A Systems Theory View of Disaster Response

Brisbane.
OK, after a brief power outage (why are there never enough outlets in conference facilities?), I’m back to blog the afternoon sessions at ANZDMC 2012. We begin with a presentation by Paul Salmon, who will apply systems theory to the disaster response context.

Disaster preparation, response and recovery processes are complex sociotechnical systems. They have shorter and longer timeframes, and small events can have huge implications well down the track. This means that systems theory models can be applied to the study of these processes: complex systems comprise various levels (relating to the various stakeholders in the process), and systems depend on the quality of their vertical integration between these levels, providing a bidirectional feedback system.

Organisations within a system make a range of choices which affect the performance of their work practices, and may lead them to come up against hard operational boundaries beyond which they become dysfunctional. Such choices can change, perceptibly or imperceptibly, over time, leading to changes in effectiveness.

Complex systems cannot be studied by examining their component parts in isolation. It is not enough to hunt for the one ‘broken component’, but to take a whole-of-system perspective which examines the interplay of all parts rather than seeking to apportion blame for failures to individual people or organisations.

Paul and his team applied this approach to the Murrindindi bushfire in Victoria, creating a very complex map of how individual factors connected to create problems with the disaster response and finding problems at many levels of the process. This points to a shared responsibility and a need for vertical integration between the different levels of the system; additionally, constant monitoring and regular stress-testing of the system and its components is necessary.

Such integration must be informed by stakeholders on the ground, and improvements must be made through system-wide education programmes. There need to be clear, appropriate, and well-communicated leadership structures, and all of this will need to be well-resourced and continually well-measured, too.

But how can the overall system be trained effectively? How can a greater awareness of responsibilities and their allocations across the system be established? These are complex challenges.