Italian Version: Disasters 2.0: Collaborazione in Tempo Reale: Documentazione...
Build a Better Mousetrap? Social Media Cultivating Emergency Management Communities of Practice
1. Build a Better Mousetrap?
Social Media Cultivating Emergency Management Communities of Practice
Communities of Practice (CoP) are popping up all over the Internet both explicitly
in name and implicitly by what they do. The emergency domain is no different.
On one hand, some groups are CoPs and don’t know it or don’t identify themselves
as such. On the other hand, goal oriented CoPs are being created where the site
may or may not consist of a CoP altogether!
Taming the Beast
The problem is, there is so much information on the Internet - how do you
best leverage this information for emergency management? Social media and
apps are creating many ways for people and groups to communicate but the
challenge is, what can be done to make this information useful? How do you get
the right information to the right people at the right time so that all individuals
(both practitioners and public) can make the best decision(s)? How can teams/
agencies/groups who work together utilize this information such that it’s
aggregated and focused on their particular needs? How do you aggregate, but not
isolate information? How can these groups or individuals share ‘best practices’
and ‘lessons learned’ and benefit as units working together from the social media
and Web 2.0 technology?
Communities of Practice can be a good way to cultivate and support groups
of emergency management teams using real time web based solutions (White,
Plotnick, Aadams-Moring, Hiltz and Turoff, 2008; White, Hiltz and Turoff,
2009). Creating or cultivating a CoP is no trivial task! For example, some existing
attempts are having difficulty in sustaining active participation between group
members. How are CoPs identified or created, who’s creating them (government
or individual) and are these methods working -- if not, what is the best way to
harness the information to satisfy the various needs of practitioner types to reap the
benefits of a true CoP?
The Perfect Storm
2. Etienne Wenger defines CoPs as, “groups of people who share a concern, a set of
problems, or a passion about a topic, and who can deepen their knowledge and
expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.” Hence, CoPs are social
networks of people. Social networks consist of people linked together by choice
and sometimes, by default. Social networks exist both online and offline. Social
networks exist between family members and coworkers. Clubs and volunteer
organizations consist of people who are networked together. These are examples
of social networks that are offline. People can also be linked together by using
technology. Groups of people can be networked together using a variety of
social networking sites that provide an array of applications to support a variety
of communication needs. CoPs can exist totally online or totally offline or
somewhere in-between the two extremes.
But what is social media and how does it support social networks? Social media is
defined as “forms of electronic communication (as Web Sites for social networking
and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share
information, ideas, personal messages, and other content” (as videos) (Merriam-
Webster, 2010). These forms of electronic communication provide many avenues
where professionals can discover each other and others with common interests.
These ‘domain’ driven ways of creating groups help seed CoPs. Existing
relationships are strengthened and new relationships are created. This makes it
such that you are linked not by geographic proximity, but by the unique interests
and tasks shared between group members.
CoPs, social networks of emergency management groups and Social Media, when
joined together, create the perfect storm for success.
CoPs are not comprised of people who simply share a common interest. This is
not some random group of people who like the same things or know the same
people or are in a discussion forum together. CoPs are for serious working groups
of people who are driven to better themselves or their interest by interacting with
one another. The description of what defines a CoPs matches the benefits/needs
that could come from the practitioner community or any other specialty group in
the field. Wenger further describes CoPs as communities who:
3. ● “ share information, insight and advice.
● They help each other solve problems,
● they discuss their situations, their aspiration and their needs.
● they ponder common issues
● explore ideas and act as sounding boards
● they may create tools, standards, generic designs, manuals and other
documents
● they may be bound by the value that they find in learning together
● Over time, they develop a unique perspective on their topic as well as a body
of common knowledge, practices and approaches
● they develop personal relationships and establish ways of ?
● some remain invisible (implicit)
● They exist of core members or occasional participants” (Wenger, 2002).
As mentioned previously, CoPs can be online or offline, they may or may not use
technology to support the needs of the group. However, this list of characteristics
demonstrates the complexity in designing systems to create a single group support
system to match and fulfill all of the needs of the group.
Emergency management related CoPs do exist and use online platforms for
support. Emergency management online social networks are defined as “links
from people to other people, groups or information objects. Such objects may be
messages, photos, videos, wall postings, notifications, current activities, events,
widgets, etc.”(White, Plotnick, Kushma, Turoff and Hiltz, 2009).
CoPs presently use Blogs, Facebook, fourquare, Twitter and Mapping applications
as Knowledge Exchange Centers (KEC) (Hiltz and Turoff, 2009 white paper).
Smaller networks of practitioners who practice together as teams link to other
smaller groups of practitioners creating a larger ‘informally linked’ (i.e. by choice)
network of experts. The strength of social media is that these smaller groups
of specialist can easily ‘connect’ with other unique groups. Together, these
groups can learn from one another and better fulfil the needs of the individual
groups. These groups that exist right now, are for the most part, not ‘formally’
recognized as CoPs but are considered invisible and implicit. The challenge lies
4. in determining how to best identify the existing CoPs and then for those that don’t
exist but need to, how to ‘cultivate a community of practice’ (Wenger, 200x).
A Bit of Theory
The ‘Technology Acceptance Model’ is a a theory known to most who study
Information Systems. TAM is used to formally study why systems are accepted
or rejected by the user which indicates if they’ll be used or not (Venkatesh et. al.,
2003). It is no simple task to build a system that people will want to use - so, it’s
no little feat and should not be taken for granted that popular social media sites
like Facebook and Twitter have such an enormous user population base. Trying to
match something of this magnitude would be like - well, you have a much better
chance to win a lottery or fly to the moon! So, it may be best to use these popular
sites for the needs of the group versus try to create a new site that encompasses all
of the functionalities and capabilities provided by the social sites. For example,
while conducting research on how social media can be best utilized by emergency
management, human resources became a reoccurring theme (White, 2010).
Practitioners wanted many of the features needed under this category such as a list
where employers can post positions and people can post resumes. Also, a list of
qualified people who could be deployed at a moments notice was greatly desired.
Many people are qualified in a number of ways. A closed site may eliminate a
great number of valuable people where LinkedIn, the most popular career driven
social site, would allow for the flexibility and agility required to meet the demands
of dynamic events (Harrald, 2010). LinkedIn is used by over 90 million registered
users!
Teach an Old Dog a New Trick
Social media is easy to use. This is another component of the TAM theory and
again, this is no trivial matter. The time it would take to teach the masses what
they already know by using existing social sites, would normally take an enormous
amount of time and money.
5. That there is a huge user population that already knows how to utilize these sites
is even more ‘sugar for a dime.’ This is especially useful when the public and
other community members are part of the response and recovery efforts. If we are
to make the community members responsible to support a greater resilience, then
the community must be integrated into the ongoing efforts as the valuable resource
they are. For example, CoPs of emergency information specialist use social
media as Knowledge Exchange Centers and are vital to the ‘online information
transitions’ occurring for crisis communications. By utilizing what is already
used by most, more information can be sent to the right people at the right time
so that ‘everyone’ can make the best decision possible. If we create these closed
isolated sites, then the information could be compromised.
I do understand that not everyone knows how to use social media sites, but books
are coming out, workshops are being conducted, conferences are having speakers
profess the word and if all else fails, you can ask your children or grandchildren to
help you!
Motivating Participation
Sites being created to support a CoP need to be perceived as useful or valuable
enough for someone to engage in and go through such effort. Most of these are
closed, restricting both membership and the information that is generated and
transpired. If a CoP site simply duplicates existing applications and the user
already is using a site that satisfies that need, then there is no incentive to spend
more time elsewhere. This is especially true when activity is high in the successful
sites and low in the newer sites.
CoP sites are having problems maintaining interest from the members.
Participation and an active level of engagement is desired. For example, on some
CoP sites, facilitators are having to prompt discussions and keep the group active,
there is a lack of interest by the members to go to the site to participate. Designing
sites to support the information needs of emergency management is no trivial task.
In Figure 1.0 are lists of design issues from formal studies that outlined the design
requirements desired of emergency management information systems (EMIS):
6. General Design Principles and Specifications
1. System Directory
2. Information Source and Timeliness
3. Open Multi - Directional Communication
4. Content as Address
5. Up-to-date Information and Data
6. Link Relevant Information and Data
7. Authority, Responsibility, and Accountability
8. Psychological and Social Needs
Supporting Design Considerations and Specifications
1. Resource Database and Community Collaboration
2. Collective Memory
3. Online Communities of Experts
(Turoff, Van de Walle, Chumar, and Xiang, 2003)
Figure 1.0 Design Principles and Considerations of EMIS
Hence, from this list one can see where a multi-application approach may be a
more viable solution.
Successful sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and uStream, have additional
appealing characteristics which contribute to its success. For example, Facebook
has a ‘gaming’ component that adds a fun recreational incentive that helps a user
enjoy a system more and interact on it more. People can create Farms as a side
form of entertainment, interacting with others in a less stressful interaction. It’s
through these ‘gaming’ interactions that stronger relationships can be built and
oddly enough, more work related information can be transpired (Tapscott and
Williams, 2006). This is a component, when added to an emergency management
information system, adds to its successful use. These existing popular social sites
have many of the characteristics that are required for emergency response systems
needs (Turoff,et. al, 2003).
Cutting Off the Nose to Spite the Face
7. Some major considerations for creating an environment to support a CoPs is,
● Who do you allow to be members of the group?
● Should the groups be open or closed or secret?
● What information is public and shared or private and not open to the public?
A very large group creating a closed site would actually be counterproductive
to the organization as a whole - why shouldn’t valuable information that is no
security threat, not be open to all? For example, if a fire department is evaluating
a situation, it would be best for the information to be shared with others in a
more open environment, fire is a global risk common everywhere. Why isolate
information?
Another counterproductive aspect of a very large closed site is that it automatically
cuts off experts from participating in a situation. The membership list will be
less dynamic given the initial restrictiveness. A less restricted environment opens
the door to more valid information. Just because someone is not ‘officially’ a
practitioner or EM related official doesn’t mean that they can’t provide useful
information that, once passed to their ‘official’ Friend or Follower for example,
can now be used inside the practitioner community.
Studies show that disaster theories such as ‘social convergence’ occur on web
based systems (Hughes, Paylen, Sutton, Liu, 2008). People and the community use
existing systems to support emergency efforts (Palen and Hiltz, 2007).
The Community (civilians) should open to being part of EM related CoPs.
It is well recognized and even sought after, to have civilian input to create
greater situation awareness faster. uReport, iReport, iWitness and other ways of
encouraging citizen involvement create a richer picture from which decisions
can be made. For example, if there were an EMyouTube, people could upload
emergency related videos they made since they may be the people or first people
on the scene. Social media is created so that some people can do more than others
depending on the role they are given. So, in this case, perhaps citizens may be give
Guests privileges where they can only upload and tag files, but where practitioners
can search, retrieve and view any video.
8. Size Matters
In the United States, the emergency management domain is enormous representing
numerous (1) types of groups, (2) groups on different levels (state, federal, etc),
(3) groups who have specialized skills, problem sets and task types and (4) groups
who work together permanently and temporarily. To create a single CoP to
support such complexity is futile at best, a dynamic network of networks will
provide the flexibility required from such complexity.
Smaller groups who don’t want to share or integrate information (i.e. a closed
group), will be more successfully supported by a single site. This may be a good
choice for the group’s needs. However, as the number of members increases, so
too does the complexity. More structure must be provided by the system in order
to keep information organized. Extreme events, that require large numbers of
people for response and recovery efforts, require a host of applications (Turoff,
White, and Plotnick, 2010). The more complex a system becomes, the more
difficult it becomes to use and users will be less likely to accept.
Scalability is something that social media supports too which would be most
useful for larger catastrophic events that lay in wait, such as the impending New
Madrid earthquake. ‘Collective Intelligence’ and the ‘Wisdom of the Crowds’
are two known concepts that can benefit from the larger populations. CoPs need
the flexibility to grow and contract and be modified as an event unfolds. The real
time ad hoc collaborative applications will help support the ‘practice’ in CoP. The
collaborative efforts will mature as partially distributed emergency management
teams move communications over to a web based platform transforming the way
groups interact and work together (Plotnick, White and Turoff, 2010).
Building a Better Mousetrap
A CoP cannot be forced, people need to see the value in interacting at a site with
others or for some gain/benefit. Large populations of users already exist on social
media. People are familiar with the more popular sites making them more apt to
9. be used. Nobody wants to learn ‘one more system’ if at all possible. It makes
sense to use the systems that the greater population already use. This message
echoed from a recent Tweet provided by the Director of FEMA provided in Figure
3.0
Figure 3.0 Craig Fugate’s Tweet
Ongoing efforts trying to duplicate the functions of social media by creating their
own systems are like people who like to brew their own beer from a kit. Although
its fun and one gets to wear the ‘make your own brew’ crown, there’s little chance
the home brew will ever match the skill of the experts and can compete with
those who have been brewing beer for many years. You cannot compete with
the Monks, Belgians and those in Milwaukee who have been handed down secret
recipes and methods for generations. Home brew will never *really* taste as good
as Budweiser, Stella or Heineken and a ‘one stop shop’ created to support CoPs
cannot compete with popular social media.
Tweak Existing Systems
Popular sites have modified versions for specific user populations. For example,
YouTube has special sites: YouTube EDU caters to those in education. An
EMyouTube would be beneficial for the emergency management sector. Some
items, like YouTube videos can be marked public while others can be marked
private where the viewers are designated. Therefore, a dynamic structure could be
used to meet the needs of the group. This would build a reservoirs of emergency
management related videos that could help support the needs of a variety of CoPs.
REWRITE NEW SECTION - http://www.govtech.com/pcio/CIOs-Social-Media-Security-Risks-
021111.html “NASCIO and the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) struck
a deal with Facebook that required the social networking giant to revise its service terms
10. for state government use. After months of negotiations, Facebook agreed to modify
the provisions of its terms and conditions regarding dispute resolution and indemnity
clauses.”
Read My Lips, No New Taxes
It cost the government a lot of money to create and launch their own group support
systems -CoPs included. Social media is free. Given the current financial crisis,
free web based solutions may not only provide an answer, but a better answer. A
CoP can only be so large until the interests among group members grows so large
that multiple CoPs are needed to stay true to the definition! However, smaller
networks can be identified and modified to harness the information within the
group.
While writing this article, I went to view the CoP site created by the government,
First Responders Community of Practice (https://communities.firstresponder.gov/ ).
Figure 2.0 provides a screenshot with the message informing the members that the
site was down for the weekend.
Figure 2.0 Screenshot of Message from Government CoP Site
This brings up maintenance issues and downtime. Every time there is an upgrade
or problems with the system, it cost more money = more tax dollars required.
During the upgrade, the chance of problems occurring during the software updates
and after are high and a norm so there is uncertainty in the system running as
expected and as scheduled. More importantly - the CoP is compromised. First,
what if an emergency/disaster/catastrophic event occurs during the scheduled
downtime? Or what if a group needs to use the system? Given the USA is large,
this may not be an unrealistic expectation. Too many eggs are in one basket.
11. What if an event occurs directly after the upgrade? Users will not have any
experience with the new features, layout or ways of doing things. Emergency
management information systems should have little to no downtime. No terrorist
has to have a PhD to figure out when best to attack or at least have another piece to
use in their favor to ensure a successful mission.
Social media sites are changing and upgrading on a continuous basis. However,
there is normally little to no downtime. Social media upgrades are free. Since
there are so many sites used for specific needs like LinkedIn, Twitter, and
YouTube - while one part may upgrade, the remaining sites have not changed.
CYA Conclusion
Every article like this needs a CYA section and here is mine. Social Media is
not the end all solution to support all of the needs of all Communities of Practice.
Social Media has demonstrated that it cultivates CoPs and also supports crisis
communications and decision making - before, during and after an event has
occurred. Social Media does not have solutions for all of the needs encompassed
within the emergency domain. However, it is worth looking into for the
government to consider as a serious tool to add support identifying, building, and
cultivating Communities of Practice within the emergency domain. Challenges
remain in aggregating information to serve the people in a beneficial manner given
the massive amount of information crossing the Information Highway, but using
the existing Social Media sites that have a grip on their respective parts may be a
good place to start. Given the user population, popularity, cost, ease of use and
applicability - Social Media just may prove to be the best Mouse Trap!
References
Harrald, J. Agility Paper - IJISCRAM
Hiltz and Turoff, Knowledge Exchange Center white paper, 2009.
12. Hughes, Palen, Sutton and Liu. “Site-Seeing” in Disaster: An Examination of
On-Line Social Convergence, Information Systems for Crisis Response and
Management, Washington D.C. 2008.
Palen and Hiltz. Online Forums Supporting Grassroots Participation in Emergency
Preparedness and Response. Communications of the ACM, 2007.
Plotnick, White and Turoff, 2010 - book chapter on PDET.
Tapscott, D. and Williams, A.D. Wikinomics. 2006
Turoff, M., Van de Walle, B., Chumar, M. and Xiang, Y. DERMIS
Turoff, White and Plotnick - book chapter on extreme events.
Wenger, E., McDermontt and Snyder. Cultivating Communities of Practice
White, Plotnick, Aadams-Moring, Turoff and Hiltz - emergenciWiki
White, Hiltz and Turoff. United We Respond: