Applying Systems Thinking onto Emergency Response Planning

Using Soft Systems Methodology to Structure a National Act in Sweden

Christine Groβe

Department of Information and Communication Systems, Mid Sweden University, Holmgatan, Sundsvall, Sweden

Keywords: Soft Systems Methodology, Operations Research, Emergency Response Planning, Decision Support, Styrel.

Abstract: This paper outlines a soft systems method approach to model a national preparedness planning procedure for

the case of an electrical power shortage. Through the model, we provide a new perspective on enhancing and

understanding the joint decision-making environment for the actors involved in the planning procedure, as

well as its underlying power structure. By a process of abstraction from the current implementation, a core

root definition is presented which provides a generic systems view that can be a useful concept for the study

of similar contexts. An action model dedicated to determining meaningful and valid activities is derived,

providing insights for the improvement of collaborative emergency response planning in general. The paper,

thus, aims to contribute to the communication and cooperation between actors and stakeholders in the

development of appropriate decision processes and decision support in the context of emergency preparedness.

1 INTRODUCTION

The constant availability of electricity is, nowadays,

a precondition for many parts of infrastructure. It is

demanded in almost every part of our day-to-day lives

and businesses. Since lacking power affects essential

functions of a society’s common life, it constitutes a

key sector of critical infrastructure (CI). Cascading

consequences can harm other sectors of CI and,

thereby, affect the industry and population which

depends upon them (Rinaldi et al., 2001). These

consequences can occur locally, affect a larger

community, and also involve global interests. Thus,

proper planning of the power supply is necessary.

Variations in electricity generation related to

consumption can also lead to risk situations in the

supply network, which have to be balanced to

maintain the reliability of power delivery

(Maliszewski and Perrings, 2012).

Due to the dimensions and climate conditions of

Sweden, providing electrical power to every

inhabited place is challenging for both humans and

materials. Maintaining a distributed power grid needs

permanent effort. Since infallible protection against

all kinds of power shortage seems to be an impossible

task, proper continuity management and emergency

response planning can help to handle adverse events

and alleviate the consequences of them. Sweden’s

power generation and supply landscape is fragmented

due to the privatisation of the electricity market in

1996 (Bergman, 1997). This fragmentation hampers

decision paths and complicates communication

between the individuals and groups responsible for

electrical power in Sweden. In order to manage

continuous power delivery, many of the necessary

adjustment operations are automated. Nevertheless,

in the case of power shortage, a response plan can

support reliable decision making. Besides an analysis

of the societal consequences, the planning needs to

consider responsibilities, a previously defined chain

of order, plausible and documented priorities, and a

structured approach, enabling an operations team to

reach the goals of reconditioning and maintenance

while causing as little subsequent problems as

possible (Johansson and Hassel, 2014).

Contingency planning – preparing this solid basis

for an operational emergency response – depends on

information sharing and cooperation between the

stakeholders involved (Pramanik at al., 2015), and

their perception of a crisis (Nilsson, 2010; Penrose,

2000; van Laere, 2013). The combination of various

stakeholders being involved, with their own points of

interest and responsibilities, and the sensitivity of the

power grid, is expected to cause tensions. The added

fact that these tensions can impact interdependent CI

impels the following study.

The study investigates the planning process and

circumstances with a particular focus on the

288

GroÃ§e C.

Applying Systems Thinking onto Emergency Response Planning - Using Soft Systems Methodology to Structure a National Act in Sweden.

DOI: 10.5220/0006126202880297

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems (ICORES 2017), pages 288-297

ISBN: 978-989-758-218-9

stakeholders involved, their interrelations, and the

belonging context. The leading research question is:

Which elements of a conceptual system model

should be considered during emergency response

planning, regarding power supply within the complex

context of critical infrastructure?

Since the problem situation appears to be not

particularly well-structured, with unclear objectives,

a soft system analysis and modelling approach has

been chosen to meet the conditions appropriately

(Avison and Taylor, 1997). The remainder of the

paper reads as follows: after briefly describing the

background of systems thinking and the response

planning approach, the research process is outlined.

After the system analysis, the conceptual system

model is presented and discussed, related to the

associated context. Final remarks conclude the paper

and outline the prospects for further research.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Systems Thinking

The term “system” has been discussed for more than

half a century. This discussion provoked a number of

concepts and opinions. This paper falls short of

defining the term in general; rather, the concepts

underlying the study and research-leading points of

view are marked. Systems can be considered to be

‘complexes of elements standing in interaction’

(Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 33). Interactions in this quote

suggests that relations between elements are not

linear, and by that trivial – rather, they are complex

and do not necessarily have correlations by causality

or determinism. Searching for a generally valid

theory to describe phenomena inside, between and

around systems gave rise to the General System

Theory, which emphasis its interdisciplinary

character by accepting both mathematical and

sociological analysis techniques (Bertalanffy, 1968,

p. 2). The open system, standing in an exchange

relationship to its environment, crosses system

borders in useful interaction (Bertalanffy, 1968,

p. 141). This illustrates the challenges to set system

boundaries, and not only in the context of response

planning. The fact that individuals can be seen as

elements in one or several systems can result in

conflicts in goals and behaviour. The intention to

provide a universal approach to all kind of system led

to a hierarchical classification of complexity

according to corresponding individuals (Boulding,

1956). In this hierarchical order, the social system

appeared at the top in terms of complexity. Evidently,

influences on power structures and group behaviour,

as well as individual target tracking, within and

between systems, are all related to this order. It

complicates the predictability of interactions and the

ensuing decisions within a social system.

Furthermore, modern societies and organisations

are characterised by the use of many technical

systems. The functionalities of the technical part of a

complex system can influence the social environment.

In turn, the knowledge and behaviour of an intended

user influences the outcome of a technical system. A

socio-technical system, as a holistic system, is able to

achieve a better outcome than the parts standing alone

(Emery and Trist, 1960). Particularly important is the

ability of the human, as part of the system, to create

improvement and add value to the system (Mumford,

2006). Moreover, their adaptability of behaviour in

emergencies is an important aspect for system

resilience (Boin and McConnell, 2007).

Besides the technical infrastructure, the power-

delivery system relies on the willingness of decision-

makers in case of power outages (Maliszewski and

Perrings, 2012). This unbalanced power relation

requires intervention by the government to preserve

societal interests. If conflicts between groups of

interests arise, a balancing of risks is required to avoid

the damage that could be caused by conflict

escalation (Wimelius and Engberg, 2015). In

addition, an observer’s perspective in his or her role

as a system analyst can be biased, which raises further

potential for conflicts. An analyst has to respect

constitutive characteristics while introducing an

observed system to analysis; namely they are:

different points of view, events and decisions,

interconnectivity and a topic as limitation (Kieser,

2001; Rüegg-Stürm, 2001).

Hence, two dimensions of governance have

resulted from the deliberations above, providing a

basis for response planning: the horizontal –

structures for processes, with resources and

responsibilities, and the vertical – structures for

organisation, e.g., power structures within a system.

Thus, consequent coordination of the information

flow through a system, both horizontal and vertical,

provides adequate conditions for communication and

cooperation between interrelated elements of a

system. A case of particular importance is the

response planning system in Sweden regarding the

power supply to key consumers in the context of CI.

2.2 Response Planning in the Context

of the Power Supply in Sweden

The national planning procedure regarding the power

Applying Systems Thinking onto Emergency Response Planning - Using Soft Systems Methodology to Structure a National Act in Sweden

289

supply during an event of power shortage, named

TYREL, was prepared since 2004 and tested by its first

iteration in 2010-2011. Purpose of the procedure is to

gather data on the infrastructure that depends on

electricity. A particular focus lies on the identification

of consumers whose activities are essential for

national society, with regards to health, safety and

interdependent businesses. Consumers are ranked in

advance to ensure immediate decision-making during

an emergency either caused or accompanied by

lacking electricity. Due to the amount of involved

departments and companies, the structured approach

was developed for an ascertainment of priority lists.

The second iteration (2014-2015) was launched

by the following national authorities: (1) the Swedish

Civil Contingencies Agency, (2) Energy Department,

(3) Swedish Energy Markets Inspectorate, and (4)

Swedish national grid provider, Svenska Kraftnät.

National agencies identified electricity consumers at

a national level, and categorised them depending on

their importance to national societal functions. This

categorising was conveyed to the county

administrative board (CAB) where the respective

consumers were located. CABs initiated the operation

within their regional area. They provided information

to municipalities and called for action. Municipalities

identified and ranked key power consumers locally.

Local grid operators assisted with details regarding

technical feasibility. Lists of categorised consumers

were returned to the CAB. Each CAB assessed the

data collected from a regional perspective. If power

lines cross county borders, adjacent counties had to

categorise those lines together. The consumer ranking

was finally forwarded to local, regional and national

grid providers as a basis for their response planning.

(Energy Department 2014)

3 RESEARCH PROCESS

3.1 Soft Systems Methodology

The methodological research concept used in this

paper is grounded on the Soft Systems Methodology

(SSM) approach developed by Checkland (1972),

aligned with the design-oriented research process of

analysis, design, evaluation, and diffusion used in

information system research (Österle et al., 2011).

The entire process of SSM in its classical form

constitutes seven stages (S) (Checkland, 1989): S1:

Enter the situation that is considered problematic,

S2: Express the problem situation, S3: Formulate root

definitions of the relevant systems, S4: Build

conceptual models of the systems named in the root

definitions, S5: Compare the models with real world

situations, S6: Define possible changes which are

both possible and feasible, S7: Take action to improve

the problem situation.

SSM is arranged in this way to explore different

views stakeholders concerned with a situation can

have, and to achieve shared understanding about

relevant and necessary actions. The object of this

approach is to provide structure to a complex problem

situation. This structure is used to determine activities

that are able to improve the initial situation. SSM is

used with similar intentions, exploring complex

situations and meeting various stakeholder needs,

often in the early stages of systems development

(Cundill et al., 2012; Hakami et al., 2013; Mendoza

and Prabhu, 2006; Sørensen et al., 2010).

3.2 Data Analysis

S1 is performed within and across documentations

and notices about the current planning process. The

literature selected is limited to the outlined case and

given context in order to gain a holistic understanding

of the observed system and its interacting elements.

Different interests in the situation and existing

correlations are investigated alongside. Discovering

significant roles and power structures is part of the

argumentative-deductive analysis, as well as

exploring the system environment and boundaries.

Various criteria are applied to analyse the case.

Thereby, individual interpretations by the system

observer were kept to the margins for a qualitative

text analysis. The epistemological goal of the analysis

is to explore what the current situation characterises.

3.3 Conceptual Model Design

Results from the data analysis constitute the systems-

thinking foundation for the content of the conceptual

system model. Furthermore, the sub-models are based

on each other to obtain, step-by-step, a higher level of

abstraction. The purpose is to detach the thinking

from the current implementation of the planning case

in Sweden, and to yield a generic analysis concept for

complex response planning situations. For reasons of

generality, no explicit modelling language is applied;

instead, the model design is based on the figures of

SSM used in the literature (e.g. Checkland and

Scholes, 1999; Proches and Bodhanya, 2015).

In the course of S2, a ‘Rich Picture’ is created that

represents individuals and groups, their conceivable

concerns, technical and environmental elements, and

interrelations between the components. Researchers’

interaction with the case enriches the model. This can

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

290

require several iterations to deal with structures

(Grochla, 1974; Mingers and Taylor, 1992).

During S3, a root definition is formulated that

represents a generic system model for planning a

power-shortage response. Besides the system

definition, the research considers the elements of

CATWOE (Smyth and Checkland, 1976), see Table1.

Table 1: Elements of CATWOE, after Checkland and

Scholes, 1999, p. 35.

Element Description

Customers The victim or beneficiaries of T

Actors Involved persons in / Performer of T

Transformation

Process

Conversion of input to output

Weltanschauung

Big picture that makes the T

meaningful in the context

Owner Ruler who could stop T

Environmental

constraints

Elements outside which it takes as

given

In S4, an action model is derived from the root

definition, establishing a bridge between concept and

practice. The leading question for building this sub-

model is: What are the purposeful activities necessary

to carry out the specified transformation process, T?

Individual interests and goal conflicts are reduced by

focusing on the generic root definition.

3.4 Evaluation and Further Steps

During S5, the sub-models are compared with a real

world situation. Several methods are suggested to

perform this step; using formal questioning is the

most common (Checkland & Scholes, 1999, p. 43),

and is also used in this study. Several stakeholders

were confronted with the models during interviews.

Eight security coordinators, representing all of the

municipalities of one rural, sparsely-inhabited county

in northern Sweden, participated in qualitative

interviews. In addition, two experts from a local grid

provider were questioned. Seven of the people

interviewed were involved twice, one of them once,

and two had no practical experience in the procedure.

The interviews varied in length but generally took

about one hour, and are recorded and transcribed.

S6 encourages a debate about the changes that are

possible and feasible. Changes to the investigated

situation suggested during the performed interviews

are presented. Furthermore, conceivable changes

regarding the models, in order to adapt them to a

broader context, were also debated with the experts.

S7 motivates actors to take action to improve the

initial situation. Contributions towards achieving a

conceivable improvement of the situation are

indicated in the discussion and conclusion section.

Attending the implementing process of the possible

changes, however, is not part of the current research.

SSM promotes a continuous circle using conscious

critical reflection and learning (Checkland and

Poulter, 2006, p. 61). This circle is supported by the

diffusion of the current research results.

4 SOFT SYSTEM MODEL

4.1 Results of the Analysis

Throughout the analysis, documentations regarding

the case were examined using the following

questions: (A) Which components exist and are

relevant to the situation? (B) What are the concerns

of the identified components? (C) How do the

components relate to each other? (D) Within what

context are the components embedded?

Several system components were discovered. On

the one side, municipalities, country councils and

national authorities are charged with response

planning. On the other side, national, regional and

local grid providers are responsible for executing the

contingency plan in case of a power shortage. In

addition, local grid providers are also involved in the

planning process, cooperating with the respective

municipalities. On top of this, four national

responsible authorities, as mentioned in 2.2, initiate

the planning procedure. Since the roles of the

components within the situation are different, various

concerns arise; s like: how shall the practical work be

performed? Is the plan feasible, according to

technical conditions of the grid? Who will be affected

by the decisions made? How can the resulting

response plan be used? Moreover, relations between

system components can cause the grounds for further

concerns. They can be based on power structures as

well as on discomfort regarding collaboration or

workload. As a result of the separation between

planning and execution, without adequate feedback,

the commitment of actors may fade away during day-

by-day business. This can also affect awareness about

the contextual frame. Aside from that, the complexity

of the context provides an obstacle to holistic

planning, although the holistic view is a necessary

requirement for investigating all interdependencies.

Since a power shortage can have cascading effects on

other infrastructures, national security, the economy,

and society can all be affected. Not least, power

production and distribution also leads to thoughts

about economic and environmental issues for many

of involved parties. The system components and their

interactions in the context derived from the analysis

Applying Systems Thinking onto Emergency Response Planning - Using Soft Systems Methodology to Structure a National Act in Sweden

291

Figure 1: Rich Picture of the Problem Situation.

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

292

interactions in the context derived from the analysis

above provide the basis for the representations in the

next section, which elaborates on the conceptual

model performing S2 - S4.

4.2 Conceptual System Model (1-3)

4.2.1 Rich Picture of the Problem Situation

The first sub-model of the conceptual system model

is the Rich Picture, representing the current national

constellation, as shown in Figure 1. It contains the

elements, their relevant concerns, and relations in the

specific situational context discovered during the

analysis. Following SSM, the picture includes several

different concerns and a certain level of subjectivity.

Concerns are exemplary and represent a selection

across the conceivable spectrum of matters. Doubts

that an individual party has can also be a concern of

another party or both parties, exactly as it can be an

inappropriate concern.

Besides the national authorities, which initiate the

planning process, other decision makers and

responsibilities are shown. Their particular concerns

and relations between each other are displayed.

Moreover, the illustration expresses connections and

(inter-) dependencies between society, environment,

other CI, and the national economy, as well as the

industrial and financial sectors. The fact that all of the

actors within the situation also depend on power

delivery is represented by dashed arrows between the

power grid and the actors. Specific notable aspects

appear as labels, figurative expressions, and thoughts.

The latter uses straight lines with balloon messages

assigned to actors. The dotted arrows indicate a

hierarchical order structure within an organisation.

4.2.2 Root Definition of the System

Derived from the case analysis and the Rich Picture,

the core root definition of the generic system is

prepared and provided in Figure 2 below. This

definition represents a generic system to support

decision-making on the controlled disconnection and

delivery of electricity in the case of a power shortfall.

The owner of the system (O) is the government,

because it has the authority to cancel the entire

transformation process (T), which constitutes the core

concept of the system. Furthermore, the government

has a long-term interest at a higher level in the societal

and ethical aspects of the process. The grid operators

are identified as the intended customers (C) of the

system. Their decision-making shall be supported by

adequate means produced during the transformation

process of the system. Various actors (A) operate

inside the conceptual system. These are professionals

with different kinds of experience and decision-

making power. Between them, various structures of

communication and cooperation arise. The

Weltanschauung (W) states that decision-making is

Core Root Definition

A government-owned system, staffed by local, regional and national qualified professionals,

which, considering legal regulations and technical limitations, supports planning and

preparedness. It provides relevant information for decision-making on power supply in the

case of power shortage. The system collects and prioritises power consumers that meet

the criterion

’important to society’

in order to preserve and maintain critical infrastructure

during a crisis situation that makes an impact on local, regional or national society.

C grid operators of all kind (local, regional, national)

A experts and professionals within municipalities, local grid operators, county councils

and national authorities

T need for supported qualified decision-making to enhance resilience – need met by

structured information about power consumers

W planning of decision-making is achievable and enhances emergency management

O government

E legal regulations and technical limitations of the grid structure

Figure 2: Core Root Definition of a Generic System to Support Decisions on Power Allocation.

Applying Systems Thinking onto Emergency Response Planning - Using Soft Systems Methodology to Structure a National Act in Sweden

293

something that can be planned, which enhances

emergency management. From the system-owner’s

perspective, it may also represent another long-term

interest to support the resilience of the critical system.

Legal regulations as well as technical limitations in

the control abilities of power grid components

constitute the environmental constraints (E) of the

presented generic system.

4.2.3 Action Model

An action model, as Figure 3 demonstrates, is

designed following the statements in the core root

definition, which help to abstract the thinking from

the current implementation. The model presents

relevant actions during response planning to obtain

support for decisions on power allocation in case of a

power shortage. To identify power consumers in need

is one of these actions. Classification criteria are

needed as well as an understanding about how to use

them, observing potential subjectivity. Associated

emergencies and their different requirements for

decision-making and measurement constitute the

crisis scenarios. Moreover, technical limitations to

power grid control have to be investigated. Power

consumers are classified using criteria. Grid-control

abilities affect how consumers can be served.

Figure 3: Conceptual Action Model.

Balancing between importance and a reasonable

level of redundancy within a region influences

information aggregation. Information about power

consumption completes the decision.

The monitoring and documentation of the process

steps, and results of decisions made, are both

necessary to ensure the quality of the process and to

provide a basis for improvement. Defined

performance criteria assist in the appreciation of the

success of the approach and enable the people

responsible to take control actions in case of

variation. Due to the fact that various actors within

the public and private sectors involved in the system,

individual goals can differ and the system owner may

request an adequate control ability. This control

subsystem controls the activities performed during a

transformation process by means of a feedback loop.

4.3 Debate and Further Action

The conceptual system model, containing the sub-

models, was presented during semi-structured face-

to-face interviews. The participants was encouraged

to compare the models with the real-world situation.

Open-ended questions were asked in order to gain

stakeholder perspectives and individual opinions.

Although the Rich Picture was considered to be

complex and full of detail by all at the first glance,

after a short time and closer inspection, the content

and interactions became clear and the participants

themselves became interested in further discussion.

Many wanted to talk about details that they were

particularly interested in. Often, these details were

related to their own experiences and concerns.

However, aspects concerning the work of others were

also noticed with interest. There was a strong

consensus that CI and possible cascade effects caused

by a power shortfall are central points of their

planning work. All of the participants expressed the

opinion that the Rich Picture could be used to

heighten the general public’s awareness regarding the

complexity of the situation. In addition, many said

they would like to see this picture implemented as a

form of interactive training, which would enable the

individuals responsible to explore the situation, as

well as the planning and response procedure, as a

process by themselves, step-by-step.

The root definition and the action model were

approached with slight difficulty by some, and were

perceived as being less accessible than the Rich

Picture. After a short investigation, this opinion

changed fast. Participants could see benefits in the

generality and experienced the activities as valuable

and reasonable. Almost all of the people interviewed

could imagine using the action model in other

emergency preparedness planning settings too. Some

participants mentioned a desire to have a more

straightforward process model providing more

distinct sequences for the activities. All participants

considered a control cycle to be important for their

planning work, which is notably absent in the existing

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

294

emergency response planning procedure.

The participants felt that more time for detailed

consideration, and also further discussion with other

actors involved in the procedure, would be desirable.

Such collaboration can help people to exchange

insights, gain a shared understanding about “expected

performance”, and, not least, to overcome flaws

within the procedure. Further changes and actions

was suggested as follows: (A) The usage of the

resulting response plan needs clarifying, (B) The

expected engagement during the planning activities

needs to be communicated, (C) A feedback-loop has

to be initiated to improve the procedure and to help

actors to stay motivated, (D) Adapted how-to guides

for planning activities can be developed in order to

lower entry barriers, particularly for new personnel.

5 DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUDING REMARKS

One recurring concern in studies within emergency

management in Sweden is the need for adequate

information paths: both inside a system, between

actors during planning activities, and outwardly, to

affected people and groups during emergencies

(Enander et al., 2015; Hansén, 2009; Olofsson, 2011;

Palm, 2009). Formal and informal practices to reach

dedicated stakeholder groups have been presented.

This paper provides an informal basis for

establishing communication and encouraging

collaboration. First, a Rich Picture was designed,

based on the literature analysis. It visualises the

structures and (inter-) dependencies between the

stakeholders involved, and their communication

paths related to the planning process. All known

actors are included and their concerns are

exemplified. Since the space is limited, just a few

issues are specified. However, they do not exclude

additional relevant concerns, nor are the formulated

thoughts limited to one special group of stakeholders.

During the interview, one participant remarked that

the secrecy ascribed to the exchanged information

was not noted in the picture. Aside from the fact that

this can be done easily, the intention during modelling

was to keep the complexity manageable for the

beholder. Such supplementary information can be

valuable and readily interpretable in interactive

representations or adapted views concerned with

specific aspects, such as information security.

Deduced from the case and problem situation, the

core root definition of the generic system was then

outlined. The system definition abstracts from the

concrete real-world setting, and focuses in on the

purpose and circumstances of a generic system, as

well as on responsible actors within their different

roles. While establishing the core root definition,

abstractions are made to obtain a generally valid

system definition, with respect to the aim intended by

the initial case.

The action model completes the conceptual soft

systems analysis model. Meaningful and generally

valid activities are developed by an investigation of

the core root definition with respect to the research

question. The model provides insights for improving

collaborative response planning to power shortages.

The people interviewed appreciated the value of the

generic action model during overarching national

response planning. They also perceived its usefulness

in other contexts, such as water and fuel emergencies,

and even in a more holistic approach for emergency

response planning generally. The action model can be

adapted to other national or sector-based contexts,

e.g., by using modified keywords. It can also be used

as a tool to consider conceivable dependencies and

local, regional, and national resilience. It makes no

claims over the due sequence of activities within an

associated transformation process respective process

model. Therefore, developing a (reference) process

model can be an activity supporting change,

according to S7. In consequence, the level of

flexibility will be reduced for the advantage of lower

entry obstacles and a relieved work flow. In the

specification of such a model, responsibilities should

be formulated and the adequate implementation of a

feedback loop considered. In addition, security

concerns can be specified, as well as determining

authorisation levels regarding access to information.

Furthermore, another control cycle can be

modelled in addition to the action model. This second

control cycle controls the kind of monitoring, the

success criteria, and the control actions needed in

order to enable supervision of the controlling

activities. Key indicators that facilitate the controlling

of the level of success are called the ‘3 Es’ in SSM.

Those are efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness, and

can be added to the activities and the first control

cycle of the action model presented in Section 4.2.3.

Thus, it can be assessed whether the measurements

work, whether the right activities are performed to

meet long-term interests, and whether resource

allocation is sparing (Checkland, 1989). The indicator

efficiency needs careful consideration in the context

of power allocation, since efficiency and resilience

are slightly contrary concepts. The government

should not only put trust in communities’ ability to

adapt and be resilient (Bulley, 2013); it also has to

encourage partnership and communication in order to

Applying Systems Thinking onto Emergency Response Planning - Using Soft Systems Methodology to Structure a National Act in Sweden

295

reach the favoured collaboration before, during and

after a crisis (Powley, 2009; Ödlund, 2010). Such

indicators were not detected through the case analysis

and interviews. Within the paper, performance

indicators are not substantiated due to the generality

of the conceptual soft system analysis model.

Since power allocation for power consumers,

besides technical constraints, comes with ethical and

political concerns, the SSM approach was considered

to be informative by the respondents in this paper. As

described in Section 4.2, the approach provides a

means for structuring the complex situation of

collaborative national response planning. The case

reported on herein, S

TYREL, shows that emergency

response planning is characterised by multiple

stakeholders providing different views and

perspectives in a distributed environment. Section 4.3

suggests that SSM enabled an open mind-set among

the people interviewed, facilitating discussion and

suggestions for improvements. As such, increased

comprehension of this type can provide a good basis

for further improvement of organisational learning

and knowledge management. In consequence, these

improvements can provide a solid support for

achieving reliable decision processes and support for

decisions. Thus, applying SSM in the current stage of

the emergency preparedness and response planning

process resulted in an improved understanding of the

complexity of the process and the relationships

between the involved parties.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is supported by the Swedish Energy

Department alongside the project: “Från myndighet

till medborgare och tillbaka: En studie av samverkan

och kommunikation inom ramen för Styrel”.

REFERENCES

Avison, D. E., and Taylor, V. (1997). Information systems

development methodologies: A classification according

to problem situation. Journal of Information

Technology, 12(1), 73–81.

Bergman, L. (1997). Fungera den nya elmarknaden?

Ekonomisk Debatt, 25(7), 407–413.

Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General System Theory:

Foundations, Development, Applications. New York:

Braziller.

Boin, A., and McConnell, A. (2007). Preparing for Critical

Infrastructure Breakdowns: The Limits of Crisis

Management and the Need for Resilience. Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 15(1), 50–59.

Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory - The

skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197–

208.

Bulley, D. (2013). Producing and Governing Community

(through) Resilience. Politics, 33(4), 265–275.

Checkland, P. B. (1972). Towards a systems-based

methodology for real-world problem solving. Journal

of Systems Engineering, 3(2), 87–116.

Checkland, P., and Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action:

A short definitive account of soft systems methodology

and its use for practitioner, teachers, and students.

Chichester: Wiley.

Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. (1999). Soft systems

methodology in action: A 30-year retrospective ([New

ed.]). Chichester, Eng., New York: Wiley.

Checkland, P. B. (1989). Soft Systems Methodology.

Human Systems Management. (8), 273–289.

Cundill, G., Cumming, G. S., Biggs, D., and Fabricius, C.

(2012). Soft systems thinking and social learning for

adaptive management. Conservation biology : Journal

of the Society for Conservation Biology, 26(1), 13–20.

Energy Department (Ed.) (2014). Styrel: Handbok för

styrels planeringsomgång 2014–2015. ET2013:23.

Emery, F. E., and Trist, E. L. (1960). Socio-technical

systems. In C. W. Churchman & M. Verhulst (Eds.),

Management Science Models and Techniques (2nd ed.,

pp. 83–97). Pergamon.

Enander, A., Hede, S., and Lajksjö, Ö. (2015). Why

Worry?: Motivation for Crisis Preparedness Work

among Municipal Leaders in Sweden. Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 23(1), 1–10.

Grochla, E. (1974). Systemtheoretisch-kybernetische

Modellbildung betrieblicher Systeme. In E. Grochla, H.

Fuchs, & H. Lehmann (Eds.), Schmalenbachs

Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung: Vol.

3. Systemtheorie und Betrieb (pp. 11–22). Opladen:

Westdt. Verlag.

Hakami, A., Kumar, A., Shim, S. J., and Nahleh, Y. A.

(2013). Application of Soft Systems Methodology in

Solving Disaster Emergency Logistics Problems.

International Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace,

Industrial, Mechatronic and Manufacturing

Engineering, 7(12), 2470–2477.

Hansén, D. (2009). Effects of Buzzwords on Experiential

Learning: The Swedish Case of ‘Shared Situation

Awareness’. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis

Management, 17(3), 169–178.

Johansson, J., and Hassel, H. (2014). Impact of Functional

Models in a Decision Context of Critical Infrastructure

Vulnerability Reduction. In M. Beer, S.-K. Au, & J. W.

Hall (Eds.), 2nd International Conference on

Vulnerability and Risk Analysis and Management

(ICVRAM) and the 6th International Symposium on

Uncertainty, Modeling, and Analysis (ISUMA), 577–

586.

Kieser, A. (2001). Konstruktivistische Ansätze. In A.

Kieser (Ed.), Organisationstheorien (4th ed.). Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer.

ICORES 2017 - 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

296

Maliszewski, P. J., and Perrings, C. (2012). Factors in the

resilience of electrical power distribution

infrastructures. Applied Geography, 32(2), 668–679.

Mendoza, G. A., and Prabhu, R. (2006). Participatory

modeling and analysis for sustainable forest

management: Overview of soft system dynamics

models and applications. Forest Policy and Economics,

9(2), 179–196.

Mingers, J., and Taylor, S. (1992). The Use of Soft Systems

Methodology in Practice. Journal of the Operational

Research Society, 43(4), 321–332.

Mumford, E. (2006). The story of socio-technical design:

reflections on its successes, failures and potential.

Information Systems Journal, (16), 317–342.

Nilsson, J. (2010). What’s the Problem? Local Officials’

Conceptions of Weaknesses in their Municipalities’

Crisis Management Capabilities. Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 18(2), 83–95.

Olofsson, A. (2011). Organizational Crisis Preparedness in

Heterogeneous Societies: The OCPH Model. Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19(4), 215–

226.

Palm, J. (2009). Emergency Management in the Swedish

Electricity Grid from a Household Perspective. Journal

of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(1), 55–

63.

Penrose, J. M. (2000). The role of perception in crisis

planning. Public Relations Review, 26(2), 155–171.

Powley, E. H. (2009). Reclaiming resilience and safety:

Resilience activation in the critical period of crisis.

Human Relations, 62(9), 1289–1326.

Pramanik, R., Ekman, O., Hassel, H., and Tehler, H. (2015).

Organizational Adaptation in Multi-Stakeholder Crisis

Response: An Experimental Study. Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 23(4), 234–

245.

Proches, C. N. G., and Bodhanya, S. (2015). An

Application of Soft Systems Methodology in the Sugar

Industry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,

14(1), 1–15.

Rinaldi, S. M., Peerenboom, J. P., and Kelly, T. K. (2001).

Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical

infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems

Magazine, 21(6), 11–25.

Rüegg-Stürm, J. (2001). Organisation und

organisationaler Wandel: Eine theoretische Erkundung

aus konstruktivistischer Sicht. Organisation und

Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für

Sozialwissenschaften.

Smyth, D. S., and Checkland, P. B. (1976). Using a systems

approach: the structure of root definitions. Journal of

Applied Systems Analysis, 5(1), 75–83.

Sørensen, C. G., Fountas, S., Nash, E., Pesonen, L.,

Bochtis, D., et al. (2010). Conceptual model of a future

farm management information system. Computers and

Electronics in Agriculture, 72, 37–47.

van Laere, J. (2013). Wandering Through Crisis and

Everyday Organizing; Revealing the Subjective Nature

of Interpretive, Temporal and Organizational

Boundaries. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis

Management, 21(1), 17–25.

Wimelius, M. E., and Engberg, J. (2015). Crisis

Management through Network Coordination:

Experiences of Swedish Civil Defence Directors.

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,

23(3), 129–137.

Ödlund, A. (2010). Pulling the Same Way? A Multi-

Perspectivist Study of Crisis Cooperation in

Government. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis

Management, 18(2), 96–107.

Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D.,

et al. (2011). Memorandum on design-oriented

information systems research. European Journal of

Information Systems, (20), 7–10.

Applying Systems Thinking onto Emergency Response Planning - Using Soft Systems Methodology to Structure a National Act in Sweden

297