An incident commander coordinates teams of individuals with varying specializations and serves as a central point of contact for the network management of agencies and emergency responders during disasters.
The tragedies in the U.S. on September 11, 2001, were unprecedented and challenged emergency responders in New York City and at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, as they worked to provide around-the-clock recovery assistance following the deadly attacks. Emergency responders from across the country and from around the world responded to assist, and a valuable lesson learned was that no single organization existed in the U.S. to provide policy, standards, and centralized ways for emergency service organizations to communicate. The Department of Homeland Security was established to provide a federal-level organization with policy, oversight, and training responsibilities for the Nation. With the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, there has been significant growth in the emergency management field, including the efficacy of emergency network management.
With this growth, comprehensive policies and processes are needed to allow organizations to effectively plan, administer, and respond to emergencies and events. These policies and processes must be evaluated regularly to determine if changes are needed to improve the management of emergency situations. Theories based on research can help emergency management practitioners better understand a problem, develop new ideas to approach it, and shape policy in various areas to address it.
Scenario
Your city routinely handles a large event that requires support from state and federal organizations. An audit of the emergency network management of the event has disclosed gaps in the ways that the different organizations involved communicate with each other, which has affected the efficacy of their responses during incidents. Specifically, there is a perception that state and federal organizations have been more concerned about their authority and hierarchical standing than with collaborating to reach common goals with city and local professionals. Leaders in your organization have asked for your recommendation on how to improve interagency collaboration in this scenario using models of communication based on scholarly theories.
Preparation
Select a large event in your area to use as an example scenario for this assessment, such as a sporting event, performance, festival, parade, fair, trade show, conference, race or marathon, holiday celebration, or another themed gathering that requires a network of communications for emergency purposes.
Select two theories of interagency collaboration that could be applied to managing the emergency communication network in the selected scenario. Research the collaboration models proposed by each theory.
Assessment Deliverable
Using evidence-based theories, write an 875- to 1,050-word executive summary of interagency collaboration models as if you were assisting an incident commander at an agency where you need to communicate your ideas about network management with the executive leaders of the city’s emergency response team.
Include the following information with supportive evidence from your research:
Summarize 2 interagency collaboration theories that could be applied to managing the emergency communication network in the selected scenario.
Explain how each theory is appropriate for the scenario. Identify similarities and differences between the 2 theories or their advantages and disadvantages.
Identify the theory that you recommend as most appropriate for improving communication in this scenario. Based on the elements of the theory, explain how interagency relationships between city, state, and federal organizations in this scenario can become more effective by using the recommended model of collaboration for emergency management.
Summary of Interagency Collaboration Theories
Two scholarly theories provide a robust framework for understanding and improving the current communication network.
1. Network Theory This theory posits that in complex, non-routine environments like emergency management, a decentralized, adaptive network structure is often more effective than a rigid, top-down hierarchy. Network theory emphasizes the importance of the relationships, communication channels, and informal ties that connect different organizations. Instead of a single command-and-control center, the model envisions a web of interconnected agencies that can quickly share information and resources. In this model, agencies are linked not by formal command lines, but by shared goals and mutual trust.
This theory is highly appropriate for the Boston Marathon scenario because it directly challenges the perceived problem of excessive hierarchy. It suggests that the city, state, and federal agencies should not operate as separate, sequential chains of command, but rather as nodes in a shared network. By focusing on the strength and efficiency of these inter-organizational links, the communication gaps can be bridged. The theory's core principle is that information should flow horizontally between peers, not just vertically up and down a command structure.
2. Collaborative Governance Theory This theory focuses on the process of collaboration itself, emphasizing the importance of building trust, fostering shared understanding, and managing conflict among diverse stakeholders. Scholars in this field, such as Chris Ansell and Alison Gash, highlight that successful collaboration is not an automatic outcome of a network structure; it must be actively cultivated through specific processes. These include face-to-face dialogue, the development of a shared purpose, and clear, transparent rules of engagement.
This theory is particularly relevant to the Boston Marathon’s challenges because it directly addresses the human element of the problem: the perception that agencies are more concerned with their own authority. Collaborative governance provides a prescriptive roadmap for moving past these relational barriers. It suggests that by creating a safe space for dialogue, where professional standing is set aside in favor of a shared mission, agencies can move from a perception of competition to one of partnership.
Comparison of the Theories
Both Network Theory and Collaborative Governance highlight the critical importance of communication and trust. Their primary distinction lies in their focus. Network Theory is a structural model that describes how organizations are connected, while Collaborative Governance Theory is a process model that explains what organizations must do to make their connections effective.
| Feature | Network Theory | Collaborative Governance Theory |
| Primary Focus | Structure and inter-organizational relationships | Process, dialogue, and trust-building |
| Advantage | Promotes flexibility and agility in a dynamic environment; less rigid than a hierarchy. | Directly addresses human and political dimensions of collaboration. |
| Disadvantage | May not be effective without strong processes for building trust and managing conflict. | Can be time-consuming to establish the necessary processes and relationships. |
Export to SheetsBoth are valuable, but in a scenario where the primary barrier is relational—stemming from a perceived struggle for authority—a process-oriented approach is more likely to yield tangible results.
Recommendation
Based on the analysis, I recommend adopting the principles of Collaborative Governance as the most appropriate model to improve interagency relationships in this scenario. While a robust network is our goal, we cannot achieve it without a conscious effort to build the foundational elements of trust and shared purpose that this theory provides.
Using this model, interagency relationships between city, state, and federal organizations can become significantly more effective through the following steps:
Establish a Shared Mission: The first step is to convene leaders from all agencies to collaboratively develop a single, overarching mission statement for the Boston Marathon. This document should replace individual agency goals with a unified purpose centered on public safety and seamless response. This process of joint creation is essential for fostering buy-in and a sense of collective ownership.
Create Structured Dialogue Platforms: We must move beyond simple information-sharing meetings. The model requires creating platforms for structured, face-to-face dialogue in which participants are encouraged to voice concerns, discuss perceived barriers, and propose solutions without fear of reprisal. This should begin with pre-event planning meetings and extend to formal after-action reviews.
Develop Joint Protocols: To mitigate struggles for authority, we should collaboratively develop clear, pre-defined protocols for key operational areas, such as a common language and terminology, a single shared information platform, and a standardized process for resource requests. These joint protocols, decided upon in a neutral environment, will remove ambiguity during the high-stress environment of an incident.
Conduct Multi-Agency Training and Drills: To move from theory to practice, all agencies must participate in joint training exercises and drills. These simulations will allow teams to practice the shared protocols, build familiarity with one another's roles and capabilities, and expose weaknesses in communication in a controlled environment. The act of working together on a simulated problem will naturally build the trust required for effective collaboration.