Insights into decision‐maker's perceptions of good versus bad decisions in emergency services—A modified Delphi study

Abstract Decision‐making in emergency situations, such as those faced by fire, police, and health service personnel, presents unique challenges due to the high‐stakes and time‐pressured environment. Here we aim to better understand what emergency responders regard as constituting ‘good’ and ‘bad’ decisions in emergency situations. We administered a modified Delphi study, eliciting opinions from decision‐makers across all these sectors towards consensus around the key elements of good and bad decision‐making. Participants were first asked to define what makes a ‘good’ and a ‘bad’ decision, and subsequently to identify the top five most important elements of each. While consensus was not found, important insights were identified that can assist improve the standard of decision making at all levels of emergency response and management. We observed (i) a lack of a common understanding between participants of what a decision is, and how a decision differs from pre‐decision and postdecision components; (ii) responses varied according to whether a free text description or the identification of separate elements was requested; (iii) respondents valued ‘goodness’ across different and at times unrelated components a scaled measure of decision quality as opposed to a binary evaluation of ‘rightness’; and (iv) pre‐ and postdecision elements are considered more important than the decision itself when determining the quality of a decision. To address the issues highlighted by the study we recommend improvements in training, and improvements to organization doctrine related to decision making, risk tolerance, assessment of decision quality and development of intent‐based or principle‐based operational guidance. Ultimately, incident controllers from all services must remain cognizant that they will face considerable scrutiny if they cannot explain how they arrived at the decision they made.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12613
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Disaster Management and Resilience
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.13

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Insights into decision‐maker's perceptions of good versus bad decisions in emergency services—A modified Delphi study

Tudor A. Codreanu, Matthew B. Thompson, Greg Penney, David Launder
1 citations
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
Disaster Management and Resilience
1.13
article

Insights into decision‐maker's perceptions of good versus bad decisions in emergency services—A modified Delphi study

Tudor A. Codreanu, Matthew B. Thompson, Greg Penney, David Launder
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Decision‐making in emergency situations, such as those faced by fire, police, and health service personnel, presents unique challenges due to the high‐stakes and time‐pressured environment. Here we aim to better understand what emergency responders regard as constituting ‘good’ and ‘bad’ decisions in emergency situations. We administered a modified Delphi study, eliciting opinions from decision‐makers across all these sectors towards consensus around the key elements of good and bad decision‐making. Participants were first asked to define what makes a ‘good’ and a ‘bad’ decision, and subsequently to identify the top five most important elements of each. While consensus was not found, important insights were identified that can assist improve the standard of decision making at all levels of emergency response and management. We observed (i) a lack of a common understanding between participants of what a decision is, and how a decision differs from pre‐decision and postdecision components; (ii) responses varied according to whether a free text description or the identification of separate elements was requested; (iii) respondents valued ‘goodness’ across different and at times unrelated components a scaled measure of decision quality as opposed to a binary evaluation of ‘rightness’; and (iv) pre‐ and postdecision elements are considered more important than the decision itself when determining the quality of a decision. To address the issues highlighted by the study we recommend improvements in training, and improvements to organization doctrine related to decision making, risk tolerance, assessment of decision quality and development of intent‐based or principle‐based operational guidance. Ultimately, incident controllers from all services must remain cognizant that they will face considerable scrutiny if they cannot explain how they arrived at the decision they made.

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis ManagementVol. 32(3)
Charles Sturt University (AU), Murdoch University (AU), Government of Western Australia Department of Health (AU), Engineers Australia
Charles Sturt University
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Disaster Management and Resilience
1.13
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.