Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Kaj Suneson and Ilona Heldal
emergencies. To date, it is <strong>the</strong> traditional PSAs that are in part connected to <strong>the</strong> system. The Swedish
Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) was granted consent by <strong>the</strong> government to set up and start <strong>the</strong>
system as well as <strong>the</strong> task <strong>of</strong> running it in <strong>the</strong> future. MSB sells services to approved organizations
and <strong>the</strong> system is regarded as being self-funding through fees. MSB only delivers <strong>the</strong> services and
access to <strong>the</strong> system. The influence that user organizations can exert on <strong>the</strong> system's design and
properties is to state <strong>the</strong>ir wishes although <strong>the</strong> actual decisions are taken by MSB on what are for
<strong>the</strong>m commercial grounds. MSB does not instruct <strong>the</strong> users on how to use RAKEL. In <strong>the</strong> set-up, <strong>the</strong>
main PSAs are seen as users buying <strong>the</strong> service. The PSAs in Sweden have divided responsibilities,
different principals and in part different alarm centres.
To support mobile communication up to now, <strong>the</strong> PSAs have used different, mostly analogue,
systems. This means that <strong>the</strong>y have had to manage many different systems in order to communicate
and collaborate with each o<strong>the</strong>r. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> aims <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new, tailored system is that all organizations
involved in times <strong>of</strong> crisis will be able to use <strong>the</strong> same system. In <strong>the</strong> instructions for <strong>the</strong> new system,
increased co-operation between <strong>the</strong> organizations is also sought.
Reasons for <strong>the</strong> slow connection and <strong>the</strong> problems organizing communication and collaboration were
identified in an earlier study as "knowledge barriers" (Suneson and Heldal, 2010). While <strong>the</strong> concept
<strong>of</strong> "knowledge barriers" can identify <strong>the</strong> main problem areas, it does not in itself clarify how to <strong>the</strong>se
barriers can be overcome.
2.3 Knowledge barriers
In our view, knowledge barriers have <strong>the</strong>ir origin in Attewell (1992), showing that <strong>the</strong> adoption <strong>of</strong>
complex technological systems is not just a question <strong>of</strong> transferring knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technology
between providers and buyers. The adoption and use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technology also demands sufficient
knowledge, i.e. a knowledge barrier, to master <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> that technology in organizations.
Tanriverdi and Iacono (1998) developed <strong>the</strong> view <strong>of</strong> knowledge barriers fur<strong>the</strong>r with a proposed
categorization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> knowledge barriers into four different categories to fit technology dissemination
for telemedicine. Their suggestion was that four types <strong>of</strong> knowledge barriers needed to be lowered to
facilitate dissemination: 1) technical barriers (cf. Attewell (1992)), 2) financial barriers – <strong>the</strong> need to
understand how value creation will benefit <strong>the</strong> stakeholder (adopter), 3) organizational barriers, i.e.
being able to understand how <strong>the</strong> new technology fits structures and processes within <strong>the</strong> adopting
organization, and 4) behavioural barriers as co-workers in <strong>the</strong> organization need to be convinced
about adopting <strong>the</strong> technology, e.g. by managing resistance. These four categories might help to
understand dissemination within one organization. In inter-organizational co-operation <strong>the</strong> complexity
increases, mainly due to <strong>the</strong> different contexts and lack <strong>of</strong> knowledge about each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parties
involved. To describe this situation a fifth, inter-organizational knowledge barrier is proposed by
Suneson and Heldal (2010).
It is important to see a knowledge barrier as a lack <strong>of</strong> knowledge. A financial knowledge barrier is <strong>the</strong>
inability to see <strong>the</strong> financial model and <strong>the</strong> costs or benefits in using <strong>the</strong> technology for one's own
organization. To make a calculation that shows that <strong>the</strong> cost is too high or something similar is not a
knowledge barrier.
2.4 Naturalistic decision-making
Traditional decision-making <strong>the</strong>ories focus on how people make mistakes in judging alternatives and
making choices. The view <strong>of</strong> people is that <strong>the</strong>y are rational within certain limits (Bounded rationality,
(e.g. Simon, 2000)). Decision-making is seen as making choices between alternatives. This has also
been seen in <strong>the</strong> "common world" (outside science) as "decisions". The founders <strong>of</strong> NDM (e.g. Gary
Klein) saw this from a completely different point <strong>of</strong> view. In a series <strong>of</strong> studies <strong>the</strong> researchers asked
pr<strong>of</strong>essionals (such as fire-fighters and soldiers) how <strong>the</strong>y made decisions. The answer was that <strong>the</strong>y
did not make any decisions – <strong>the</strong>y just worked. In his view this could not be true because out <strong>of</strong> a
large set <strong>of</strong> options <strong>the</strong>y followed some or one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. The question <strong>the</strong>n was why <strong>the</strong>y felt that <strong>the</strong>y
did not make decisions.
The solution that Klein (e.g. 1989, 2008) arrived at was <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> "recognition-primed decisionmaking".
In this model making a choice between alternatives is not necessary. The decision-maker
does not find <strong>the</strong> optimum solution but finds a good enough solution. In <strong>the</strong> model <strong>the</strong> decision-maker
969