1 / 10

Considering the spatio -temporal dynamics in crisis management infrastructures

Considering the spatio -temporal dynamics in crisis management infrastructures Laurence Créton-Cazanave & Valérie November. Information Infrastructure for Disaster Risk Management Brussels – 26th of January 2017. The research program Euridice.

maudeb
Download Presentation

Considering the spatio -temporal dynamics in crisis management infrastructures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Considering the spatio-temporal dynamics incrisis management infrastructures Laurence Créton-Cazanave & Valérie November Information Infrastructure for Disaster Risk Management Brussels – 26th of January 2017

  2. The research program Euridice Applied research on crisis management, in collaboration with the SecrétariatGénéral de la Zone de Défense et de Sécurité de Paris (SGZDS – Prefecture de Police)(2015-2017) Interdisciplinary team, 10 projects, dir. Valérie November Cases study : Paris Attacks Nov. 2015, COP 21, EU Sequana (flood simulation), Paris flood spring 2016,Euro Foot 2016, and many « little events » Just released : « La gestion de criseàl’épreuve de l’exercice EU Sequana », Documentation Française(Dir. V. November and L. Créton-Cazanave)

  3. Research project CRISORSEC • Study of Crisorsec, the digital application designed by the SGZDS to share information and improve coordination during crisis management in Paris Region • Practice-based approach • Study of the device and its uses, in 3 axes : • In principle : as it was imagined • In practice : as it takes shape in real actors' contexts • In situation : as it is mobilized and used during events • Through Crisorsec arise concrete issues, for situated and coordinated action during crisis in a metropolitan area

  4. Crisorsec, a virtualcrisis room • Context of crisis management in metropolitan areas • Need for more horizontal coordination • between ++ public and private stakeholders • from different background and institutions • at larger scales + real-time • SGZDS’ problem • Crisis Room overcrowded • Need for field/back office connexion • Temporal cost for actors to come in = Crisorsec : a “virtual crisis room” to diminish the cost of new actors’ integration and foster information sharing and real-time coordination

  5. Crisorsec Web application dev. by the SGZDS What : information, decisions, commands When : « real-time », only during “events” Who : private and public stakeholders Scale : up to Paris’ metropolitan area How : functional logins by SGZDS

  6. Crisorsec, a counterproductive solution to the broadening of crisis management ? • Huge rise of the number of actors granted with access • > 500 logins ! • Vocabulary issues • Events log unreadable • Phenomenon are dynamic in space and time • Too many scales of information =>“Overcrowding” of Crisorsec • Solves a problem it contributes to reinforce • No turning back …

  7. Crisorsec, a counterproductive solution to the broadening of crisis management ? • Operational trick : splitting “events” • Ex. Euro Foot 2016 : • 6 “events”, defined by their location, scale, and authority (stadiums, fan-zones, town,…) • Gather only relevant stakeholders • Active at different hours/days • Connected only by bridges and “push” = several space-times of action • “noise protection” and filtering : whose choices ?! • Toward a variable geometry crisis management

  8. Crisorsec, a counterproductive solution to the broadening of crisis management ? • Practices/interviews : Crisorsec embodies (?) the tension between 2 logics of action • Vertical, hierarchical and command chain • Horizontal, collaborative, and “good will” chain • Ex. Simulation EU Sequana • More than 60 new logins, non-state organisations : nobody knows whose there… • Regalian actors partly step back and play “outside” • Concurrency between private sector actors : information retention….

  9. Crisorsecwasdesigned on : • The assumption of unity/stability of : • The space-time characteristics of events • The group of stakeholders involved • But variable geometry of crisis and its management • Who defines the “geometry” of action ?? • Objective to foster collaborative practices • A good tool but poor politics and governance • Forgot (?) to address the real challenge : politics of action => how to articulate benefits of vertical and horizontal logics of action ?? => Real need for infrastructures but cannot neglect variable geometry of crisis, and governance issues

More Related