Improvising

Improvisation in the Field

Research into the 9/11 attacks in New York City revealed many such instances of improvisation, both during response (e.g., the waterborne evacuation of lower Manhattan, the creation of a new Emergency Operations Center) and recovery (e.g., the rewiring of lower Manhattan, the cleanup of Ground Zero). A reasonable first step is to understand when and how improvisation happens successfully in order to generate programs for training in improvisation, and potentially to guide the systematic selection of emergency managers based on personality and cognitive traits that predispose rapid recombination of assets and personnel to fit the task environment. An appropriate next step is to use this understanding to guide the development of technologies that enable—and properly constrain—creative problem solving in all phases of emergency management.

Preparedness and Decision Making

Preparedness in emergency management means organizing for emergency response before the event occurs. The need for plan revision can arise from numerous circumstances. An emergency may evolve to the point where implemented plans are no longer applicable. An emergency may be multifaceted, requiring emergency response organizations (EROs) to combine many plans in unexpected ways. In a response involving numerous organizations, allocation of resources to certain tasks may make those resources unavailable for other tasks. Finally, resolution of unanticipated contingencies may not be immediately assignable to any particular organization. In these circumstances, EROs must be prepared to improvise—that is, to rework their knowledge in a novel way to fit the requirements of the current situation.

Typical activities during the management of emergencies are monitoring operations during normal conditions, selecting an appropriate procedure when planned-for contingencies arise, and revisiting the appropriateness of these procedures as other potentially disruptive events occur. With the onset of an unplanned-for contingency—an event for which no planned-for procedure exists—the responding organization must develop and deploy new procedures in real time.

When faced with an unplanned-for contingency, response procedures are intended either to resolve the emergency itself or to allow the managing organization to return to following planned-for procedures. Decision making in this situation can be regarded as a two-stage process. In the first stage, the responding organization recognizes either that no planned-for procedure applies to the current situation or that an appropriate, planned-for procedure cannot be executed. Once the need to depart from the plan has been recognized, the second stage is the real-time development and deployment of new procedures. The action may range from substitution (e.g., using a school bus to transport injured persons) to the construction of new procedures (e.g., using fire trucks to provide mobile showers following a chemical exposure). In addition to actions, roles of response personnel may also be improvised.

...