Journal of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management
Volume 2, Issue 1
2005
Article 2
Believe in the Model: Mishandle the EmergencyDuring the past quarter century there have been many developments in scientific models and
computer codes to help predict the ongoing consequences in the aftermath of many types of
emergency: e.g. storms and flooding, chemical and nuclear accident, epidemics such as SARS and
terrorist attack. Some of these models relate to the immediate events and can help in managing the
emergency; others predict longer term impacts and thus can help shape the strategy for the return
to normality. But there are many pitfalls in the way of using these models effectively. Firstly, non-
scientists and, sadly, many scientists believe in the models’ predictions too much. The inherent
uncertainties in the models are underestimated; sometimes almost unacknowledged. This means
that initial strategies may later need to be revised in ways that unsettle the public, losing their trust
in the emergency management process. Secondly, the output from these models form an extremely
valuable input to the decision making process; but only one such input. There is a need to draw on
much tacit knowledge which by definition cannot reside in a decision support system. Most
emergencies are events that have huge social and economic impacts alongside the health and
environmental consequences. While we can model the latter passably well, we are not so good at
modelling economic impacts and very poor at modelling social impacts. Our knowledge of them is
tacit and they lie in the complex space of Snowden’s Cynefin categorisation of decision contexts.
Thus we draw upon recent thinking in both decision support and knowledge management systems
to suggest that we need a more socio-technical approach to developing crisis response system;
and, in particular, we explore how model predictions should be drawn into emergency
management processes in more balanced ways than often has occurred in the past.
