2.1. Promoting common ground for cross-organizational collaboration in crisis management

Provide feedback on this topic

The link takes you to a secure and anonymous Google form.

Open the link in a new tab or window if you want to see the guideline content in parallel

In order to collaborate effectively at the time of a crisis, the people jointly involved in crisis management from different organizations need to have sufficient understanding of their mutual goals, expectations, capabilities, and operational procedures. This common ground can be achieved by promoting periodic information sharing activities or exercises involving the staff of different first responder organizations.

Implementation

Introduction

What is needed to promote common ground
To promote common ground and improved cooperation among the front-end staff of different first responders' organisations involved in crisis management, the managers of these organisations need to organise shared activities that allow the respective personnel to know each other.

Differently from what advised by the CC 2.3 Understanding roles and responsibilities, in this case, such activities should necessarily involve front-end staff and should not be limited to the managerial levels, nor to people simply delegated by them. In fact, the common ground implies a deeper understanding of working practices, motives and values that cannot be limited to the explicit knowledge encompassed by formal procedures and policies, but should also consider the way knowledge is concretely put into practice. A prerequisite for the application of the actions described in the card is the existence of a network of organisations already collaborating in crisis management activities. If each organisation is mostly operating in isolation and no mutual relationships have been established beyond those mandated by the law, it is advised to first apply the principle of the CC 2.2 Establishing networks. Depending on the specific phase (Before, During or After a crisis), the activities can be instantiated differently, as explained in the following sections.

Healthcare implementation - Introduction

In order to "Establish common grounds", involved actors need to plan and discuss this issue jointly prior to the event. The predetermined common grounds is then implemented during the event. After the event, it is important to analyse the work performed and examine what can be improved.

Before a crisis

Promoting common ground among different organisation before any type of recent crisis or accident has occurred is in principle the most favourable situation. The managers of the different organisations are not biased by the interpretation of the events occurred during a previous crisis and less concerned by the sharing of information that might be used to assign responsibilities regarding past events. On the other hand, the managers may face the problem of justifying their investments on common ground activities, in the absence of any recent event causing concerns in the organisation (owners or shareholders) or in the public opinion (taxpayers or other users of the service). The managers should first identify potential gaps in the mutual understanding between their own organisation and the other organisation with whom there is a collaboration in place, and then they should be promoters of one or more of the following actions:

• Organise information sharing workshops. The main goal of these workshops is that of allowing the staff of your organisation to gain useful insights into the mission, culture and operating methods of other organisations involved in crisis management. Such workshops can be organised by inviting relevant staff members of other organisations: (a) to attend presentations about own organisational mission, resources, dependencies and expectations (from other organisations), working methods and practices; (b) to provide their presentations about their own organisational mission, resources, dependencies and expectations (from other organisations), working methods and practices. The workshops may also foster cross-fertilization of practices among different organisations.
• Organise periodic visits of own staff to facilities of other organisations, so as to provide an opportunity to own staff to learn about the resources and procedures of other relevant organisations. Host similar visits by other organisations.
• Organise joint crisis preparation exercises in order to address potential sources of joint activity breakdowns. These include, for instance, the use of inconsistent maps by different actors to refer to the same crisis area; the use of specialist terminologies that may be unclear or ambiguous to the teams of other organisations; conflicts in resource usage.

These conditions may slow down understanding between team members of different organisations, thus slowing down the crisis response process. Thus crisis preparation exercises—such as drills, review of emergency plans, review of past disasters—should be conducted jointly, i.e., at least one operational expert from each relevant organisation need to be involved in order to achieve an adequate representation of the organisation that may have to cooperate at the time of the crisis. Besides the identification of breakdowns, these exercises can be helpful for the identification of potential synergies in (for instance, the knowing about useful resources available by another partner may be helpful in case own resources are insufficient).

Triggering questions

Identification of gaps in mutual understanding

• What is our understanding of the mission, culture and operating methods of other organizations with whom we need to collaborate in crisis management?
• What is the level of understanding of our mission, culture and operating methods by other organizations with whom we need to collaborate in crisis management?

Information-sharing workshops

• Are there opportunities for organizing workshops with one or more of the organizations collaborating with us in crisis management and for sharing presentations about our respective mission, culture and operating methods?
• If such workshops were already organized in the past, is there a need to repeat such experiences to take into account relevant changes in each organization and the turnover of our respective staff members?

Visit to other organizations

• Are there opportunities for organizing visits of our staff members to the facilities of other organizations collaborating with us in crisis management and vice-versa?
• If such visits were already organized in the past, is there a need to repeat such experiences to take into account relevant changes in each organization and the turnover of our respective staff members?

Joint drills and crisis preparation exercises

• Are there opportunities for organizing joint drills and crisis preparation exercises with other organizations collaborating with us in crisis management?
• Do we use specialist terminologies that may be unclear or ambiguous to the teams of other organisations and should be addressed in joint crisis preparation exercises?
• Can we think of possible sources of joint activity breakdowns that should be addressed in crisis preparation exercises?
• Can we envision the presence of conflicts in resource usage that should be addressed in joint crisis preparation exercises?
• Can we think of potential synergies between our organization and other organizations that should be addressed in joint crisis preparation exercises?

Healthcare implementation - Before

Establishing common ground could be implemented in the perspective by setting up a strategy for collaboration. A strategy would describe how the interaction should be done between different actors before, during and after major incidents that require interaction between actors. The aim with the cooperation is that resources are used efficiently and responsibly. This could be implemented as a regional committee, including managers at strategic level from different actors, which meets regularly a couple of times a year. These could include:

• Health care

• County council

• Police

• Municipalities

• Fire brigade

• Civil protection

• Military forces

The regional committee is a strategic function that decides on issues that have an overall character in terms of long-term planning, such as establishing and/or revising strategies, plan regional joint exercises and initiate education opportunities.

Exemples from such implementations could be common education between different actors conducted regularly every year while exercises take place every four years. These common activities (e.g. table-top exercises, real-life simulation or workshops) are focused on real events where the importance of actors' cooperation have been identified, such as during; school shooting, fires, and CBRNE incidents.

Every two months, representatives from operational levels could gather for the purpose of disseminating information about ongoing and upcoming activities with each other with the intention of increase the potential for cooperation between them.

During a crisis

During the development of crisis requiring the collaboration among different organisations, the conditions to promote common ground can be very different, depending on the type of crisis. When the crisis takes the form of an emergency where time is a critical factor, the organisation may only count on the common ground that was established before the crisis itself. On the other side, if the crisis has a longer timeframe (e.g. at least two days, up to several months), the promotion of common ground actions could be beneficial, provided that they do not interfere with the activities of the crisis units, operation centres or task forces already established to manage the crisis. Among those described for the Before Crisis phase, the following should be considered:

• Identify potential gaps in the mutual understanding
• Organise information sharing workshops.
• Organise visits of own staff to facilities of other organisations

For very long crises (e.g. those lasting more than a month), it may be beneficial to also organise joint crisis management exercises to simulate and test specific parts of the interventions required to solve the crisis. Examples of situations in which these exercises are useful are those in which the crisis is very complex and requires coordinated interventions in areas that may be unfamiliar to the front-end staff and in which the personnel might be exposed to risks in case of misunderstandings among the different actors. In order to guide the process, a self-assessment based on answering the same triggering questions proposed for the Before Crisis phase is advised, in association with the respective thematic areas.

Healthcare implementation - During

The implementation of the concept card could have be implemented by developing a operational collaborative group.

• According to the group´s developed strategy, an operational collaborative group (Point of Contact Designated Duty Officer) with predetermined functions could be initiated within different actors, in case of a threat or major accident. The group´s task is to assess if the threat or major accident require coordination and cooperation. This group should have the mandate to initiate a structure for cooperation and on immediate actions.

• Rapid initiation of the group create conditions for proactive coordination through collaboration.

After a crisis

The managers of organisations cooperating in crisis management activities will probably find easier to justify the investments on common ground actions, if at least part of these organisations have already experienced a real crisis. On the other hand, depending on the development of the crisis itself, the relationships among the organisations might be more or less difficult, especially if there is no shared view of the responsibilities for what happened and if on-going investigations make the sharing of information among the organisations more delicate than in no crisis periods.

Generally speaking, the same actions identified for the Before Crisis phase will also apply to this phase, except for the fact that the lessons learnt from the crisis will be very useful to guide both the identification of gaps in mutual understanding', as well as the good coordination practices emerged during the management of the crisis. However, the organisers of the common ground actions should pay particular attention to the risk of being excessively biased by the specific events occurred during the crisis which was just experiences.

Therefore the Information sharing workshops, the Visits of own staff to the facilities of other organisations, the Joint drills and crisis preparation exercises will have to consider both the specificities of that crisis and other alternative scenarios that may lead to different types of crisis.

In order to guide the process, a self-assessment based on answering the same triggering questions proposed for the Before Crisis phase is advised, in association with the respective thematic areas.

Healthcare implementation - After

The implementation of the concept card could involve joint after-action meetings regarding events where collaboration has been essential. During these meetings representatives from collaborating actors gather every two months, or so, with the purpose of identifying strengths and weaknesses in the co-operative management of the event. Identification of collaborative indicators can be used in the work of analyzing/ reviewing the management of the event to create a structure.

Example of collaborative indicators:

• Tetra radio interagency coordination channel assigned from dispatch
• Dispatch initiate radio check and provide current incident orientation according to ETHANE structure (ref ETHANE)
• Agency Incident commanders initiate coordination via Tetra radio coordination channel

Content: Preliminary rendevouz point, approach vector, decision on coordinated response strategy

• First unit from any agency provide initial situation report
• Establish interagency command site. (REF # Collaborative indicators: Instruktörsmanual Samverkan CBRN, Katastrofmedicinskt centrum.pdf)

Understanding the context

Detailed objectives

Rationale. In order to collaborate effectively at the time of a crisis, the people involved in crisis management, from different organizations and/or from different departments of the same organization need to have a sufficient understanding of their mutual goals, expectations, capabilities, and operational procedures (Kuziemsky and O’Sullivan, 2015; Collins et al., 2012; O’Sullivan et al., 2013). For example, the personnel of fire brigade, medical teams, police offices, civil protection departments, area control centers, etc. need to understand their mutual needs, in order to operate effectively and safely while minimizing losses. However, establishing such a common ground (Kuziemsky and O’Sullivan, 2015; Collins et al., 2012) is not necessary an easy goal to achieve. Division of work in large organizations tend to result in different units and subunits, each characterized by (i) its own situated perspective, (ii) specialist language, (iii) resources, (iv) temporal and productive pressures (O’Sullivan et al., 2013; Klein et al., 2005), so that, while personnel tend to see clearly their local objective, they may also fail to see opportunities for collaborating effectively with other units in order to work towards larger, shared goals (Hopkins, 2006; Hansen, 2009). This dynamic, which can be termed as the silo effect (Hopkins, 2006), is exacerbated when staff members that have to collaborate belong to different organizations. The existence of organizational barriers to the flow of knowledge, information and people, combined with the fact that different organizations have different missions, organizational cultures, resources and operating procedures, implies that it is not necessarily easy for staff members engaged in joint activity to establish a common set of mutual and shared knowledge, assumptions and belief that is functional to the management of the crisis.

Compared with card Understanding roles and responsibilities of other actors, the present card targets different organizational roles. This card is directed to the widest number of first response operators of different organizations. The former card involves, instead one or a few point of contact from each organizations that will participate in the shared activities, and then will disseminate internally information about roles and responsibilities of other organizations.

Targeted actors

• The card implementing user include relevant back-end roles that are able to implement the actions mandated by the card. Arguably, these will be middle managers and/or relevant experts that maintain close ties with other organizations;
• Actors: different teams of front-end crisis response operators.

Healthcare actors

Involved actors should be identified and predetermined to participate in the rescue, regardless of the nature of the event. Analysis can then be made jointly by the actors with the purpose of identifying eventually additional actors that may be involved in the specific event. In Sweden, all actors mentioned below are involved in the response, regardless of event. However, in addition to these ones, more may be called depending on the type of event that occurred. Common Grounds - as a concept - should be discussed and practised at all levels, starting from front-line operators to management. This involves both inter- and intra-agency communication in all agencies, independently of the crisis scenario.

• The healthcare staff is responsible for the medical care.
• The police are responsible for the security on site and for the identification and registration of the victims. They also inform relatives in case of fatalities.
• The municipality is responsible for both acute and follow- up crisis/psychological support.
• The fire brigade and the municipality provide meeting halls for the care of mildly injured and for those who are in need of crisis support.
• Communication with the media takes place in collaboration where each actor pronounces information according to their area of responsibility.
• The National board of health and welfare, Ministry of Social Affairs and the Government (on the national level) will gather an overall picture of the situation from different perspectives.

Air Traffic Management actors

The roles and responsibilities of involved actors change according to the type of crisis and the related environment of operations. The "Common Ground" must encompass most of the activities of the organization, at all levels starting from senior management to front line operators.

The actors involved are those listed below:

• Air Navigation Service Providers (both civil and military)
• Aircraft owners and operators
• Aircraft manufacturers
• Aviation regulatory authorities (National and International)
• ATFCM (Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management)
• International aviation organizations (i.e. EUROCONTROL, ICAO, CANSO, etc)
• Investigative agencies
• Flying public
• Airport operator (if airports and/or ground operations are concerned by the crisis)
• Firefighters (if airports and/or ground operations are concerned by the crisis)
• Police (if airports and/or ground operations are concerned by the crisis)

Expected benefits

Improved capability to manage situations of crisis requiring joint involvement of more organizations, thanks to improved cooperation and collaboration among the front end staff of these organizations.

Relation to adaptive capacity

Relation to risk management

The card promotes the consideration of human and organizational aspects involved in the response phase of the crisis. In particular it promotes the consideration of cross-organizational aspects that can improve joint activity in crisis management. Therefore, the present card is particularly relevant for the successful implementation of the outcome of the risk management process, the risk mitigation solutions which can be defined as a result of the risk management process (see for instance the ISO 31000 risk management standard - ISO, 2009).

Illustration

Healthcare illustration

School shootings are examples that illustrate the importance of "Establishing common grounds". These events may involve several injured pupils and teachers and require for example effective interaction and collaboration among a number of different actors at the national, regional and local level.

Lessons learned from school shootings concern the effective collaboration that can be quickly activated if the actors have "Established common grounds", prior to the event. This has shown to imply that the Emergency Medical Services gain access to patients and by that beginning a quicker life-saving treatment. Sometimes, depending on the type of scenario, the healthcare and police sector may be better balanced to maximize the benefit for the victims.

Air Traffic Management illustration

The following example points out the importance of creating common ground:

1. Misunderstanding between fire fighters and controllers in the aftermath of ATR 72 runway excursion at Fiumicino airport. The acccident in question was the runway excursion of an ATR 72 passenger aircraft at Fiumicino airport, in February 2013 (ANSV). The accident occurred at 20:32 pm so the aircraft was not visible aircraft from the ground. The fire brigade was looking for it on the runway, but could not find it because the aircraft came to a halt next to the airport perimeter, not immediately visible to the firefighters because of the dark. Eventually, the information that the controller was giving to the fire brigade turned out to be ineffective, as both were using different maps and terminologies. Because of this miscommunication, the fire brigade wasted more than five minutes prior to identifying the aircraft.

This example shows the consequences of poor common grounds, in this case caused by miscommunications due to the use of special terminologies ,not duly shared among operators involved in emergency management.

Implementation considerations

Challenges

The joint initiatives mandated by this card presupposes the availability of:

• Sufficient commitment by the senior managers of the involved organisations;
• Sufficient mutual trust and existence of communication channels across organisations.At least these conditions need to be satisfied to organize the joint initiatives aimed at improving common ground which are recommended by this card (see next section). Note that in case of implementation in contexts in which the relevant organizations do not already collaborate, the successful implementation of this card may be favored by the card Establishing networks.

Implementation cost

Healthcare implementation considerations

Associated Challenges

Implementation of "Establishing common grounds" on a policy level require, however, that legislation and guidelines support this type of collaboration. On the strategic level, opportunities for collaborative planning are required while, at the operational level, opportunities for training, in order to implement in normal procedures and in crisis situations.

Air Traffic Management implementation considerations

In ATM Standardisation of the terminology and acronyms/abbreviations/initialisms used to describe procedures, processes or conditions is essential in order to ensure that organisations and crews from abroad nderstand local procedures and conditions. [1]

In ATM, the concept of Common Ground is linked to the concept of Interoperability. ICAO in its Circular 330-AN/189 on the "Civil/Military Cooperation in ATM" states something that is applicable at all levels and in all ATM context: Global standards, uniform principles and agreements are needed to ensure the technical and operational interoperability of the ATM system. However, ATM system interoperability needs to be considered in the broader context of governance, not just technology and procedures, while bearing in mind the requirements users place on the system. After all, ATM aims to enable all airspace users, including the military, to operate their preferred flight/mission profiles, cost-efficiently and effectively, without compromising flight safety or national security. [...] At the strategic/political level, the concept of interoperability can be considered as an enabler for coalition building. It facilitates meaningful contributions by aviation coalition partners, both civil and military. At the highest level, interoperability of aviation issues centres on harmonizing global (e.g. ICAO) or regional (e.g. European Union) views, doctrines and, foremost, a regulatory framework. One main element at this level is the political willingness to cooperate and coordinate over the long term, to achieve and maintain shared interests in aviation safety, environment, efficiency and capacity. The price of strategic and/or political interoperability at national as well as international levels can be high and finding a common ground can be difficult to achieve. National considerations and culture are potential disablers of affordable interoperability. Nevertheless one can assume that the aviation chain is as strong as its weakest link and that it is therefore in everyone’s interest to cooperate and invest in order to achieve the highest level of interoperability. [Ref. https://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2012_CMC/CIR330_en.pdf]

The Airport environment of operations is regulated by Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 laying down requirements and administrative procedures related to aerodromes states that ADR.OPS.B.005 Aerodrome emergency planning […] The aerodrome operator shall have and implement an aerodrome emergency plan that: […] b) provides for the coordination of appropriate organisations in response to an emergency occurring at an aerodrome or in its surroundings; and (c) contains procedures for periodic testing of the adequacy of the plan and for reviewing the results in order to improve its effectiveness. ADR.OR.B.025 Demonstration of compliance (a) The aerodrome operator shall: (1) perform and document all actions, inspections, tests, safety assessments or exercises necessary Common ground is created mostly during the tests and exercises performed in the scope of the AEP that involve all airport stakeholders.

Relevant material

Relevant Practices, Methods and Tools

Practices

1. Reviews of shared maps prior to the preparation of large scale events. During the preparation of the World Youth Day in Kracov, the relevant leaders/experts of the first responders’ organizations meet in order to define a common map of the area of the event. Once the joint map of the event was defined it was communicated to front end operators. This was reported to ensure that these referred to the same reference points (e.g. sector X, emergency exit 1) in their communications (e.g., call by security guards to obtain medical assistance in a given area, provision of instruction to the direction of crowd flow, etc.).

Healthcare Practices, Methods and Tools

In Sweden, several organizations have introduced good practices and methods with the aim to establish Common Grounds.

For example, in the Region Ostergötland in Sweden implementation of the concept Common grounds for cooperation and management is implemented throughout the crisis response system. This results in a consensus regarding terminology, approaches and working procedures among players important for the crisis management. This implementation generates conditions for more actor-wide activities in all phases e.g.:

• Before: Proactive development of strategies for how to manage a crisis by e.g. common workshops and/or educations
• During: Effective working procedures for actor-wide management of social disturbances with common approaches.
• After: Actor-based follow-up based on indicators for stakeholder cooperation.

Air Traffic Management Practices, Methods and Tools

In the ATM context, several organizations have introduced good practices, methods and tools with the aim to establish Common Ground.

EUROCONTROL, the European Agency for the Safety of Air Navigation, promotes :

• the sue of Skybrary (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Main_Page) which is an electronic repository of safety knowledge related to flight operations, air traffic management (ATM) and aviation safety in general. It is also a portal, a common entry point, that enables users to access the safety data made available on the websites of various aviation organisations - regulators, service providers, industry.
• the participation to simulations sessions open to non-experts. EUROCONTROL, organizes simulations training sessions in which non-controller staff can take part in realistic air traffic control simulations. Such sessions are effective in promoting the diffusion of knowledge about the air traffic control job across EUROCONTROL staff as well as the staff of other organizations (e.g. contractors, project partners, academics, regulators, etc.).
  
  Both the practices above are relevant to show how knowledge of the working methods of a specific role can be disseminated across organizations. Note that although both best practices are mono directional, i.e., they promote the diffusion of knowledge about one operational role, they are however relevant as they could be repeated for all the relevant roles that have to cooperate jointly in emergency situations.
  
  
• the use of Network Operations Portal (NOP). It is designed for ATM professionals. It provides real-time information on air traffic operations and a single entry point via a human-machine interface to ATM operations, bringing together various EUROCONTROL tools and services. It provides full transparancy with regard to the current and expected European air traffic situation, thanks to constantly validated information and robust collaboration processes.

Journalists and the general public can also consult the portal for information on delays and the number of flights in real time. The NOP serves two main purposes:

• monitoring the real time status of traffic, airspace and air traffic flow and capacity management measures, and planning pan-European operations in a collaborative way from the strategic to the tactical phases, thus optimising the use of available ATM capacity.
• The NOP enables partners to anticipate or react to events more effectively. It provides a means for all actors, both civil and military, to increase their respective knowledge of the ATM situation from the strategic phase to real time operations. Its extensive reporting facilities are a solid foundation on which operations planning and the performance monitoring and reporting functions of the Network Manager are built.

NATS, whic is UK ANSP, is endorsing several activities (i.e. Events, Seminars, workshops, training, etc) in order to improve the management of Emergency situations: STAC is one of the most interesting.

• STAC (Scenario Training for Aircrew and Controllers) which is a forum for pilots and controllers offering the possibility to jointly explore the risks and hazards inherent in emergency situations, and to promote mutual awareness of the protocols and options to be observed or considered.
  The workshops use actual emergency scenarios to help promote increased awareness by all participants of the separate and often competing demands on attention and responses in unusual and emergency situations.
  They are facilitated by NATS TRM Specialists and airline CRM instructors and will follow structured discussions relating to:
  • Communication issues within the flight-deck and externally with ATC agencies
  • Sharing situation awareness in an emergency scenario within and between the two groups
  • Issues of overload and decision making for both parties
  • Handover issues between controllers, and sharing the situation within and between the aircraft crews
  • The use of SOPs, including emergency quick reference checklists by both groups

[2]

In the airport context, Airport Collaborative Decision Making (Airport CDM) is a concept that is applied in many airports. It aims at improving Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management (ATFCM) at airports by reducing delays, improving the predictability of events and optimising the utilisation of resources. Implementation of Airport CDM allows each Airport CDM Partner to optimise their decisions in collaboration with other Airport CDM Partners, knowing their preferences and constraints and the actual and predicted situation. The Airport CDM manual which is available online [3] provides useful examples for the use of some elements/tools in different events, both planned and unplanned, that can disrupt the normal operation of an airport and reduce its capacity to levels substantially below that of normal operations (e.g. adverse weather conditions, need for de-icing, construction and maintenance works, burst tyre aircraft which is blocking the runway, etc.)

Cross-fertilization workshops. ENAV, the Italian ANSP, organizes periodically internal cross-fertilization sessions during which the work of air traffic controllers is explained to non-controller staff of the organization. These workshops are effective to spread awareness about controllers’ job and needs across the different organization departments besides operations. The workshops are organized yearly. Although restricted to ENAV staff, this kind of workshop can be organized to promote cross-fertilization also across organizations with which ENAV staff operates—e.g. airport, regulators, fire fighters, etc.

References

• Agenzia Nazionale per la Sicurezza del Volo - ANSV (2013), Relazione di inchiesta: Incidente occorso all’aeromobile ATR 72-212A (ATR72-500) marche di identificazione YR-ATS, aeroporto di Roma Fiumicino, 2 febbraio 2013.
• Collins S.A., Mamykina L., Jordan D., Stein D.M., Shine A., Reyfman P., Kaufman D. (2012), In search of common ground in handoff documentation in an Intensive Care Unit, in Journal of Biomedical Informatics, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 307–315, .
• Hansen M. (2009), Collaboration: How Leaders Avoid the Traps, Build Common Ground, and Reap Big Results, Harvard Business Review Press.
• Hopkins A. (2006), Studying organisational cultures and their effects on safety, Safety Science, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 875–889.
• International Organization for Standardisation (2009), ‘ISO 31000: 2009 Risk management--Principles and guidelines’.
• Klein G., Feltovich P. J., Bradshaw J.M., and Woods D.D. (2005), Common ground and coordination in joint activity, Organizational Simulation, vol. 53, 2005.
• Kuziemsky C.E. and O’Sullivan T.L. (2015), A model for common ground development to support collaborative health communities, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 128, pp. 231–238.
• O’Sullivan T.L., Kuziemsky C.E., Toal-Sullivan D., and Corneil W. (2013), Unraveling the complexities of disaster management: A framework for critical social infrastructure to promote population health and resilience, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 93, pp. 238–246.
• Salas E. and Fiore S.M.(2004), In Salas E. & Fiore S.M. (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 3-8). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Healthcare references

1. Samverkan Östergötland: Samverkan Östergötland (Inter-agency Coordination County Östergötland):

http://www.samverkan-ostergotland.se/SiteCollectionDocuments/Samverkan%20Östergötland%20Strategi.pdf

1. MSB´s Gemensamma grunder för samverkan och ledning vid samhällsstörningar: See page

1. Samverkan Stockholm: See page

1. Socialstyrelsens föreskrift 2013:22 See document

1. Collaborative indicators: Instruktörsmanual Samverkan CBRN, Katastrofmedicinskt centrum.pdf

Terminology

• Common Ground
  Common Ground is a basis agreed by different parties for reaching a mutual understanding. In this context, a common ground between two or more organizations is achieved when the representatives of one organization have at least a high-level knowledge of the activities, goals, values and working environments of the other organization. Reaching common ground means being able to observe from two different perspectives an activity or process on which the two organization have shared responsibilities. A benefit of common ground is the formulation of correct expectations on how the other organization will operate in a given circumstance so to facilitate a more effective collaboration.
  




• Cross Fertilization
  Cross Fertilization is the mixing of the ideas, customs, etc. of different places or groups of people, to produce a better result (Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cross-fertilization). In this context, it should be mainly intended as the creative process by which organizations from different sectors and with different experiences exchange views and get inspiration for the innovative use of an existing technology (i.e. transfer of technology) or for a different application of an existing procedure or practice.
  

Navigate in the DRMG

• Parent theme: Supporting coordination and synchronisation of distributed operations

• Resilience abilities
  • Contributes to: Respond and Adapt
  • Supported by:
• Categories: Collaboration, Communication, Situation understanding
• Functions of crisis management: BEFORE, Preparation, Cooperation and coordination