my program of study have tried to impress graduate
students and tell them about how wonderful a nonprofit they work for. Obviously the leader of Partner
Service did not have the same enthusiasm. Perhaps if the ARC had done a better job at fitting the
person to the position there would have been at least some enthusiasm about the position and the
organization. Despite all this, in most areas of the DOC there was a sense of a greater purpose that
permeated the environment and this pushed people to excel at their jobs.
The DOC was set up with an expectation of collaboration in all areas of the operation. From the layout
of the office to the relocation of personnel to the DOC during periods of activation, collaboration is
part of DOC culture. This has framed an understanding that one person or one department alone
cannot accomplish the job at hand – disaster response. Therefore, that understanding of the need to
collaborate has become an element that is almost taken for granted in the DOC.
External - It appeared as if the ARC had set itself up for failure in the area of external collaborative
relationships in disaster response. The organization of these relationships within the DOC can be seen
29Collaboration in disaster response
as the ARC ‘putting all of its eggs in one basket’. The ARC was counting on one person – who was
unhappy with the position – to be the boundary spanner for, and face of, the entire organization in an
extremely complex and stressful environment.
Fennell and Alexander state that, “Large organizations are more likely to have sufficient slack
resources to manage boundary spanning and to establish formally specified boundary spanning units
that can then be embedded in an organization’s structure and monitored by its managers” (1987:
p.453). Perhaps the ARC was in the process of losing the slack resources it once had due to the
difficulties surrounding the response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. This may have forced the
organization into a protective mode in the area of external relationships. Placing the responsibility of
boundary spanning on one person could have been a way for the organization to protect itself from the
same negative impacts of the September 11th attacks. As Fennel and Alexander point out, “Boundary
spanning activities can either link organizations to other organizations or buffer them from
environmental disturbances” (Fennell & Alexander 1987: p.456).
At the end of the research I found collaboration to be quite unlike the process laid out by Barbara Gray.
Though the components are there, the course is definitely not a linear one. Collaboration is much more
iterative that Gray suggests. Additionally, the convener is more than just a step in the progression of
collaboration and instead plays the central role. In the case of disaster response, in which people’s
lives are at stake, the convener can make or break the entire process – an immeasurable responsibility
for an organization to place on the shoulders of just one person.
30Collaboration in disaster response
References Cited:
American Red Cross Volunteer Services (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2005 from
http://www.redcross.org/services/volunteer/0,1082,0_421_,00.html.
American Red Cross (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2005 from
http://www.redcross.org/services/intl/0,1082,0_169_,00.html.
American Red Cross (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2005 from
http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/charter.asp.
Fennell, Mary L. and Alexander, J. (1987). Organizational Boundary Spanning in Institutionalized
Environments. Academy of Management Journal, (30) 3, 456-476.
General Accounting Office (GAO), United States. (2002). More Effective Collaboration Could
Enhance Charitable Organizations’ Contributions in Disasters. Report to the Ranking Minority
Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate. GAO-03-259.
Granot, Hayim. (1997). Emergency inter-organizational relationships. Disaster Prevention and
Management, (6) 5, 305-309.
Gray, Barbara. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. Oxford: Jossey-
Bass Publishers, 1991.
HPG Briefing. (2003). Humanitarian NGOs: challenges and trends (Number 12). Overseas
Development Institute.
Kilduff, M., Tsai, W. Social Networks and Organizations. London: SAGE Publications, 2003.
Manev, I.M. and Stevenson, W.B. (2001). Balancing Ties: Boundary Spanning and Influence in the
Organization’s Extended Network of Communication. Journal of Business Communication, (38) 2,
183-205.
McEntire, David A. (1997). Reflecting on the weaknesses of the international community during the
IDNDR: some implications for research and its application. Disaster Prevention and Management, (6)
4, 221-233.
McEntire, David A. Towards a Theory of Coordination: Umbrella Organization and Disaster Relief in
the 1997-98 Peruvian El Nino. Denver: University of Denver, 1998.
McEntire, David A. Multi-organizational Coordination During the Response to the March 28, 2000,
Fort Worth Tornado: An Assessment of Constraining and Contributing Factors. Boulder: University of
Colorado, 2001.
National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved September 14, 2005 from
www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/tws/MIATWSAT_jul.shtml.
Weber, Edward P. Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1998.
31Collaboration in disaster response
Williams, Paul. (2002). The Competent Boundary Spanner. Public Administration, (80) 1, 103-124.
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (n.d.). Retrieved September 14, 2005 from
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dennis.
32You can also read
