What influences the acceptance of emergency management decision-support software? A study of county emergency management officials

Eliot A. Jennings, PhD; Sudha Arlikatti, PhD

doi:10.5055/jem.2015.0263

Authors

Eliot A. Jennings, PhD
Sudha Arlikatti, PhD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2015.0263

Keywords:

technology in emergency management, WebEOC, E-team, GIS in emergency management, decision-support systems in emergency management, technology acceptance

Abstract

Objective: While the benefits of emergency management decision-support software (EMDSS) have been touted for helping reduce time in decision making, increasing interoperability, and real-time data management for effective disaster response, little is understood regarding the factors that influence the acceptance of these technologies by emergency management officials. This study aims to fill this gap and contribute to theory on user acceptance of EMDSS in the public sector and highlight practical constraints and solutions for emergency managers.

Design: This research uses secondary data available from the 2006 survey of county emergency management agencies conducted by the National Center for the Study of Counties.

Results: Having a lead county emergency management official with higher qualifications and an in-house geographic information system division, both have a positive influence on the acceptance of EMDSS by that agency.

Conclusions: Contrary to expectations, the level of local collaborative planning efforts, the perceived level of threat, and number of disaster declarations for the county did not influence the use of these sophisticated EMDSS. To ensure use of such technology for effective emergency management, more funding to offer specialized training in the use of DSS is required in those agencies that do not have in-house GIS specialists.

Author Biographies

Eliot A. Jennings, PhD

Assistant Professor of Political Science, Colorado Mesa University, Grand Junction, Colorado

Sudha Arlikatti, PhD

Associate Professor of Public Administration and Undergraduate Program Coordinator, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas

References

Quarantelli EL: Ten criteria for evaluating the management of community disasters. Disasters. 1997; 21(1): 39-56.

Federal Emergency Management Agency: The Robert T. Stafford disaster relief and emergency assistance act, as amended, and related authorities. Available at http://www.fema.gov/robert-tstafford-disaster-relief-and-emergency-assistance-act-public-law-93-288-amended. Accessed August 1, 2015.

Buck DA, Trainor JE, Aguirre BE: A critical evaluation of the incident command system and NIMS. J Homeland Secur Emerg Manage. 2006; 3(3): 1-27.

Waugh WL Jr: Regionalizing emergency management: Counties as state and local government. Public Adm Rev. 1994; 54(3): 253-258.

Wenger D, Quarantelli EL, Dynes RR: Is the incident command system a plan for all seasons and emergency situations? Hazard Mon. 1990; 10(3): 8-12.

Banipal K: Strategic approach to disaster management: Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. Disaster Prev Manage. 2006; 15(3): 484-494.

Wise CR: Organizing for homeland security after Katrina: Is adaptive management what’s missing? Public Adm Rev. 2006; 66(3): 302-318.

Turoff M, Chumer M, Van de Walle B, et al.: The design of a dynamic emergency response information system (DERMIS). J Inf Technol Theory Appl. 2004: 5(4): 1-35.

Van de Walle B, Turoff M: Decision support for emergency situations. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage. 2008; 6(3): 295-316.

Reddick C: Information technology and emergency management: Preparedness and planning in the US states. Disasters. 2011; 35(1): 45-61.

Chen R, Sharman R, Rao HR, et al.: Coordination of emergency response. In Van de Walle B, Turoff M, Hiltz SR (eds.): Information Systems for Emergency Management. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2010: 150-178.

Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR: User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci. 1989; 35(8): 982-1003.

Thompson RL, Higgens CA, Howell JM: Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q. 1991; 15(1): 124-143.

Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, et al.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003; 27(3): 425-478.

Tsai N, Choi B, Perry M: Improving the process of E-government initiative: An in-depth case study of web-based GIS implementation. Gov Inf Q. 2009; 26(2): 368-376.

Borning A, Friedman B, Davis JL, et al.: Public participation and value advocacy in information design and sharing: Laying the foundations in advance of wide-scale public deployment. Inf Polity. 2009; 14(1): 61-74.

Warner J, Chun SA: Privacy protection in government mashups. Inf Polity. 2009; 14(1): 75-90.

Arlikatti S, Wachira D, Gregory S. Community policing in India: Transparency through e-governance. In Reddick C (ed.): Citizens and E-Government: Evaluating Policy and Management. Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing, 2010: 435-448.

Wachira D, Arlikatti S: Challenges of effective e-governance: Problems of transparency, infrastructure and connectivity in Kenya. In Reddick CG (ed.): Comparative E-Government: An Examination of E-Government Across Countries. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 2010: 259-274.

Dadayan L, Ferro E: When technology meets the mind: A comparative study of the technology acceptance model. In Wimmer MA, Traunmuller R, Gronlund A, Anderson KV (eds.): Electronic Government. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005: 259-274.

Thomas P: Information Systems Success and Technology Acceptance Within a Government Organization [doctoral dissertation]. Denton, TX: University of North Texas, 2008.

Lee JK, Rao HR: Perceived risks, counter-beliefs, and intentions to use anti-/counter-terrorism websites: An exploratory study of government-citizens online interactions in a turbulent environment. Decis Support Syst. 2007; 43: 1431-1449.

Artigas F, Elefante D, Marti A: Geographic information sharing: A regional approach in northern New Jersey, USA. Inf Polity. 2009; 14(1): 127-139.

Cutter SL, Emrich CT, Adams BJ, et al.: New information technologies in emergency management. In Waugh WL Jr, Tierney K. (eds.): Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 2007: 279-297.

Botterell A: The common alerting protocol: An open standard for alerting, warning and notification. In Van de Walle B, Turoff M. (eds.): Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd International ISCRAM Conference, Newark, NJ, 2006: 497-503.

Pine JC: Technology in Emergency Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.

Bell S, Cox R: Communications Interoperability in a Crisis. London, UK: Stephen Austin & Sons, 2006.

Thomas DSK, Kivanc E, Kemec S: The role of geographic information systems/remote sensing in disaster management. In Rodriguez H, Quarantelli EL, Dynes RR (eds.): Handbook of Disaster Research. New York, NY: Springer, 2006: 83-96.

Nedovic-Budic Z, Godschalk DR: Human factors in adoption of geographic information systems: A local government case study. Public Adm Rev. 1996; 56(6): 554-567.

Robey D, Sahay S: Transforming work through information technology: A comparative case study of geographic information systems in county government. Inf Syst Res. 1996; 7(1): 93-110.

Department of Homeland Security: National response framework. Available at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf. Accessed April 9, 2012.

Lutz LD, Lindell MK: Incident command system as a response model within emergency operations centers during hurricane Rita. J Contingencies Crisis. 2008; 16(3): 122-134.

WebEOC: WebEOC professional. Available at http://www.esi911.com/esi/. Accessed May 9, 2011.

E-team: Incident and resource management. Available at http://www.nc4.us/ETeam.php. Accessed May 9, 2011.

Rao RR, Eisenberg J, Schmitt T: Improving Disaster Management: The Role of IT in Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007.

Militello LG, Patterson ES, Bowman L, et al.: Information flow during crisis management: Challenges to coordination in the emergency operations center. Cogn Technol Work. 2007; 9(1): 25-31.

Bannister F: Dismantling the silos: Extracting new value from IT investments in public administration. Inf Syst J. 2001; 11: 65-84.

Bradford J: Computer applications for emergency management. JEMS. 1984; 10(7): 32-34.

Drabek TE: Microcomputer usage in disaster preparedness and response. Ind Crisis Q. 1991; 5: 93-111.

Chartrand RL: The many potentials of information technology for emergency management. Inf Soc Int J. 1985; 3(4): 275-289.

Lindell MK, Sanderson WG Jr, Hwang SN: Local government agencies’ use of hazard analysis information. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters. 2002; 20(1): 29-39.

Boudreau MC, Robey D: Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Org Sci. 2005; 16(1): 3-18.

Igbaria M, Parsurman S: A path analytic study of individual characteristics, computer anxiety and attitudes towards microcomputers. J Manage. 1989; 15(3): 373-388.

Davis LD, Davis FD: The effect of training techniques and personal characteristics on training end users of information systems. J Manage Inf Syst. 1990; 7(2): 93-110.

Burton-Jones A, Hubona GS: The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model. Inf Manage. 2006; 43(6): 706-717.

Dror Y: Decision making under disaster conditions, 255-275. In Comfort LK (ed.): Managing Disaster: Strategies and Policy Perspectives. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1988.

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Declared disasters by year or state. Available at http://www.fema.gov/news/disaster_totals_annual.fema. Accessed February 3, 2012.

Mathieson K, Peacock E, Chin WW: Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of perceived user resources. Data Base Adv Inf Syst. 2001; 32(3): 86-112.

Davis FD: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989; 13(3): 319-340.

Feiock RC: Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition and Cooperation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.

Kendra JM, Wachtendorf T: Reconsidering convergence and converger legitimacy in response to the World Trade Center disaster. Res Soc Probl Public Policy. 2003; 11: 97-122.

Kapucu N: Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary spanners in multiagency coordination. Am Rev Public Adm. 2006; 36(2): 201-25.

Hicklin A, O’Toole LJ Jr, Meier KJ, et al.: Calming the storms: Collaborative public management, hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and disaster response. In O’Leary R, Bingham LB (eds.): The Collaborative Public Manager. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2009: 95-114.

Jun KN, Weare C: Institutional motivations in the adoption of innovations: The case of e-governance. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2001; 21(3): 495-519.

Moon MJ, Norris DF: Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the municipal level. Inf Syst J. 2005; 15: 43-60.

Griffith TL: Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Acad Manage Rev. 1999; 24(3): 472-488.

Burke J: Connections: From Ptolemy’s Astrolab to the Discovery of Electricity: How Inventions are Linked—And How They Cause Change Throughout History. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1995.

Kendra JM: Geography’s contributions to understanding hazards and disasters. In McEntire DA (ed.): Disciplines, Disasters

and Emergency Management. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 2007: 15-30.

WebEOC: WebEOC product suite comparison. Available at https://www.intermedix.com/product/product-webeoc/intermedixwebeoc-product-matrix.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2015.

E-team: Product brochure. Available at http://www.nc4worldwide.com/documents/ETeam_4pg_FINAL.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2015.

Clarke W: Emergency Management in County Government: A National Survey. Athens, GA: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, 2006.

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Disaster and maps. Available at http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema. Accessed July 21, 2011.

Public Entity Risk Institute: Presidential disaster declaration site. Available at http://www.peripresdecusa.org/mainframe.htm. Accessed November 22, 2008.

Currion P, de Silva C, Van de Walle B: Open source software for disaster management: Evaluating how the Sahana disaster information system coordinates disparate institutional and technological resources in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami. Commun ACM. 2007; 50(3): 61-65.

Mileti DM: Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1991.

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Most expensive presidentially declared disasters. Available at http://www.fema.gov/hazard/hurricane/top10hu.shtm. Accessed February 3, 2012.