Encuesta a los expertos

I will argue for three implications for Organization and Management theories based on the three paradoxes between designed and emergent coordination, administrative and expertise coordination, and centralized and networked coordination. Combined these paradoxes show that cross-boundary coordination is based on a negotiation process, which has a relational and temporal dynamic.

6.3.1 Emergent Coordination: the importance of temporality during negotiation processes

Coordination has often been treated in the literature as pertaining to an ‘end state’, in which the result of coordination was when interdependencies have been managed and a generally accepted working order has appeared (Okhuysen and Bechky 2009). By treating coordination not as a state to be achieved, but as a temporally unfolding process I have given insight into coordination dynamics.Rapid changes and time critical processes that occur during emergency response operations call for its users to quickly perform the actions that are negotiated in the field. This makes the process of coordination highly contingent on the current state of events. As the emergency response operation unfolds and new information is received, the agreements made moments ago must be adapted, and as such, new information needs arise that stoke the coordination process. These demands for flexibility, speed, and uncertainty that organizations face, make them focus on adaptive capacity rather than specialized routines (Kellogg et al. 2006).

When operating in an environment that is characterized by fluidity, a flexible form of organizing is required to deal with processes which never settle down and are in constant flux (Schreyögg and Sydow 2010) or are chronically ‘unfrozen’ (Weick 1977). Fluidity enables organizations to adapt to changing environments through reconfiguration of structures and practices. Studies that stress the role of fluidity in organization also reflect on the necessity of certain points of stabilization. Schreyögg and Sydow (2010) argue that organizations cannot be totally fluid, but require at least minimal structure and routines. For its members to understand the ongoing adaptations to the changing environment the organization must establish and maintain some sort of interpretative action patterns. One of the main findings from the analysis of cross-boundary coordination processes during emergency response operations is that these interpretive action patters are made up from a negotiated order of issue specific coalitions. The outcome of negotiation processes

provides a certain level of consolidation in an environment in flux through moments of stabilization. This implies that the negotiations during cross-boundary coordination are necessary to provide the moments of temporal closure that consolidate the coordination process. As this closure is only temporal and occurs simultaneously at different locations around the incident site, it leads to distributed action and deviating interpretations. Negotiation is a key aspect of emergent coordination (Vaughan 1999, Galison 1997). It enables actors to recognize and explore their different positions, and develop a temporal working order. This enables them to act without full consensus, because developing common understanding takes too much time.

6.3.2 Expertise Coordination: the importance of relationality in boundary work

Previous studies have shown that during emergency response operations sensitivity to operations and deference to expertise are key aspects of reliable performance (Weick and Sutcliffe 2011). In my dissertation I have shown that these elements of expertise coordination are relational processes, i.e. they are effectuated by an ongoing interaction between different coordination modes and practices. The concept of relationality is to some extend taken up in the coordination debate in the form of relational coordination (Gittell 2002). However, the way in which Gittell (2002) treats relational coordination is rather static, as she places it next to other coordination mechanisms based on an infor- mation processing logic. In the information processing logic coordination mechanisms are categorized from having a low to a high information processing capacity (Lawrence et al 1976, Van de Ven et al. 1976). Procedures have a low information processing capacity, and forms of consultation have a high information processing capacity. Relational coor- dination is characterized by Gittel (2002) as having a high information processing capacity. This, however, still treats relationality based on its information processing capacity, which can be assessed and measured. This offers a static and objectivistic approach on relationality, and it neglects emergent and more dynamic relations.

The findings in my dissertation show a more dynamic notion of relationality, which cannot be assessed in advance, but arises emergently during the contextualized cross- boundary coordination process at the disaster site. Boundaries form an important aspect of why coordination can be temporarily obstructed in multi-organizational settings. Relationality is key in this process, as actors experience different boundaries during the same coordination process, and therefore can employ different coordination approaches simultaneously. This occurs either through employing different coordination practices,

6

enacting different coordination modes in the configuration of a boundary object, or negotiating the relevance of information. These findings imply that expertise coordination is not just about how boundaries are perceived, but especially important is how actors together shape the coordinative action beyond a perceived boundary. In accordance with a more dynamic approach on relationality, boundaries are relational and change as they are perceived differently by different actors at different times. An important implication in this dissertation is that during the coordination process boundaries become contested and their relevance is negotiated based on how they are perceived. Next to the dominant idea that boundaries have to be bridged to coordinate interdependencies, I found that also reinstating boundaries is central to coordination (Faraj and Yan 2009). Officers reinstated the functional or knowledge boundaries when they reclaimed their accountability or expertise over certain parts of the response operation. This made other officers aware of these boundaries because differences in responsibility or knowledge were sharpened. Therefore when reinforced, these boundaries became buffers through a strategy of disengagement to limit the actions of other officers. Generally, such strategies are considered to harm the coordination processes, as this limits common understanding and predictability (Okhuysen and Bechky 2009). However, the findings in my dissertation indicate something different. For coordination in fast-paced environment boundary reinforcement can in fact be an effective strategy, because it enables actors to make faster decisions by temporarily keeping others out and thus putting interdependencies ‘on hold’. Cross-boundary coordination is thus not only about boundary spanning, but also very much about keeping boundaries in place to force fast action.

6.3.3 Networked Coordination: the importance of time dynamic for assessing coordination in networks

Temporality is an important aspect during emergency response operations. The way in which actors experience time pressure influences at what level they will engage in coordination processes. Especially in social network studies in disaster management time is a crucial factor in the analysis of network dynamics. However, most disaster management network studies depict network relations without making specific references to time (Kapucu 2005). Response networks are normally represented as the summary of relations that occurred over the course of time. Yet, the fast-paced coordination dynamics during emergency response in chapter 5 show the importance of relating communication and coordination network dynamics to the time when they took place. The time slice

analysis of the Schiphol tunnel fire response shows that the network evolved and changed significantly over the course of time. This implies that overall (centrality) measures have a low explanatory value for studying coordination in fast-paced environments, as these centrality values vary significantly across time. This is important, because this entails that network analytical explanations about if actors can or cannot be reached, and through which pathways information can flow, need to be based upon shorter sequences of interaction. Analyzing these temporal structures can provide detailed insights into the evolution of the network. It’s important to note that in the dynamic environment of emergency management the network is continuously in a state of becoming, therefore its structural primacy is only temporal and will rapidly change and become obsolete.

In addition, the analysis of network dynamics in chapter 5 indicates that indirect ties in relation to their occurrence in time are crucial to understand the coordination dynamics. This adds an important insight to the common premise in social network analysis of disaster response operations: centrality measures that are based upon direct connections miss out coordination dynamics in reference to time that are vital in response networks. In the Schiphol tunnel fire response network emergence is the dominant mode in network formation. This entails that network connections are unstable and show a dynamic of connection and disconnection over time during the construction of the network. It means that when looking at the flow of information based on information pathways, a combination of indirect paths that occur earlier in time can be quicker for information sharing as a direct link between nodes that occurs in a later stage. When calculating centrality measures without the reference of time, these possibilities for indirect information sharing are not taken up in the analysis. When taking in account the network relations according to the time when they took place, it shows a more dynamic and varied network formation process. One can see the emergence of different hubs and cliques, in which the interaction shows a flux of irregular synchronizations of information. Consequently, my analysis implicates that indirect pathways in relation to time need to be analyzed in addition to direct ties, as these may elicit alternative information pathways across the network over time.

6