ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Journal of Industrial Information Integration
journalhomepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/jii
A framework for interoperability assessment in crisis management
D. da Silva Avanzi
a,b, A. Foggiatto
a, V.A. dos Santos
a, F. Deschamps
a,∗, E. de Freitas Rocha Loures
aaIndustrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Program, Polytechnic School, Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, Rua Imaculada Conceição, 1155, 80215-901 Curitiba, PR, Brazil
bInstituto das Cidades Inteligentes, Rua São Pedro, 910, 80035-020 Curitiba, PR, Brazil
a rt i c l e i nf o
Article history:
Received 31 October 2016 Revised 4 February 2017 Accepted 12 February 2017 Available online 13 February 2017 Keywords:
Crisis management Disaster management system Interoperability assessment Disaster response
Multi-criteria decision analysis
a b s t ra c t
Itisnoticeablethegrowthofvarioustypesofconcernsinlargecenters,whetherbycitizensorpublicof- ficials.Inthatsense,animportantdimensioniscrisesmanagementsuchasincasesofnaturaldisasters.
Thisscenariocallsforataskforceinanattempttopredictorsolveemergencies,especiallyinmanag- ingandintegratingpublicandprivatespheres,whichinturnarecenteredonpublicauthorities,service providers,citizens,volunteersandsystems.Inordertoallowtheexchangeofinformationandjointac- tionsofthoseinvolvedentities,thefulfillmentofinteroperabilityrequirementsbecomesacriticalfactor topromoteimprovedperformance oftheactionstakeninthesesituations.Basedontheliteratureand relatedworldwideinitiatives,themainconcernsandattributesofcrisismanagementareidentifiedfrom theperspectiveofinteroperability.FoundedonthisknowledgeaframeworkthatsupportsaDisasterRe- sponseManagementSystem(DRMS)developmentcycleisproposedfocusingonadiagnosticstepbased onamulti-criteriadecisionanalysis techniques(MCDA)toassess potentialinteroperability ofapublic entityorlocality.TheproposedMCDAmethodfacilitatesthespecificationofintegratedsolutionsforthe publicsectortomeetinteroperabilityrequirementsindisastermanagement(DM)scenarios.Inthispa- pertheassessmentmethodwasbasedontheAnalyticHierarchyProcesstechnique(AHP),andapplied toacompanyinvolved intheDMdomain,responsiblefortheinformationtechnologyinfrastructure of acityinthesouthofBrazil.Thefindingsshowthe maingapsoftheentity undertheinteroperability perspective,allowingtheidentificationofkeyareasforimprovementofitsDMcapabilitiescoherentto theDRMSdeploymentprocess.
© 2017ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
1. Introduction
Regardless ofits nature,a crisisisconsideredanabnormalsit- uation, usually resulting from an instability that impacts a part ofsocietywith unacceptableconsequences. Acrisis situationcan emergeindifferentcontexts-political,military,economic,human- itarian, social, technological, environmental or healthcare. Lately, itis noticeablethat authorities are increasingly seekingsolutions toimprove themanagement of crises.Part of thisgrowthis due to increased citizen participation. Through the ubiquitous use of technology,people areboth morecollaborativeincrisis moments anddemandingmoretransparencybycloselymonitoringmeasures takenbytheresponsible[1].
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.d.S. Avanzi), [email protected] (A. Foggiatto), [email protected] (V.A. dos Santos), [email protected] , [email protected] (F. De- schamps), [email protected] (E. de Freitas Rocha Loures).
In thissense, crisis management is becoming more andmore relevant. Managing a crisis involves the participation of various entities working together inan action cycle based on four main phases: mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery [2]. The responsephase isbothrelevantformeeting performancerequire- ments andcritical for the support that may be provided to any impacted group of individuals. Efficiency in managing a crisis is measured by the speed andprecision withwhich information is managedandexchanged amongpartners(i.e.,organizations, peo- ple,anddevicesinvolvedinthecollaboration).Thisefficiencyand performance therefore depend not only on information systems, butonassociateddimensionssuch asstrategy,processes,services androlesthatguidethecoordinationoftheentitiesinvolved.Thus, successfulcrisismanagement, particularlyinresponse actions,re- quiresfullintegrationofalloftheinvolvedpartiesthroughdiffer- entinterandintra-organizationalconcerns[3].
It ispossible to analyzethe management of a crisis consider- ing the viewpoints oftwo important entities directlyinvolved in thiskindofunexpectedsituation-firefightersandpoliceofficers.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2017.02.004 2452-414X/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Forinstance,inthecaseofnotificationofalargecrashonahigh- way,informationusuallyarrives simultaneouslyatmorethanone policeorfiredepartmentswithoutpropercontrolandinformation sharing.This resultsinmore thanone rescueteambeingsent to thesceneandimpairsmobilityduetotheconcentrationofrescue vehicles.Thisscenariomaybeevenmorecomplexwheninvolving moreextremeenvironments,suchastheseasandoceans[4].This highlightstheimportanceofinformationexchangeandintegration ofdifferentservicesinvolvedinprovidingresponsetoan incident andshowstherelevant roleinteroperability amongtheseentities playsinthesesituations.
Interoperabilitycanbe definedasabroadconceptencompass- ing the abilityofentities (e.g.,organizationsorsystems) to work together inpursuitofcommon, mutuallybeneficial goals.Thus, if two or more entities do not have the ability to collaborate, ex- changeinformationandcoordinateactions,theycannotbeconsid- eredinteroperable [5].For entities tobecome interoperable, they mustmeetcertaincommongoalsandrequirements,whichinturn mustbesetaccordingtotheirapplicationdomain.
Toidentifytheircapabilitiestointeroperate,entitiesshould be subject toan assessment,which allows stressing out how a par- ticularentityisinteroperableinitsapplicationdomain.Thisrefers to the definition of potential interoperability [6], particularly re- lated to the crisis management domain, characterized by com- plexdynamicsinvolvingaprioriundefinedknowledgeaboutenti- tiesexpectedtointeroperate.Thepotentialinteroperabilityassess- mentrepresentsanappropriatediagnostictoolformappingtheel- ementsofinfluenceontheefficiencyandperformanceofinvolved entities.Itshouldassistinidentifyingandreviewingtechnicaland managerialrequirementsofentities’informationsystemsandcon- sideredbyadisastermanagementprojectlifecycleasadvocatedby Noran[7].
This paper presents a Disaster Response Management System (DRMS) developmentcycle framework witha focuson a diagno- sisstepdevotedtopotentialinteroperabilityassessmentofapub- lic/privateentityorlocality.The proposedapproach usesamulti- criteriadecisionanalysisstructurebasedonAHP(AnalyticHierar- chy Process)andhelpsorganizationsperceive their strengths and weaknesses, devising actions closely related to their ICT capabil- ities to increase performance andmaturity. The diagnosisresults supportthespecificationofaDRMSthatfulfillsinteroperabilityre- quirementscoherenttoentitycapabilitiesindisastermanagement.
Thepaperisstructuredasfollows.Section2presentsthemain worldwide initiatives, as well as the literature review to inves- tigate performance perspectives and the effectiveness of the ac- tions takenin disaster management together with the principles ofinteroperability. Section3describestheinteroperabilityassess- ment model for crisis management considering all the artifacts used in its development supported by a specific framework. In Section4theassessmentmodelisappliedtoarealcase,allowing theevaluationofagivenentityandits environmentregardingits interoperability capabilities.The companyresponsible forCuritiba (southerncapitalofBrazil)municipalinformationtechnologyinfra- structurewaschosenasanapplicationcase.Finally,intheconclu- sionsection,themainoutcomes,lessonslearnedandresearchper- spectivesarepresented.
2. Scientificscenarioandrelatedworks 2.1. Disastermanagement
Therearethreemainaspectstobeconsideredinmanagingdis- asters-protectionoflife,propertyandtheenvironment.Disasters are usually classified intonaturalor man-caused. Theformer are related toevents such as earthquakes,floods, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes,cyclonesandforest fires.Thelattercovers eventssuch
asthecollapseof buildingsor accidentsinvolvingairtransporta- tion.Regardlessofthetype ofdisaster,achievinganeffectiveand coordinatedactionisadifficulttaskforfirstresponders[8].
The differentrescue organizations such aspolice and fire de- partments,health services,civil defense andothers mustbe effi- cient when workingina collaborative way, considering theinter andintra-organizationalaspects,inadditiontothedifferenthierar- chicallevelsofeachinvolvedteam[3].Thus,theexchangeofinfor- mationbecomesanessentialprerequisitefordealingwiththedif- ferenttypesofdisasters ina fastandcoordinatedmanner.Proper managementandintegrationofparticipantsisrequiredinenabling theexchangeofinformationtargetedatpreventionormitigationof crisissituations[1].Thus,thewholeoperationrequiresthatinfor- mationiskeptasup todateaspossible,requiringreal-timecom- municationbetweenparticipants.
Such exchange of information may be easy to solve in some cases.Buttheproblemcangrowlargerwhenaneedforcrisiscon- trolandrecovery coversareaswithgreaterdifficultyincommuni- cation andaccess. One can mentionwild environments andma- rineareas,that requireadequate measures tominimize thedam- agecausedby, forinstance,an earthquake,especially infinancial mattersandlifeprotection.Tofacethisscenario,WangandTanaka [4]propose a system foroptimizing the marine logistics in case ofemergencyordisaster(earthquake)byassigningshipstotrans- port routes, considering all possible adversities imposed by this scenario.
Farfromextremeenvironments, companiesarealsoconcerned withmanagingdisasters.Some authors[9,10]describethe factors ofinfluencethat increasethe risksforsuchdisasters, asenviron- mental,logistical andexternal catastrophes,always proposing re- coverymethodologies.Forinstance,asupplychainriskassessment methodology to face disaster response requirements is proposed [9].Although themodelpresentedby theauthorsuitstheindus- trialcontext,itcanalsobeadaptedandappliedtoother domains.
Such a model aims to improve resilience through matrices that confrontsamplesofdifferentdisturbancesthathaveledto differ- enttypesofsupplychainfailures.Thesescenarios,whetherinex- tremeenvironments ornot,requiregreatercareinorderforcom- municationtooccurefficiently.
The real-time exchange of requirements in a crisis scenario drivestheneedtointegrateinformationandcommunicationtech- nology systems (ICT) in delivering disaster management support, providing efficientand safeexchange and processingof informa- tion[3].Mostcollaborationandcommunicationissues incompa- niesaresupportedbyInformationSystems(IS)withoutcapabilities tofaceprocess coordinationandinformationflows amonghetero- geneousentitiesandsystems.TheimplementationofaMediation InformationSystem(MIS) supportedby a ServiceOriented Archi- tecture(SOA)representsaninterestingsolutionallowinganevolu- tionarymonitoringofthecrisis scenario,andthemanagement of informationamongentitiesinvolved[11].
Thus,inthefield ofemergencyanddisaster,CrisisInformation Management Systems (CIMS) or Disaster Management Interoper- ability Systems (DMIS) have been part of the prevailing concept inuseinrealcasesasproposed in[12,13].Theirmainobjectiveis toprovideacompletesetofICTfunctionstoaddressmanyneeds oftheplayersincrisismanagement.CIMShasbeenhighlightedas a preferred systemby entities to meet the main needs of crises situations,inparticular,theexchangeofinformation,enablingeffi- cientjointandcoordinatedactionsbythoseinvolved[12].Multiple cross-organizationalactions are performedby thesetypesof sys- tems[14]: ongoingassessmentthroughoutthecrisis period;start, maintainandcontrolcommunications; identifytheincidentman- agement strategy; decision-making based on resources available;
requestadditionalresources;develop an organizationalcommand
Table 1
Interoperability Concerns and Barriers.
Concern/Barriers Conceptual Technical Organizational
Business Enterprise visions, strategies, objectives, policies.
Infrastructure, technology, the ability of IT support business requirements.
Work methods, business rules, legislative requirements, organizational structure.
Process Process models, content, coverage, syntax, semantic.
Workflow engines, business process management systems, business activity monitoring.
Process management, procedures, guidelines, responsibility.
Service Service models, content, coverage, syntax, semantic.
Service architecture, tools and applications, interfaces.
Service and application management, rules, authority, responsibility.
Data Data models, representation, content,
coverage, syntax, semantic. Data storage, format, protocol and exchange
devices. Data management, rules, responsibility,
information ownership.
structure; continually review action plans;provide call continua- tion,transferandtermination.
Therefore, itis noticeablethat efficientcrisis management oc- curswhentheinformationisexchangedandupdated inrealtime amongtheorganizationsinvolvedunderanadequateenterprisear- chitecture[15].Communicationisthecommonbasisforexecution ofemergencyresponseandisbestapproachedfromasystemsper- spective considering all the directional flows of information, in- structions, and announcements [16]. These requirements suggest theuseoftechnologytoolstocontrolandmanagedataaccording to each occurrence [3]. Most often the speed and accuracy with which information can be managedand exchanged betweenthe partners(organizations,people, and devicesinvolved in coopera- tion)contributetotheresponseefficiencylevelsachieved[1].
Information andcommunicationtechnologiesare not theonly concernsinallowing theoperationofentities.Organizationsmust adopt norms and standards established for their domains, con- tributingtotheinteroperationofactivities.Givensyntacticandse- manticrequirements,alignmentofbusinessaspectsoftheorgani- zation, such asprocesses and business, withthe standard estab- lishedisessential.Therulesforthesectoralreadyaddresscultural andlegislative aspects, differentpracticesandmanyother factors thatmaycontributetolossoforganizationalinteroperation[17].
Relevant interoperability frameworks, such as the Framework forEnterpriseInteroperability(FEI) [18]and EnterpriseInteroper- ability Framework (EIF 2.0) [19] are grounded on these multiple andintegrated perspectives, highlighting the non-dissociative as- pectsofdata-service-process-businessfaced byorganizational,se- manticandtechnologicalbarrierstointeroperation oncrisisman- agement.Ithasbecome possibleto noticethat theprevious gen- erationofsystems werenot basedon standardsandframeworks.
Everytimeanewsystemwasbuilt,anewcommunicationandnet- workingscheme had to be built. In many cases, interoperability wasnotconsideredinthedesignofthesesystems[16]andlesser attentionwasdevotedtocross-organizationalinteroperabilitycon- cernssupportedbyaprojectmanagementlifecycle[7].
With the need for better integration and management, orga- nizations havealso become concerned aboutthe quality of their participationintheactiondomain.Entitiesareseekingtoevaluate their interoperation capability, aiming to improve organizational performanceandalsocontributingtoamoreefficientenvironment [7].Theassessmentofacompany’sextendedinteroperabilitycon- cernsiscrucialinidentifyingitsweaknesses.Theliteraturereveals recentassessmentapproachesbasedonthismultipleviewofinter- operabilityandderived fromtheinteroperabilityframeworkssuch asFEIandEIF[20].
In termsof activities relative tocrisis management, every im- provementcan be evenmore important,since thisdomainis di- rectly linked to emergencies involving risk for citizens. Oncethe weaknesseshavebeenidentified,theseactivitiescanbe improved and risks reduced, contributing to the efficiency of the process.
Amongthephasesofcrisis management,theresponsestep isthe mostimportantbecausethisphase doesnot allow errors,requir- ing coordinated and efficient actions, which is even more diffi-
cultwiththeparticipationofmultipleentities.Theinteroperability aspects and their assessments contribute to the success ofthese activities[7].
2.2. Interoperability
Interoperability is considered progressive when organizations start to communicate andshare information,andtogether create performanceconditionsthatwouldbehardtoachieveindividually [21].Goingbeyondpeople,machinesandsystems,interoperability isbecoming akey successfactorinallareasofindustrial, private andpublicspheres.Theconceptofinteroperableorganizationsand systems therefore requires considerable attention to ongoing as- sessment and improvement [17]. A broad concept, encompassing theabilityoforganizationstoworktogetherinpursuitofcommon andmutuallybeneficialgoals,isrepresentativeofone ofthedefi- nitionsofinteroperability[19].
Interoperability frameworks have a common understanding aboutthe abilityto interoperatewithin business, process,service anddataconcernscanbeaffectedbyconceptual,technologicaland organizational barriers. One can mention IDEAS (Interoperability Developments for Enterprise Application and Software) [22]; AIF (AthenaInteroperabilityFramework)[23]; FEI(FrameworkforEn- terprise Interoperability) [24]; EIF 2.0 (European Interoperability Framework forEuropean publicservices) [19].The relationalrep- resentationofinteroperabilityperspectives(concernsandbarriers) actsasareferentialstructureindefiningspecificquadrantsrelating toenterprise performanceinfluencesandsubjectofinteroperabil- ityassessment.Table1illustratesthisstructure[17][18][25]high- lighting the conceptual proximity to disaster management con- cerns.
Enterprise Interoperability Assessment (EIA) allows the mea- surementofthedegree ofinteroperation betweenentities,which inturnhelpsinspecifyingintegratedsolutionsforthedomainas wellastheadjustmentandadaptationtoimprovetheactivitiesof thoseinvolved[17].Thistypeofevaluationidentifiesstrengthsand weaknessesimposedbyinteroperabilitybarriers,enablingthepri- oritizationof actions in order to enhance interoperability perfor- manceandmaturity.
Evaluations can be performedin comparisonwith other enti- ties(aposteriori) orwithin aspecific domain withunknown en- tities(apriori)[26].The formerrelatesto ‘compatibility’measure between knownpartners, aswell as‘performance’ measure sup- portedbyspecificindicators(time,cost,quality ofservice)during interoperation [27].The latter(apriori) refers to‘potential’inter- operabilitymeasureofanunknownentityaimingtoinferitscapa- bilitiestointeroperateunderspecificperformancerequirementsas theonefromdisastermanagement.Thepresentworkfollowsthis directionaiming toprovidean ‘as-is’ diagnosisofentitycapabili- tiesandmaturityinordertosupportacustomizedlifecycleDRMS deployment.
Literature presents several assessment methods and models [20].Evaluationsconcerningpotential interoperabilitymeetonIn- teroperability Maturity Models (IMMs) adequate approaches to
deal with the multi-perspectives of interoperability characterized ininteroperability frameworks[28]andare closelyrelatedtocri- sis management scenarios. Assessmentapproaches should be de- ployedaccordingtothedomaintobe assessedandrequirea sur- veytoidentifytheattributesandcriteriathatbestcharacterizethe domain from interoperability perspectives[25].In the context of this paper, the assessment approach relies on the applicationof interoperability concepts inorderto evaluatethe entity’slevelof coverageinthecrisismanagementdomain,therebyallowingiden- tifyingpossibleadjustmentsinimprovingdisasterresponseperfor- mance.
Theneedtointeroperateincrisis managementactivitiesdeter- mines how operationsandservices are provided. Responsibilities involvedinthisscenariocanbedividedintostate,nationaloreven internationalspheres, represented by differentteams fromdiffer- entpublicorprivateentitiessuchascivildefense,firefighters,po- lice, etc. Accordingto [7],entities involved mainlyin crisis man- agementshouldworkthroughalifecycleconsistingofphases(ac- tions): prevention (Prev),preparation(Prep),response (Resp) and recovery (Recv).Theauthorsseektoidentifyrelationshipsineach stage ofthe crisis process, promoting improvement ofinefficient pointsand enhanced performance ofDisaster Management Orga- nizations(DMOs).
In [15] the authors advocate that the analysis and search for interoperability requirements focuses on integrating lifecycle ap- proaches applying the Enterprise Architecture approach (EA). A GERA modeling framework section isrelated to a lifecycle-based formalism, mapping each phase (identification, concept, require- ments,design,implementation,operation,decommission)intodis- aster management task force (DMTF) actions (Prev, Prep, Resp, Recv) [7].Disaster management project lifecycles are then linked toChen’sFrameworkforEnterpriseInteroperability(FEI)[18]inor- dertohighlightthedegreesofimportanceoftheFEIquadrantsin DMTFactions.Thisapproachiscloselyrelatedtoourproposal,dif- fering inthefactthateach interoperabilityconcernandbarrierin FEIshouldbeequallyaddressedinordertoassessentityandsys- teminteroperabilitycapabilities.
2.3. Worldwideinitiatives
Asurveyoftheinitiativeswithinthecrisismanagementdomain collaborates with the identification of best practices and techni- cal requirements capable ofsupporting the developmentcycleof DisasterResponseManagementSystem(DRMS).Thesesystemsare characterized as DMSs (Disaster Management Systems) and are mainly focused on theresponse toa particular occurrence.Some successfulworldwideinitiatives arepresentednext. Theycollabo- ratedwiththeidentificationofrelevantattributeswithrespectto disastermanagementscenarioassessments,aswellasinsupport- ing arelationalstudybetweentheseattributesandICTinteroper- abilityrequirements.
The identification and extraction of such attributes is carried outbytheauthorsandspecialistsfromcrisismanagementdomain, by means of adeductive andrelational process groundedon the concepts andmethods ofrequirementsengineering. Theapproach usedundergoesproceduraldetailingthroughaspecificframework presentedinthenextsectionthatmakesuseofconsensusandval- idation mechanisms ofidentified attributes, as well asrelational analysiswiththe dimensionsofinteroperability. Eachinitiativeis thenpresentednextwithafirststepsetofattributessubjecttore- quirements (functional/non-functional) analysisfrom thepoint of viewofinteroperability.
SAFETRIP [29] - Satellite application for emergency handling, trafficalerts,roadsafetyandincidentprevention(France)
Anoticeableincreasecanbeperceivedindriverassistancesys- tems research anddevelopment. Thesesystems are basedon au-
tomated technologies and sensors capable of detecting the traf- ficsituationsaround thevehicleandeitherwarningthedriveror automatically performing some mechanical action.In addition to vehicles,roadshavealsoreceivedsignificant improvements.Intel- ligent communications systems that interact with many devices andvehiclesarebeingdeployedwithgoodresults[29].Alongthis line,SAFETRIP isone oftheseintelligent systemsdesignedtoim- provetheuseoftheroadtransportinfrastructuregeneratingalerts with many degrees of importance: informative, preventive, pro- moting actions, etc. This system helps to reduce the number of accidentsanddeathsasit increasesstakeholder mobilityandin- formationdistribution.Vehiclescanbeinterconnectedviadifferent media(calledICT)suchastelephonechannels,satelliteandWi-Fi, radio, etc. Inorder to enhance informationexchange capabilities, newsatellite technologiesarebeingimplemented to improvethe communicationinextremeenvironmentsandother problemsitu- ations[29].
From this initiative, the following attributes have been iden- tified:automatic traffic detectionsensors; alert degrees(different importance);preventiveaction;warningstothevehicledriver;in- formativeaction;automaticmechanicactions;accidentsreduction;
roads improvements; increase stakeholder mobility; vehicles im- provements;increaseinformationdistribution;intelligentcommu- nicationsystem; interconnection betweenvehicles; devicesinter- action; different medias;two-way satellite communication; envi- ronmentprotection;newdeviceintegratedtothevehicle;mortal- ityreduction.
DECIDE[30]-DecisionSupportSystemforDisaster Emergency Management(Greece)
Thisprojectaims toprovideassistanceduringemergencies re- sultingfromnaturalcausesorbyhumanaction,targetingimprov- ingthe capabilityofresourcesinvolved,aswell aspreventingfu- tureevents.Thedevelopmentwasmotivatedbythehighcomplex- ityofthe actions requiredin disastersituations. Quickresponses anddevelopmentofpreventionplansaredifficultduetothiscom- plexity.Inminimizingthesedifficulties,DECIDEproposesan Intel- ligentDecisionSupportSystem(IDSS)topromotehigherefficiency andenhancemanagementcapabilityoflocalstakeholdersanden- titiesresponsibleforeffectiveresponsetoalltypesofdisasters.The systemproposessomegoals,encouragingtheuseofinnovativeso- lutions andtechnologybases in increasing the capabilityof local authoritiesindeliveringeffectiveandefficientcoordinationofpre- ventionandresponseprocedures.Theseproceduresshouldaddress risksandenhancethecapabilityofsocietyandvolunteerstosup- portlocal disastercontrol, thusavoiding furtherlosses. The main wayof achieving these goals is through an IDDS withthe main featuresshownbelow:
• allocationofcivilprotectionunits;
• routingandguidanceinemergencysituations;
• network and risk mapping based on geographic information system(GIS);
• viewerrolesandresponsibilities;
• alertsandwarnings;
• managementscenariosandusers;
• multipleenduserinterfacesupport(web,phoneetc.).
From thisinitiative,the followingattributes havebeenidenti- fied:alert degrees(different importance); provideassistancedur- ing emergencies; provideallocation ofcivil protection units; im- provethecapabilitiesoftheresources;networkbasedinGIS;pre- vent futuresimilar events; risk mappingbased on GIS;ability to work with complex actions; viewer roles; quick responses; re- sponsibilitiesroles;preventionplans;providealertsandwarnings;
adaptationtoworkwithalltypesofdisasters;scenariosandusers management;useofinnovativesolutions;multipleenduserinter- facesupport(web,phone);responseprocedures.
SAVEME[31]-SystemandActionsforVehiclesandtransporta- tion hubs to support Disaster Mitigation andEvacuation (United Kingdom)
Inrecentyears,largenumbersofpeoplehavediedduetonatu- raldisasters,firesintunnelsandpublictransportterminals.Inad- dition,governmentsstillhavefacethedifficulttaskofdealingwith thethreat ofterrorist attacks. Manmade ornatural disasters al- waysrequirefastandcoordinatedresponseoftenresultinginmass evacuationscenarios.Project SAVEME aimsto preventthesedis- astersbydevelopingsystemsthatdetectbothtypesofevents.The systemmustsupportmassevacuation proceduresin avery short timeprotectingthelivesofallstakeholders.Thesystemalsopro- videsfeaturestohandleallkindsofpeople,includingpeoplewith disabilities[31].Toachieve its objectives, theproject presentsan ontological framework capable of recognizing the different types of threats, classifying them and proposing possible solutions for their reduction. The approach is based on a complex and inno- vativehuman behavior based algorithm (under stress, panic and strongemotions,etc.).Thesebehaviorscanbeindicativeofabnor- malconditionsandserveasalerttriggerstobesenttotherespec- tivepersons/entitiesresponsible.
From this initiative,the followingattributeshave beenidenti- fied:commonsemanticapproach;supportmassevacuationproce- duresin shorttime;innovativealgorithms todetect hazard;han- dle all kinds of people; automatic hazard recognition; proposal of possible solutions for hazards; wireless sensor network; hu- manstressdetection;improveevacuationprocedures;panicdetec- tion; indoor localization module; strong emotions detection; fast andcoordinatedresponses;alerttriggers;automaticdisasterspre- vention; sendalert to respectiveresponsible. e-PING [32] - Elec- tronic Government Interoperability Standards (Brazil) e-Ping de- finesaminimumsetofassumptions,policiesandtechnicalspecifi- cationsthatdrivetheuseofInformationandCommunicationTech- nologies(ICT)intheBrazilianfederalgovernment,establishingthe integrationtermswithotherbranchesandlevelsofgovernmentas wellassocietyatlarge.Brazilianentitiesmustbee-Pingcompliant insystemplanning,acquisitionofnewequipment,implementation ofITservices,duringsystemdevelopmentsorupgrades.Someenti- tiesarevoluntarilyadoptinge-Pingthroughdirectchangesintheir managementorbycontractingservicecompaniesalreadycompli- anttothenewstandardsandthiswayincreasinginteroperability andsecurityintheircommunicationtransactions[33].
In disaster scenarios, the adoption of open e-government [34] standardsforall stakeholders involvedwill help inensuring informationandcommunicationsecurity, giventhisisone ofthe underpinning assumptions of e-Ping. Literature reviews corrobo- ratethefactthatadoptingcommonstandardsduringthedevelop- ment andimplementation of newDisaster Management Systems wasa commonrequirementof manysystemscurrentlyinopera- tion.Therefore,adoptinge-Pingimpliesinincreasinginteroperabil- ityamongentitiesinvolved,aswellasfacilitatingtheinclusionof newpartnersandtechnologiesinthefuture.
From this initiative,the followingattributeshave beenidenti- fied:presenta minimumsetofassumptions;interoperability im- provementbetween systems;present a minimumset ofpolicies;
security improvementbetween transactions; presenta minimum set ofspecifications; common standards duringdevelopment; all systemsshouldbee-pingcompliantinallphases.
IsyCri[35]-SystemsInteroperabilityInCrisissituation(France) TheIsyCriprojectbeganin2007andendedin2010anddefined a MIS (Mediation Information System) devoted to connecting(at celllevel)playersresponsible forthereductionofcrisissituations andensuring their interoperability, supervisingtheircollaborative workflows.ThegeneralprincipleofIsyCri reliesonthebeliefthat integrationbetweenthe partiesisacrucialstep towardsthesuc- cessful reduction of a crisis. Therefore, interoperability is IsyCri’s
central concern, ensuring integration and communication among partners,aswellasdefiningcollaborativematuritylevels.
Inacrisiscontext(naturaldisasters,accidents,conflicts,indus- trial accidents, etc.) different participants (medical units, police, etc.) have to work simultaneously and very quickly. Cooperation amongthemandtheabilitytocoordinatetheiractionsisessential inachievingacommongoal– reductionofthecrisissituation.In thissense,themainpointoftheISyCriprojectwastoprovidepart- nerorganizations,involvedinmanagingthecrisisthroughMIS,ca- pabilitiestomergetheir heterogeneousandautonomousInforma- tionSystems (IS)intoa globalSystem(SoS -SystemofSystems).
Thefollowingtasksweredefinedforitsimplementation:
• ontologyconstructofthesystemstudiedincluding,e.g.people, localnature,goods,andcharacterizationofthecrisisbyidenti- fyingitselementssuchastype,severity,trigger,etc.;
• logicalmodelingofMIS(MediationInformationSystem);
• technicalarchitecture modeling andprojection of logicalview ofthetechnologicalvision;
• studyofdynamics;
• experimentingactingasagenericpartoftheproject,basedon specificusecasesinordertoverifythedescribedprinciples.
From thisinitiative, thefollowing attributeshavebeen identi- fied:connect all cellsresponsible; actionsofcoordination; ensure thecellsinteroperability;logicalmodeling;workflowssupervision;
studyofdynamics;partiesintegration;usecases;differentpartici- pantsworkveryquickly;technicalarchitecturemodeling;collabo- rativematuritylevels;logicalview ofthetechnologicalvision;ca- pabilitytomergeheterogeneousinformationsystems
3. DRMSdevelopmentcycleframework
The proposed DRMS development cycle framework shown in Fig.1 aimsto providea methodologicalbasisthat organizesspe- cificcomponentsandmethodsinphases,tosupportanevolution- arycycleofinteroperabilityassessment towardsthedevelopment of an information system for disaster management. The multi- perspectivesof interoperability arethen considered toassess the capabilitiesofentitiesinvolvedincrisis management,guidingthe specification of a DRMS coherent to the level of maturity diag- nosed.Theideaoftheproposalistousetheconceptsfoundalong with the aspects that directly reflect domain interoperability is- sues toachieve disastermanagement (DM)objectives, facilitating theprioritization ofactionsto improvetheperformance andma- turityofinvolvedentitiesindisastermanagement.
The proposed frameworkis then centeredon aDisaster Inter- operability AssessmentModel (DIAM), focusof thispaper, which aims to evaluate a referenceDRMS architecture accordingto po- tentialinteroperability aspects of companies.Therefore, the diag- nosispromotedbyDIAM allowsagranularassessmentofcapabil- ities in public or private entities involved in DM.This capability analysisenablestheexecutionofadeeperrelationalreviewofthe functionalandtechnicalrequirementsofthereferencearchitecture withDMattributes.Themainphases,stepsandcomponentsofthe developmentcycle framework are shownin Fig.1 anddescribed next.
InPhase1(KnowledgeAcquisition),DRMSandDIAMinvolve knowledgethat canbe obtainedfromdifferentsources,such suc- cessful initiatives, literature reviews and consultations with ex- perts.Theresultingknowledge baseisdividedintothreeaspects:
(i) a large set of information that can be understood as DMat- tributes,consensus of disastermanagement specialist; (ii)system requirements benchmarked against existing DMS initiatives; (iii) interoperabilityaspects(concernsandbarriers)identifiedfromthe mainEIFs,aimingtoorganizeDMknowledgeandfulfillingassess- mentrequirementsimposedbyDIAM.
Fig. 1. DRMS development cycle framework.
Fig. 2. Knowledge organization excerpt.
The dataset(DMattributes)consistsprimarilyofneeds found withinthecrisismanagementdomain,suchasconnectivity,safety, flexibility,among others.Characteristicsthat enableidentification of the necessary means to ensure that the needs are supported canalsobeidentified,suchasbandwidth,proxysettingsandtools forsystemadaptation(systemrequirements).Usecasesshouldalso be included insystemanalyses andusually presenteddirectly by stakeholdersinvolved.AlloftheseDMattributesmustmeetinter- operabilityrequirements(I),afterundergoingarefiningprocess.
Aftercarryingouttheresearchandconsultingspecialists(Phase 1),numerousDMsystemrequirementsandattributeswillbelisted andorganizedinPhase2(KnowledgeOrganization),asshownin Fig. 1.The listwill be classifiedby characteristics, allowing fora better structure, understanding and use of the knowledge. Thus, DMattributesandDMSrequirementsareseparatedby theirchar- acteristics based on software and system engineering guidelines.
With respect to the interoperability aspects of these attributes, basedonChen’sFrameworkforEnterpriseInteroperability[24],are then correlated andorganizedpursuantto business, process,ser- viceanddataconcerns.
Thus, phase 2 aims to separate the knowledge generatedinto fourdatasets(perspectives),facilitatingtheidentificationanduse oftheinformationobtained.First,asillustratedinFig.2,thechar-
acteristicswillbeclassifiedintothreeperspectives:Functionalre- quirements(FR),non-functional requirements(NFR)andtechnical solution(TS).Thefourth,andlastperspective,istheinteroperabil- ityknowledge(I),whichlaterservestosubmittherelatedDMat- tributesidentifiedtointeroperabilityassessment.
The first three perspectives (FR, NFR, TS) must be properly sortedaccording to their degree of importance, assome maybe irrelevant regionally and others may be necessary in a first im- plementation.Forexample,icedetectiondevicefortheroaddoes not make sense in a desert or tropical region where tempera- turenever fallsbelow26 °C.In orderto find out whichrequire- ments/attributes should be implemented or discarded by under- takinga relationalreview andanalysis, theQFD(QualityFunction Deployment)method isused[36,37].EachQFD isrepresentedby a matrix in which the characteristics are expressed in text and their relationships are represented numerically. For our proposal needs,thisrelationalapproach isshownto be appropriatein the wayqualitativedataistransformedintoquantitativevaluesorinto designrequirementsthatcouldbeusedbytheengineeringteam.
Thecentral objective ofa QFD isto separate the DMrequire- mentsandattributesintogroups,translatingtextexpressions into quantitative values that will be applied to help engineers decide whatshouldbeimplemented,ornot.TheQFDstagesinvolvedaim tohelpinchoosingthemorerelevantrequirementsforthedevel- opmentof theproposed DRMS through its life cycletowards the review ofthetechnicalreferencearchitecture withrespectto the entity’scapabilitiesdiagnosedbyDIAM(Phase3– AssessmentCy- cle,Fig.1).TheseQFDstagesarepresentedinmoredetailsnext.
3.1. Knowledgeorganizationandrelationalmodelingprocess
Tosupport thedesign ofDIAM and thereferencearchitecture specification,therelationalmodelingprocessisillustratedinFig.3. Thediagram isbased ontwo QFDstructures (QFD1, QFD2)anda proposedspecificrelationalstructure(IRM– InteroperabilityRela- tionalMatrix)characterizingtwodifferentdevelopmentrouting:(i) requirementidentification,analysisandtechnicalsolutionmapping actingas input forSysML specification andanalysis ofthe refer- encearchitecture;(ii)requirementidentification,analysisandDM attributesmappingacrossinteroperabilityperspectivesinorderto supporttheDIAM-AHPbasedmethodconstructionandexecution.
Fig. 3. Relational modeling process.
Fig. 4. QFD1 excerpt: Functional x non-functional requirements.
Considering Fig. 3, two QFD design steps are provided in or- dertoshareandhandlethesameinitialDMattributesandsystem requirementsfromphase1(Fig.1).Thefirstdesignsteptranslates thisdatasetintoFunctionalRequirements(FR)andNon-Functional Requirements (NFR). Therefore, QFD1 aims to model and relate NFRsthat will describe how the system works(capability, avail- ability,accessibility,portability, maintenance,etc.)to theFRsthat willdescribewhatthesystemshoulddo(businessrules,adminis- trativefunctions,authenticationrules,externalinterfaces,GUIfea- tures,etc.). QFD1 constructionis basedon identifying thedegree of correlation between FRs and NFRs, classifying them as weak (1),medium(3)orstrong(9).AQFD1statementisrepresentedin Fig.4.
Other dataitemsthat mustbe enteredby expertsare theim- portanceof each perspective under evaluation. Thus, it is possi-
bletoinferthattheFRsarevalidatedandfilteredaccordingtothe NFRs(NFRxFR– 1, 3or9)andlevelofDMimportance inputby experts(Fig.4,A).Theendresult(Fig.4,B)istherelativeweigh- ingofeach FR(already incombinationwithNFR), whereacutoff valueisappliedleadingtoanewsetofFRs,calledfromnow‘FR- Result’.In thisapproach,thedefinedcutoff valueis theaverage, consideringonly thosevaluesthatareequal toorlargerthanthe average(Fig.4,C). TheresultingnewFRs(FR-Result)ensures that onlythemostimportantrequirementsforDMdomainaresentto thenextstage.
TheanalysisandresultsofQFD1(mostimportantrequirements) will then support a second QFD design stage (QFD2) inorder to represent the relationship between functional requirements (FR) ofhigher importance andpossibletechnical solutions (TS).These are some technical solutions: use of clustered solutions, MySQL
Fig. 5. Mapping through the cube components.
database, C# implementation, etc. The result of thissecond QFD stepanalysiswill,initsturn,supporttheSysMLdiagrammodeling relative to a Reference Architecture specificationreview. Further- more, QFD1will also be usedasa basis forbuilding a relational structuretoanalyzetheinteroperabilitylayer(IRM– Interoperabil- ity Relational Matrix), providing support in designing AHP DIAM structure.
3.2. Three-dimensionalrelationalmodel
The scheme presented in Fig. 5 illustrates, through a three- dimensionalmodel(cube),therelationshipamongtheperspectives mentioned(FR,TSandI).Theuseofthecuberepresentationfacil- itatesinterpretationoftheinterrelatedmodelingprocessdescribed previouslyaswellastheDRMSframeworkdimensions(Fig.1).The relationalanalysis that emergesfrom each perspective(cubesur- face) is carriedout by the QFD and IRM structures presentedin Section3.1.
The S1cubesurface,relatestoQFD2inordertoidentifyhow DM needs arecovered by technicalrequirements. Thismatrixal- lowscalculatinghowtechnicalsolutions(TS)requirementsshould beimprovedtoaddressfunctionalrequirements(FR-Result).These importance levels can be applied by specialists through brain- stormingprocesses,useofcasesstudy,theDEMATELmethod[38], etc. Fig. 6 illustrates the cross-matching of data undertaken by QFD2, showing the degree of importance of each functional re- quirements(FR-Result)forthetechnicalsolution(TS).
In relation to the S2 cube surface, the next step consists in ananalysisoftheinteractionbetweenFR-Resultandinteroperabil- ity(I) concernsby means ofIRM (InteroperabilityRelational Ma- trix).Theaimofthisrelationalanalysis,inspired onQFDandAx- iomatic Design [39] methods, is to bring to the interoperability perspectives (I) the assessment of achievementof disaster man- agementattributes(FR-Result).Theconcernsandbarriersconcepts were applied following Chen’s EIF, in which the FR-Result is or- ganized within the aspects of interoperability [25]. A similar ap- proach is proposed in [40] concerning electronic government(e- government) attributesandinteroperability perspectives. Inorder to facilitate a qualitative reasoning, IRM is based on the use of symbolsasshowninFig.7(FR-ResultxInteroperabilityConcerns) andFig.8(FR-ResultxInteroperabilityBarriers).
Weightsareassignedtoeachofthecomparisonswithvaluesof 1,2and4forthebarriers,and9,3and1forconcernsinorderto positiontheFR-ResultfromQFD1inmorerelatedinteroperability barriers/concerns(Chen’sEIFquadrants). Afterdefining theseper-
spectives,anewcombinedviewisobtainedinFig.9.OnlytheFR- Resultwithstrongcorrelationtothedisastermanagementdomain willberetained.
Stemmingfromthisreasoning,Fig.10showsanexampleofthe IRM analysisof the interaction betweenFR-Result andinteroper- ability(I)concerns andbarriers. Based onthe aspects of thisre- search,fordiagnosingpurposes,itwasdefinedthatonlythecells withstrongrelationswouldhavetheir NF-Resultevaluated inthe diagnosis phase. This way a certain importance for the disaster area canbe assignedtothe identified NF-Result,filteringout the oneswithlowrelevance.
ThisIRM structureactsasabasisfortheAHPstructuredesign oftheDIAMproposedshowninFig.11.Thefirstlayercorresponds tothegoaloftheinteroperabilityassessment(diagnosisofpoten- tialinteroperability levels forDM entities). The second andthird layersrepresenttheinteroperabilityperspectives(I- concernsand barriers)relatedtoDMfunctionalrequirements(FR-Result)(fourth layer).The fifthandfinallayerrepresentsthe potentialinteroper- abilitylevels.
The AHP method [41] defines that each layer is composed by criteria/subcriteria organized through clusters. In DIAM’s AHP structurethecriteriarepresenttheinteroperabilityconcerns(layer 2,onecluster);thesubcriteriarepresentthebarriers(layer 3,four clusters)and theFR-Result (layer 4,twelve clusters).Alternatives represent the potential interoperability levels (layer 5, one clus- ter).Aclusterdefinesacomparisonmatrixandapairwiseweight- ing between the criteria/subcriteriafollowing Saaty’s scale (1–9).
Theresultedpriority(eigen)vectorassociatedtoeachclusterinfers abouttherelativeimportanceofitscriteria/subcriteria.
The pairwise assessment approach of the AHP method relies onalogicalconsistencyverificationbasedonatransitiveproperty (logicofpreference).Aconsistencyratioisobtainedforeachcom- parisonmatrix(cluster)andshouldbe lessthan10% [41].Theas- sessment uncertaintiesare thenconsidered by the method,qual- ifying theAHPasappropriate todeal withthe complexityofthe observationspacemodelledbytheIRMstructure.
Adiagnosisoftheprivateorpublicentitycapabilities,foreach DMFR-ResultunderIperspectives,applyingtheDIAMAHP-based relative reasoning, is then carried out. As a result, the potential interoperability ofthe entity is assessed in order to infer its ca- pabilitiesindisasterresponsemanagementandsupporttherefer- enceDRMS architecture review(coherentwithits capabilities).In Section 4, thismodel is applied ina real interoperability assess- mentapplicationcase.
Fig. 6. QF2 excerpt: FR-Result x TS (S1).
Fig. 7. IRM: FR-Result x concerns.
Fig. 8. IRM: FR-Result x barriers.
Fig. 9. IRM: Product of concerns and barriers.
Finally,theS3 cubesurfaceshowsa diagnostic perspectiveof thetechnicalsolution(TS)withaspectsofinteroperability(I).This analysisstep,following thesamerelationalanalysis asapplied in surface S2, will contribute to the review of the reference archi- tecturespecifications,inordertomeetsysteminteroperabilityre- quirements.Thisanalysisdoesnotbelong tothescope ofthispa- perandrepresentsongoingwork.
4. Applicationcase
Theapplicationcaseaimsto applytheDIAMindiagnosingin- teroperability capabilitiesof agivenentityforthecriteriarelated todisastermanagement.Theresultcancontributetoidentifyingits strengths andweaknesses, directing decision-makingactions that will improve the organization’s performance in disaster manage- ment by adopting a DRMS architecture. The evaluation wasper- formedwiththeSuperDecisiontool that supportstheuseofthe AHPmethod.
4.1. Entitycharacterization
The company responsible forthe municipal technology sector ofCuritibawaschosenfortheexecutionoftheassessmentmodel.
Thischoiceis basedonthefact thatinformationtechnologycon- trol andmunicipal communication have a direct link to this en- tity. The city of Curitiba leads the ranking of the most digitized municipalities, according to the Digital Cities Brazil Index(DCBI) undertaken bythenational CenterforResearchandDevelopment in Telecommunications (CPqD), covering 100 Brazilian cities. The company selected is responsible for defining and identifying the needsofthemunicipalityinICT,deliveringandsupportingforall ofthecityadministrationdepartments.
Fortheassessment,company’s expertswere selectedbasedon their managerial,operationalandtechnicalbackgroundaswellas
Fig. 10. IRM Matrix excerpt (S2).
Fig. 11. DIAM AHP structure.
skills in crisis management. The interviews were conducted in pairs, and the answers were collected considering a consensus achievedthroughgeometricmeanspursuanttoAHPrequirements.
The entire data collection was carried out using the Super De- cisions software.Once the collected, the diagnosisdata were in- serted in the tool, a complete analysis wasthen carried out ap- plying the criteriaandlevels definedby theDIAM AHPstructure (Fig.11).
The assessment is based, as mentioned before, on pairwise comparison betweencriteria ofa given cluster andlayer. An ex- ample of thistype of comparison can be seen in Fig. 12, which comparestheoverallinteroperabilityaspectsinthecrisismanage- mentdomain(Layer1,Fig.11).
The assessmentprofile indicates a relativerelevance for inter- operabilitydataandprocessconcernsrelativetodisastermanage- ment. This is due the fact that the capability to extract and ex- changedata fromheterogeneous sourcesisvery importantinbe- ingawareoftheconditionsonthegroundandavoidingpotentially life-threateningsituationsforallinvolved.
4.2. Resultsandanalysis
Following theDIAM method,similar pairwise assessments are carried out in each level of the AHP structure (Fig. 11) result-
ing in partial rankings (eigen/priority vector) that highlight fo- caldiagnosis(degreeofimportance)relativetoentitycapabilities.
Fig.12showsthedegreeofimportanceattributedtoDataandPro- cess concerns from the resulting priority vector (Data: 0.57381;
Process: 0.23883; Service: 0.13101; Business: 0.05634) with con- sistencyrationsmallerthan10%(2,91%).
The same reasoning is deployed through the AHP levels and criteriaresulting inthe values indicated inFig. 15. The structure ofthefigurefollowsChen’sFEI, closelyrelatedto AHPstructures, therebyfacilitatingvisualizationoftheoverallprioritiesandentity capabilities. Eachquadrantcorresponds to an AHPclusterandits priority vector in FR-Result DM requirements (green bar graph).
I-concerns (Layer 1) are indicated by the blue bar graph and I- concerns/barriers(Layer2)areindicatedbytheorangebargraph).
The final cluster named‘Alternatives’, relativeto the last AHP level,correspondstothematurity levelofentityassessed.Thefi- nalresultcanbe seen inFig.13’s radialchart. Thepositioning of the organization in the intermediary position (0.418295) slightly trendingtowardsadvanced(0.309910)canbeidentified.Thisresult leadsustoinferthatthecompanystillhasseveralaspectstoim- proveinincreasingefficiencyinthescenariodiscussed.Fig.15pro- videsarelevantsupportforthisanalysisanddiagnosis, providing acompleteviewontheentity’sinteroperabilitycapabilities.
Fig. 12. Layer 1, AHP structure I-concerns cluster pairwise comparisons.
Fig. 13. DIAM Maturity level diagnosis.
Additionally,sensitivityanalysesenableindicatingthemostad- equatecriteriafororganizationalimprovementofitsdisasterman- agementcapabilities. Foranalysis purposes,in Fig.14 it ispossi- bletoidentifyhowNF-Result‘ReportSupplyPoints’caninfluence inchanging the final maturity levels. Inthis figure,it is possible to seethat increasing priority levels of thisNF-Result leadsto a preferredmaturity levelchange towardsLevel 3 (Advanced). This analysisactsasanimportanttoolindrivingcorporateengineering efforts.
5. Conclusion
Thispaperfocusedonadisastermanagementknowledgeiden- tificationandassessmentapproachbasedontheAHP-basedmodel calledDIAM.Anin-depthrelationalanalysiswasconductedtoface thecomplex analysisof disaster management requirementsdeal- ingwithinteroperabilitybarriers.Atotalof127requirementswere splitinto functionalandnon-functional requirementsandtechni- calsolutionsbymeansofatwo-stepQFDdesign.Anewrelational methodcalledIRMwasconceivedinordertosupportmappingof themain (filtered) DMrequirements (total of26) into interoper-
abilityperspectivesbasedonChen’sFEI[24].TheIRMactedasan importanttoolindesigningtheAHPstructureoftheDIAM,allow- inga multi-layerdiagnosisofthedifferentorganizationalviews– fromthe strategiclevelconcerning business, conceptualandpro- cessinteroperabilityperspectivesdowntoagranularviewondis- astermanagementcapabilities.
An application case based on an ICT company of southern Brazil,actingasacentralentityincontrolofmunicipalinformation technology and communication infra-structure enabled relevant results and promising perspectives on the applicability of DIAM andDRMS improvements.Severalunknown fragilecapabilitiesare highlightedbythecorroborationbetweenDIAM andcompanyex- perts anddirectors’ perceptionsin organizational performance in disaster management scenarios. Moreover, influence (sensitivity) analysisoftheDMrequirementsidentifiedonthecompany’sover- all maturity level, gave a preliminary support fora local agenda towardspublicandprivateeffortsinfacingmunicipalbarriers.
It has beenshown that crisis management should be directly linked to interoperabilityissues,allowing an integrated operation ofallentitiesinvolvedduringanevent.Aninteroperabilityassess- ment approach was then proposed to identify the potential in- teroperationinadisasterresponsemanagementenvironment.The proposedDRMSdevelopmentcycleframeworkwasbasedonaset ofreferencearchitecturespecifications(relatingfunctionalrequire- ments totechnical solutions), aninteroperability diagnosismodel (relatingfunctionalrequirementstointeroperabilityconcerns)ofa locality orprivateorpublic entitytoachieve aninteroperable ar- chitecture.
TheDRMSpromotesareview,evaluationandimprovementthe referencearchitecturefortherealityoftheentityanalyzedwithre- spectto itsinteroperabilitycapabilitiesinDMscenarios. ASysML diagram modeling phase is also considered with a view to sup- portingDMISspecificationswithspecialemphasison DMandin- teroperabilityrequirementmodeling,aswell ascomplexbehavior analysesrelativetodisasterresponsedynamics.Thesestepsrepre- sentongoingworking.
Future works in DIAM improvement rely on the integration ofother methods to supportcausal modelingof influencingvari- ablessuchasDematel,andmulti-criteriadecisionmaking/analysis (MCDM/DA) methods such as Electre TRI and Promethee. These methodsallowdodealwithquantitativeandspecificscalesoncri- teriarating,veryappropriatetosupportthethird(S3)cubesurface
Fig. 14. Sensitivity analysis of ‘Report Supply Points’ NFR-Result.
Fig. 15. Assessment in disaster management domain through interoperability concerns and barriers.
analysis related to reference architecture specifications. The re- search willthen continuetowardstheimprovementoftheframe- work, verifying and validatingthe results found with other pub- lic/private entities (civil defense, firefighters, traffic engineering) involved in disaster response management initiatives. A broader picture of disaster management capabilitiesof Brazilian cities in disastermanagementcanthenbeglimpsed.
References
[1] A. Barthe-Delanoë, F. Bénaben , S. Carbonnel , H. Pingaud , Event-driven agility of crisis management collaborative processes, in: Proceedings of the 9th Inter- national ISCRAM Conference – Vancouver, Canada, 2012 April .
[2] N. Atlay , W. Green , OR/MS research in disaster operations management, Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 175 (2006) 475–493 .
[3] A. Meissner , T. Luckenbach , T. Risse , T. Kirste , H. Kirchner , Design challenges for an integrated disaster management communication and information system, DIREN 2002 - 1st IEEE Workshop on Disaster Recovery Networks, 2002 . [4] H. Wang , K. Tanaka , Management of marine logistics in the case of emergency
or disaster, Int. J. Agile Syst. Manage. 9 (3) (2016) 251 268 .
[5] EIF, CompTIA: European Industry Association, European Interoperability Frame- work - ICT Industry Recommendations, 2006 Retrieved from http://www.
comptia.org .
[6] D. Chen , B. Vallespir , N. Daclin , An approach for enterprise interoperabil- ity measurement, in: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Model Driven Information Systems Engineering: Enterprise, User and System Models (MoDISE-EUS’08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE’08 Conference, Montpel- lier, France, 2008 .
[7] O. Noran , Towards improving information systems interoperability in disas- ter management, in: H. Linger (Ed.), Building Sustainable Information Systems (Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems De- velopment), Springer Verlag: N.Y., 2012, pp. 123–134 .
[8] B. Mukhopadhyay , B. Bhattacherjee , Use of information technology in emer- gency and disaster management, Am. J. Environ. Prot. 4 (2) (2015) 101–104 . [9] S.K. Sharma , A. Bhat , Identification and assessment of supply chain risk: de-
velopment of AHP model for supply chain risk prioritization, Int. J. Agile Syst.
Manage. 5 (4) (2012) 350 369 .
[10] H. Carvalho , M. Maleki , V. Cruz-Machado , The links between supply chain dis- turbances and resilience strategies, Int. J. Agile Syst. Manage. 5 (3) (2012) 203 234 .
[11] F. Bénaben , J. Touzi , V. Rajsiri , S. Truptil , J.P. Lorré, H. Pingaud , Mediation In- formation System Design in a Collaborative SOA Context through a MDD Ap- proach, in: Proceedings of MDISIS, 2008, pp. 89–103 .
[12] R. Iannella , K. Robinson , O. Rinta-Koski , Towards a framework for crisis infor- mation management systems (CIMS), 14th Annual Conference of the Interna- tional Emergency Management Society (TIEMS), 2007 .
[13] J.K. Kim , R. Sharman , H.R. Rao , S. Upadhyaya , Framework for analyzing criti- cal incident management systems (CIMS), in: Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006 .
[14] R.W. Perry , Incident management systems in disaster management, Disaster Prev. Manage. 12 (Iss 5) (2003) 405–412 .
[15] O. Noran , Integrating environmental and information systems management: an enterprise architecture approach, in: W. Song (Ed.), Information Systems De- velopment: Asian Experiences (Proceedings of the 18th International Confer- ence on Information Systems Development (ISD 2009)), China, Springer Verlag:
Nanchang, 2011, pp. 123–134 .
[16] A.B. Badiru , L. Racz , in: Handbook of Emergency Response: A Human Factors and Systems Engineering Approach, CRC Press, 2013, pp. 57–175 .
[17] W. Guedria , in: A Contribution to Enterprise Interoperability Maturity Assess- ment, These: L’Universite Boardeaux 1, 2012, p. 247 .
[18] D. Chen, N. Daclin, Framework for enterprise interoperability, in: H. Panetto, N. Boudjlida (Eds.), Proc. Workshops and the Doctorial Symposium of the Sec- ond IFAC/IFIP I-ESA International Conference: EI2N, WSI, IS-TSPQ, (ISTE, Lon- don, UK, 2006, doi: 10.1002/9780470612200.ch6 .
[19] E. Commission, European Interoperability Framework (EIF) for European Public Services, 2010 .
[20] R. Rezaei , T.K. Chiew , S.P. Lee , Z.S. Aliee , Interoperability evaluation models: a systematic review, Compute. Ind. 65 (1) (2014) 1–23 .
[21] E. Yahia , A. Aubry , H. Panetto , Formal measures for semantic interoperability assessment in cooperative enterprise information systems, Compute. Ind. 63 (5) (2012) 443–457 .
[22] D. Chen, D. Guy, European initiatives to develop interoperability of enterprise applications - basic concepts, framework and roadmap, Annu. Rev. Control 27 (2) (2003) 153–162, doi: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.20 03.09.0 01 .
[23] A.J. Berre, B. Elvesæter, N. Figay, C. Guglielmina, S.G Johnsen, D. Karlsen, T. Knothe, S. Lippe, The ATHENA interoperability framework, Enterp. Interoper- ability II (2007) 569–580, doi: 10.1007/978- 1- 84628- 858- 6 _ 62 .
[24] D. Chen, N. Daclin, Interoperability for enterprise software and applications, Workshops And The Doctorial Symposium Of The Second IFAC/IFIP I-ESA In- ternational Conference: EI2N, WSI, IS-TSPQ, 2006 London: Hervé Panetto and Nacer Boudjlida, doi: 10.10 02/978047061220 0.ch6 .
[25] Brazilian Government, Executive committee of the electronic government, e- PING: electronic government interoperability standards – version of December 11, 2009. Retrieved from http://eping.governoeletronico.gov.br/ .
[26] W. Guédria , A. Golnam , Y. Naudet , D. Chen , A. Wegmann , On the use of an in- teroperability framework in coopetition context, In the 21st Nordic Workshop on Interorganizational Research.Vaasa, 2011 .
[27] B. Elmir, B. Bounabat, A novel approach for periodic assessment of business process interoperability, Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues 8 (4) (2011) 298–306 http:
//www.ijcsi.org/papers/IJCSI- 8- 4- 1- 298- 306.pdf .
[28] W. Guedria , D. Chen , Y. Naudet , A maturity model for enterprise interoperabil- ity, in: Proc. of the 4th IFAC/IFIP, OTM workshop, EI2N’09 (Enterprise Integra- tion, Interoperability and Networking), Portugal, 2009 November .
[29] G. Frémont , S. Grazzini , A. Sasse , A. Beeharee , The SafeTRIP project: improving road safety for passenger vehicles using 2-way satellite communications, ITS World Congress Busan, 2010 .
[30] P.F. Preda, Кick-off meeting of the DECIDE project, 2010 Retrieved from < http:
//predaplus.eu/kick- off- meeting- of- the- decide- project/ >. Accessed on January 10, 2015 .
[31] G. Evans , P. Blythe , M. Panou , E. Bekiaris , Evaluating transport technologies for mitigating the impact of emergency events: findings from the SAVE ME Project, Transport 2 (3) (2014) .
[32] Brazilian Government, Executive Committee of the Electronic Government, e- PING: Electronic Government Interoperability Standards – Version of Decem- ber, 11, 2009 Retrieved from http://eping.governoeletronico.gov.br/ .
[33] E.M. Santos , N. Reinhard , The challenges in establishing a government interop- erability framework: The e-PING Brazilian case, in: CONF-IRM 2009 Proceed- ings. Paper 54, 2009 .
[34] M. Novakouski , G.A. Lewis , Interoperability in the e-Government context re- search, Technol.Syst. Solutions Program (2012) .
[35] Fen. S.Truptil , P. Couget , Interoperability of information systems in crisis man- agement:crisis modeling and metamodeling, in: Enterprise Interoperability Iii:
New Challenges Industrial Approaches, 2008, pp. 583–594 .
[36] D. Clausing , Total Quality Development: A Step-by-Step Guide to World-Class Concurrent Engineering, ASME, New York, 1993 .
[37] N. Jain, A.R. Singh, AHP And QFD methodology For supplier selection, 2014.
doi: 10.7763/IPEDR .
[38] C.-L. Yang , B.J.C. Yuan , C.-Y. Huang , Key Determinant derivations for informa- tion technology disaster recovery site selection by the multi-criterion decision making method, Sustainability 7 (2015) 6149–6188 .
[39] M. Marchesi , K. Sang-Gook , D.T. Matt , Application of the axiomatic design approach to the design of architectural systems: a literature review, in:
The Seventh International Conference on Axiomatic Design, Worcester, 2013, pp. 27–28 .
[40] J.M.A.P. Cestari , in: A Contribution to Interoperability Capability Diagnosis in Public Administration Domain. Curitiba, Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, Curitiba, 2015, p. 364 .
[41] R.W. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process - what it is and how it is used, in: Mathematical Modelling, 9, Elsevier BV, 1987, pp. 161–176, doi: 10.1016/
0270- 0255(87)90473-8 .
