Analysis of Interoperability in the Queensland Disaster
Management System
Amirhossein Eslami Andargoli, Peter Bernus and Hadi Kandjani
Centre for Enterprise Architecture Research and Management (CEARM)
School of ICT, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Keywords: Interoperability, Disaster Management, Enterprise Architecture, GERAM.
Abstract: The increasing rate of natural and man-made disaster draws considerable attention from decision makers
and planners in communities and governments. Disaster Management projects require the collaboration of
several disaster management organizations and it results in heterogeneous systems. Interoperability of these
heterogeneous systems is essential in order to enable effective and feasible collaboration among various
organizations. This paper investigates interoperability issues in Queensland disaster management by
analyzing current Queensland floods using Enterprise Architecture (EA) principles. Finally, a reference
model is proposed to improve interoperability in Queensland disaster management system.
1 INTRODUCTION
The frequency of disasters and also their effects
appear to have dramatically increased during the last
century (Eshghi and Larson, 2008). Developing new
technologies, better communication and media are
some of the reasons for registering more disasters at
the end of 20
th
century compared to hundred years
ago, however, this reason alone cannot justify why
the number of disasters in the period of 2000-2005
(5 years) is higher than the period of 1990-1999 (10
years) (Eshghi and Larson, 2008).
Among these disasters, floods (possibly due to
global climate change), increased in frequency such
meteorological disasters cause extensive loss of
property and human life. The frequency and
intensity of floods in recent years have had impact
on the Australian economy and human well-being.
Floods with an annual cost of around $340 million
are Australia's most expensive natural hazard
(Middelmann-Fernandes, 2009). Interoperability
plays a pivotal role in enabling collaboration among
disaster management organizations in order to
reduce the effects of disasters and the loss of
property and human life (Kapucu et al., 2010);
(Chen et al., 2008); (Seifert, 2008). Enterprise
Architecture (EA) is a discipline that allows the
consideration of the establishment of a coherent and
integrated information flow in the management and
control of complex systems, and this paper uses and
EA approach to investigate how, through the
improvement of interoperability within the system
could be used to support more efficient and effective
decision-making processes (Janssen et al., 2010);
(Noran and Bernus, 2011). This paper demonstrates
a method to address interoperability issues in
disaster management by applying enterprise
architecture principles, and uses the Queensland
disaster management system as an example.
2 INTROPERABILITY
AND INTEROPERABILITY
FRAMEWORKS
Vallespir, Chen and Ducq (2005) define
interoperability as the ability of one entity to
accomplish tasks on behalf of another entity and the
degree of the ability to jointly execute operations. A
similar definition by Gottschalk (2009) is:
“interoperability is an ability of diverse systems and
organizations to work together.” An interoperability
framework is a set of concepts, standards and
guidelines that are helpful for the discussion of how
organizations interact with each other (EIF, 2004).
There are several interoperability frameworks,
although most only differ in their terminologies,
assigning different names to the same concepts
(Noran and Bernus, 2011). In Section 2.1 we review
310
Eslami Andargoli A., Bernus P. and Kandjani H..
Analysis of Interoperability in the Queensland Disaster Management System.
DOI: 10.5220/0004443503100317
In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2013), pages 310-317
ISBN: 978-989-8565-61-7
Copyright
c
 2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

some of the major interoperability frameworks.
2.1 The European Interoperability
Framework (EIF)
The aim of EIF was to guide e-government services
development to ensure interoperability among
governments throughout Europe (EIF, 2004). EIF
defines three aspects of interoperability as follows:
 Organizational interoperability:
This aspect of interoperability intends to ensure
shared/compatible goals and processes, and
collaboration intent of administrations.
 Semantic interoperability:
This aspect of interoperability ensures a shared
meaning of information that is exchanged among
different entities.
 Technical interoperability:
This aspect of interoperability is concerned with
technical issues of linking computer systems and
services.
2.2 The Interoperability Framework
of Loos et al. (2011)
Loos et al. (2011) propose an interoperability
framework based on three interoperability concepts:
 Business interoperability:
This concept of interoperability is concerned with
organizational aspects of interoperability. Business
interoperability is an ability of enterprises to work
with each other from a strategic point of view. The
business interoperability domain comprises
important matters such as cultural compatibility,
trust, law, etc. (Loos et al., 2011).
 Process interoperability:
This aspect of interoperability is concerned with
the ability of an entity (or enterprise) to
accomplish tasks on behalf of another entity (or
enterprise). Process interoperability requires
internal and external coordination. External
coordination comprises three levels as follow:
− Information flows: it deals with information
exchange between humans, as well as
applications.
− Material flows: it is described as physical
transportation of objects between two locations.
− Financial flows: it deals with financial funds
transfer between partners.
 Information systems interoperability:
This concept is concerned with the conditions of
the successful exchange of information between
enterprises (such as the compatibility of
applications, data representation and semantics
[information], and infrastructure) and are
considered to be the components of information
system interoperability.
2.3 Chen’s Interoperability
Framework (Chen, 2006a; 2006b)
Chen develops his interoperability framework based
on the EIF, IDEAS, ERISA and ATHENA
interoperability frameworks and defines three
dimensions:
 Interoperability barriers:
This dimension is concerned with conceptual,
technological, and organizational barriers to
interoperability.
− Conceptual barriers: Syntactic (refers to the
packaging and transmission mechanisms for
data) and semantic (refer to the ability of two
parties to agree on the meaning of data)
differences of information are considered as
conceptual barriers.
− Technological barriers: These barriers are
concerned with incompatibility of information
technologies (i.e. infrastructure).
− Organizational barriers: These barriers refer to
incompatibility of organizational structures as
well as understanding of the role, responsibility,
and authority in the organization.
 Enterprise levels:
This dimension defines four enterprise levels for
interoperations, as follows:
− The interoperability of data refers to the ability to
find and share information from heterogeneous
systems.
− The Interoperability of services refers to the
ability to draw together and make use of
functions of various enterprises and entities.
− The interoperability of processes is concerned
with making different processes work together.
− The interoperability of business is concerned
with the harmonization at the level of the
organization/enterprise with the view to develop
and do business together.
 Interoperability approaches:
According to ISO 14258 (as cited in Chen, 2006a)
there are three ways to establish interoperability
between entities:
− Integrated approach: All parties should agree on
a common format for all models.
− Unified approach: use a common format at a
Meta level. This Meta model allows the
development of a mapping between models.
− Federated approach: in this approach, there is no
common format. Hence, the parties should share
AnalysisofInteroperabilityintheQueenslandDisasterManagementSystem
311

their own ontologies in order for the other to
understand the meaning of the models in the
same way.
As shown above, various frameworks use
essentially the same concepts to discuss
interoperability, such as communication, data,
infrastructure, organizational structure, process, etc.
In the next section, we will use these concepts to
explain interoperability issues in a disaster
management system.
3 INTEROPERABILITY,
AND DISASTER
MANAGEMENT
Disaster and emergency decision makers need
information from various resources (Gollery and
Pohl, 2002). Disaster management requires multiple
agencies to work together, and information needs to
change rapidly as the disaster event evolves (Janssen
et al., 2010). To address various aspects of disaster
management a large number of disaster management
organizations exist, resulting in a heterogeneous
system (Noran and Bernus, 2011). Interoperability
of these heterogeneous systems is essential in order
to enable collaboration among these organizations
(Dilmaghani and Rao, 2007). Therefore,
collaboration and interoperability are essential
foundations for effective disaster management
(Waugh Jr and Streib, 2006).
Enterprise Architecture defines and interrelates
data-, process-, resource- and organisational aspects
of enterprises, and is therefore expected that it would
be usable to be used as a guide when considering
interoperability improvements to the design of the
essentially distributed decision-making process in
disaster management (Janssen et al. 2010); (Noran
and Bernus, 2011). Enterprise architecture defines
the fundamental structure of an organization and
provides a holistic approach to the design of
enterprises (Aier and Gleichauf, 2009). Enterprise
Architecture (EA) as a discipline is an inter-
disciplinary approach, providing an effective
combination of the contributions of relevant
disciplines to the management of the evolution and
change (Bernus and Nemes, 2003).
Therefore, by considering disaster management
entities as a network of enterprises in change, or
being re-architected, one could ensure the
application of a holistic and interdisciplinary
approach to the improvements of disaster
management.
In particular, enterprise architecture frameworks,
such as GERAM (Generalised Enterprise Reference
Architecture and Methodology), aim at providing a
complete set of tools, methods and models to be
used by such enterprise engineering efforts (IFIP-
IFAC Task Force, 1999) and provide logical
structure for organizing enterprise architecture
endeavours (Dragstra, 2005), as well as ways to
manage complexity (Janssen and Hjort-Madsen,
2007).
4 RESEACRH METHODOLOGY
The aim of this paper is to explore and analyse
interoperability issues through a concrete case study,
namely to consider the problems of disaster
management as reported by the Queensland floods
commission of inquiry report (2011). Data were
collected from this report and other secondary
resources. This research developed a reference
model and process model, based on data that were
gathered from these secondary sources, which are
considered objective findings and are not subject to
the authors’ interpretation.
Therefore, it is expected that other persons with
enterprise architecture and disaster management
knowledge would be able to obtain the same
outcome as the authors’ research conclusions. As a
result, this research is independent of human
subjective interpretation and classifies as a positivist
study.
This research follows a conceptual analytical
approach (normally starting from assumptions,
premises, and axioms) and derives a theory, model
(as in this particular case), or framework (Jarvinen,
2000). This paper in particular emphasizes how to
develop a model based on facts from secondary data
(in this case literature and government reports).
5 INTEROPERABILITY ISSUES
IN THE QUEENSLAND
DISASTER MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
For the analysis, the authors will use Chen’s
interoperability framework because:
 In comparison with other interoperability
frameworks (e.g. EIF) it is more complete and
holistic, covering interoperability approaches,
concerns, and barriers that are not found in other
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
312

frameworks. However, pragmatic aspects of
interoperability and cultural interoperability at the
national and local levels are not included in this
framework (Noran and Bernus 2011).
 Noran and Bernus (2011) have mapped the stages
of disaster management to the GERA modelling
framework with a full coverage of life cycle
activities and also to Chen’s interoperability
framework (see Fig. 1). This can be useful for
developing a reference model to address
interoperability issues.
Below we demonstrate the use of Chen’s
dimensions to categorise interoperability issues.
We use examples for each dimension: aspect / level /
approach to interoperability.
5.1 Interoperability Barriers
(Conceptual Interoperability
Issues)
In the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry
report (2011), Clerke indicates that using different
activation level terminologies led to confusion in the
disaster management system during the 2011
Queensland floods (disaster management teams use
‘activation levels’ to explain their status during
different times of disaster e.g. ‘alert’, ’lean forward’,
’stand up’ and ’stand down’). For example, using
different activation level terminologies by a
Bundaberg local group in a teleconference with
other disaster management groups led to confusion.
Inconsistency in information may make it
unreliable (Clifford as cited in Mileti, 1995), and
inconsistencies in warning message content may
lead to delays in action (Drabek, 2001).
Consistency in the level of risks terminology and
tone of warning message is critical. The message
must be consistent in the way it conveys information
about the level of risk, and the tone in which it is
given (Fitzpatrick and Mileti as cited in (Paton,
2006)). This exemplifies a semantic interoperability
problem, concerned with using the same meaning of
the vocabulary (Vallespir et al., 2005).
Note that one aspect of semantic interoperability
is concerned with the various understanding by
people of the same concept. During the 2011
Queensland Floods drivers ignored road closure
signs and continued to drive on flooded roads
(Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, 2011).
As different people have different conceptions about
the danger of driving on flooded roads, educating
people during the preparedness phase would reduce
the issues about people having different
preconceptions. Conversely, the researchers believe
that overusing danger signals may condition the
public to ignore important warnings in the future.
5.2 Interoperability Concepts: Data
Interoperability Issues
(Communication)
Communication (data interoperability) between
entities is an essential characteristic of
interoperability (Vallespir et al. 2005). For example,
a disaster management system “depends on the flow
of information between the local, district and state
disaster management groups” (Queensland State
disaster management plan, 2011). The local groups
are in the front line of disaster response and if they
do not have effective communication with the
district group the disaster response would be
ineffective (Queensland Floods Commission of
Inquiry, 2011).
There are some examples of poor communication
during the 2011 Queensland Floods. For example,
the state level of Queensland sent resources to the
region without consulting with the local group.
Another example was sending the emergency
message to the state group without informing the
local group (Queensland Floods Commission of
Inquiry 2011). Consequently, people in some areas
did not receive the warning message in time, and
this led to two deaths at Spring Bluff and two deaths
at Murphys Creek (Queensland Floods Commission
of Inquiry, 2011). During the 2011 Queensland
floods, failures in communication made the disaster
response less efficient in the Somerset region, with
the Somerset local group losing communication with
the district group for two days (Queensland Floods
Commission of Inquiry, 2011).
Acknowledging that is a disaster situation it can
be expected that sometimes there will be loss of
communication, therefore, as a design principle, if
one or several participants in a disaster situation
cannot continue to accomplish their functions, the
rest should be able to continue effectively (Noran
and Bernus, 2011). As a consequence, in a situation
where participants face communication loss they
should be able to continue to function effectively.
The above examples illustrated the importance of
improving data interoperability in disaster
management systems.
5.3 Interoperability Approaches
As discussed in the Section 2.3, there are three
approaches for interoperability: integrated, unified,
and federated. As previously shown, there is no
AnalysisofInteroperabilityintheQueenslandDisasterManagementSystem
313

LIFE CYCLE OF ENTITIES
INVOLVED IN
DISASTER MANAGEMENT
Identification
Concept
Requirements
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Implementation
Decommission
Operation
Prevention
Preparation
Response
Recovery
DISASTER MANAGEMENT
STAGES
INTEROPERABILITY
ASPECTS
Interoperability Concepts
Interoperability Barriers
Business
Service
Process
Data
Figure 1: Disaster event mapping and modelling using a GERA-based formalism (left) and an interoperability framework
(right) (adopted from Noran and Bernus (2011)).
general agreement on using the same evacuation
terminology by local disaster management groups.
There is no obligation for the district and local group
to use the same terminology as each other or state
group (Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry,
2011). Therefore, it can be concluded that the
Queensland management system has employed the
federated approach, as there is no common format.
To analyse the problem, one must consider two
important features of disaster events: time shortage
and complexity.
The federated approach needs enough time for
negotiation and also the presence of multiple formats
increases complexity. Therefore, the authors propose
the use of a unified approach to eliminate these
issues in the Queensland disaster management
system. The unified approach needs advance
negotiation to reach agreement on semantic,
technological, and organizational interoperability
requirements. Noran and Bernus (2011) argue that
the unified approach requires the disaster
management organizations to spend time together in
order to reach agreement on conceptual
interoperability issues.
In the next section, the authors explain how
enterprise architecture can be useful for improving
interoperability in disaster management. The main
focus of this study was to investigate interoperability
issues in the Queensland disaster management
system, however, literatures confirms that
interoperability issues exist in many disaster
management systems. For example, the lack of
attention to organizational interoperability among
disaster responders to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in
United States (U.S.) led to difficulties in
communication and reduced the overall
effectiveness of the disaster management system
(Waugh Jr and Streib, 2006).
6 A MODEL
FOR THE QUEENSLAND
DISASTER MANAEGEMENT
SYSTEM, ADDRESSING ISSUES
OF INTEROPERABILITY
We applied GERAM to develop a model for the
Queensland disaster management. GERAM was
selected because of its following distinct features: a)
complete life-cycle coverage of enterprise entities,
b) considering with equal importance the human and
technical views of systems, c) ability to demonstrate
relationships between life cycle and life history of
entities of an enterprise. Figure 2 shows how
GERAM was used to develop a reference model
with the view to improve interoperability in the
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
314

Queensland disaster management system. The
arrows between entities in Fig. 2 represent
interoperability requirements in the disaster
management system.
Figure 2 shows the roles of various significant
entities in improving interoperability in disaster
management. The concept of collaborative network
in disaster management plays critical role for
effective disaster management to lessen
interoperability issues, because a hallmark of
collaborative networks is that they develop
preparedness ahead of time for joint action (Noran
& Bernus, 2011; Kapucu et. al., 2010; Waugh Jr and
Streib, 2006).
Figure 2 represents the whole of the system and
the arrows show important interoperation between
entities. The model shows how Population may
influence Government and as a result change
legislation. Population has an influence on the
concept, requirement, and preliminary design of the
management part of the Government. Government is
a regulatory body responsible for the identification,
concept development, requirements specification,
preliminary design, detailed design, implementation,
and operation of Disaster Management Laws. Also,
another important interoperability requirement is
that between the Population and the Disaster
Management Taskforce (DMTF).
The need for a DMTF is identified and
conceptualized by Disaster Management
Collaborative Network (DMCN) in order to save
human life and property. The DMCN is developed to
integrate disaster management efforts. Task Force
Reference Models are developed to keep the
knowledge from past experiences and exercises for
using in the future. DMTF uses Taskforce reference
model to decrease the time of response and improve
disaster management efficiency. Taskforce reference
model and The DMCN together are responsible for
specifying the requirements, preliminary designing,
detailed designing, building, operation, and
decommission of Disaster management taskforce.
Disaster management
Agencies
Disaster Management
Standards
Population
Disaster Management
Collaborative Network
Disaster Management
Taskforce
Taskforce
Reference Model
Disaster Management Laws
Governments
Disaster Management
Events/Joint exercises
Figure 2: Interoperability of disaster management system using GERA modelling framework.
AnalysisofInteroperabilityintheQueenslandDisasterManagementSystem
315

The DMCN develops the requirements,
preliminary design, detailed design, building or
implementation of the Reference Model for the
DMTF.. Note that after decommissioning a DMTF,
the DMCN updates the knowledge from experiences
and the lessons learned from past events and
exercises and this is recorded in an evolving
Taskforce Reference Model. Disaster management
standards have influence on the operation of the
Disaster Management Taskforce, as Disaster
management standards provide guidelines and
constraints for ensuring effective disaster
management. The main goal of DMTF is to save
human life and property, and a DMTF can be
created on demand, based on the Reference model,
almost instantaneously.
The DMCN identifies and conceptualizes the
Disaster event. In this case, it means The DMCN is
responsible for the mitigation stage of disaster
events, while the DMTF is responsible for the
preparedness, response, and recovery stages of
disaster events.
Also, interoperability between DMTF within the
DMCN and Disaster Management Organizations is
important because all of these contribute to the
operation disaster management. DMOs include: a.
State Disaster Management Group (SDMG), District
Disaster Management Group (DDMG), Local
Disaster Management Group (LDMG), and b. all
Disaster Management Agencies (DMA) such as
Emergency Management Queensland (EMQ)
Queensland Police Service (QPS) and State
Emergency Service (SES). Disaster management
Laws have an impact on the design (policies,
principles of design, processes and procedures) of all
Disaster Management Organizations, the DMCN,
and the DMTF to ensure effective participation and
response.
Disaster Management Laws (DMLs) are being
used throughout the concept development,
specification, preliminary design, detailed design,
and implementation or building of DMOs. DMOs,
taking into account DMLs, have to jointly develop
the initial form of the Disaster Management
Collaborative Network, although after initial
creation the Network is responsible for its own
detailed design, after the specified the requirements,
preliminary design, detailed design of the
management of the Network, and appointed (‘built’),
the management of the Disaster Management
Collaborative Network. Importantly the Network,
from time to time, self-designs, i.e., the DMCN is
expected to adapt itself to changing conditions.
7 CONCLUSIONS
This paper investigated interoperability issues in
disaster management and illustrated a process using
enterprise architecture principles and frameworks
that could be used to address interoperability issues,
and this was illustrated through the Queensland
disaster management system. As explained before,
interoperability has various dimensions (like
communication-,cultural- and, organizational-), and
this research has, through secondary data analysis,
indeed found examples of these in the Queensland
disaster management system. Our future research
intends to study organizational design problems
from the interoperability perspective, and how these
can be overcome in disaster management.
REFERENCES
Aier, S. & Gleichauf, B. 2009. Towards a sophisticated
understanding of service design for enterprise
architecture. In Proc ICSOC’2009. LNCS 5472. Berlin
: Springer, pp316-326.
Bernus, P. & Nemes, L. 2003. Introduction to enterprise
architecture. In: Bernus, P., Nemes, L. & Schmidt, G.
(Eds.) Handbook on enterprise architecture . Berlin :
Springer.
Chen, D. 2006a. Enterprise interoperability framework.
Proceedings of Enterprise Modelling and Ontologies
for Interoperability, in Michele Missikoff, Antonio De
Nicola, Fulvio D'Antonio (Eds.): Proc EMOI-
INTEROP'06. CEUR Workshop Proc, 200. p5
Chen, D. 2006b. Framework for enterprise
interoperability. In Panetto, H. and Boudjlida, N (Eds)
IFAC Ei2N Workshop on Interoperability for
Enterprise Software and Applications. pp77-88.
Chen, R., Sharman, R., Chakravarti, N., Rao, H. R. &
Upadhaya, S. J. 2008. Emergency response
information system interoperability: development of
chemical incident response data model. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 9, 200-230.
Dilmaghani, R. B. & Rao, R. Hybrid communication
infrastructure and social implications for disaster
management. International Conference on System
Sciences, 2007 Hawaii. IEEE, 22-22.
Drabek, T. E. 2001. Disaster warning and evacuation
responses by private business employees. Disasters,
25, 76-94.
Dragstra, P. 2005. Enterprise Architecture. The Selection
Process of an Enterprise Architecture Toolset to
Support Understanding and Governing the Enterprise,
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven .
EIF. 2004. European interoperability framework for pan-
european egovernment services. IDA working
document, version, 2.
Eshghi, K. & Larson, R. C. 2008. Disasters: lessons from
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
316

the past 105 years. Disaster prevention and
management, 17, 62-82.
IFIP IFAC Task Force. 1999. GERAM: Generalised
enterprise reference architecture and methodology
version 1.6.3.
Gollery, S. J. & Pohl, J. G. 2002. The Role of Discovery
in Context-Building Decision-Support Systems.
Collaborative Agent Design (CAD) Research Center,
55.
Gottschalk, P. 2009. Maturity levels for interoperability in
digital government. Government Information
Quarterly, 26, 75-81.
Government, Queensland. 2011. Queensland State
Disaster Management Plan, 1-54.
Government, Queensland. 2011. Queensland Floods
Commission of Inquiry, 1-323.
IBISWORLD, 2011. Queensland floods: The economic
impact, 1-8.
Janssen, M. & Hjort-Madsen, K. 2007. Analyzing
enterprise architecture in national governments: The
cases of Denmark and the Netherlands. In Proc
HICSS’07. IEEE, 218a-218a.
Janssen, M., Lee, J. K., BharosaA, N. & Cresswell, A.
2010. Advances in multi-agency disaster management:
Key elements in disaster research. Information
Systems Frontiers, 12, 1-7.
Jarvinen, P. 2000. Research questions guiding selection of
an appropriate research method, in In Proc 8
th
European Conf on Information Systems, pp124-131
Kapucu, N., Arslan, T. & Demiroz, F. 2010. Collaborative
emergency management and national emergency
management network. Disaster prevention and
management, 19, 452-468.
Kuehn, A., Kachewsky, M., Kappeler, A., Spichiger, A. &
Riedl, R. 2011. Interoperability and information
brokers in public safety: an approach toward seamless
emergency communications. Journal of theoretical
and applied electronic commerce research, 6, 43-60.
Loos, P., Werth, D., Balzert, S., Burkhart, T. & Kamper,
S. 2011. Handbook of research in enterprise systems.
In: Kumar, S., Esteves, J. & Bendoly, E. (eds.)
Handbook of research in enterprise systems. Response
Books.
Middelmann-Fernandes, M. H. 2009. Review of the
Australian Flood Studies Database In: Department of
resources, E. A. T. (ed.). Canberra : Geoscience
Australia.
Mileti, D. S. Factors related to flood warning response.
US–Italy Research Workshop on the
Hydrometeorology, Impacts, and Management of
Extreme Floods, Perugia, Italy, 1995. 13-17.
Noran, O. & Bernus, P. (2011). Effective disaster
management: an interoperability perspective. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, 7046, 112-121.
Paton, D. 2006. Warning Systems: Issues and
considerations for warning the public. Douglas Paton .
Seifert, J. W. Reauthorization of the E-Government Act: A
brief overview. 2008. Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress.
Vallespir, B., Chen, D. & Ducq, Y. 2005. Enterprise
modelling for interoperability. Proc 16
th
IFAC World
Congress. IFAC Papers online. 1529-1529
Waugh Jr, W. L. & Streib, G. 2006. Collaboration and
leadership for effective emergency management.
Public Administration Review, 66, 131-140.
AnalysisofInteroperabilityintheQueenslandDisasterManagementSystem
317