Concept Map: Preparedness Program

Ester Todd

Department of Leadership Studies, Fort Hays State University

LDRS: 802 Organizational Systems, Change, and Leadership

Dr. Jeni McRay

March 24, 2021

 Concept Map: Preparedness Program 2

Concept Map: Preparedness Program

The system that I chose to map for this project is my former work area, the Preparedness Program with the

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). I chose this system because it was an interesting

topic to analyze, and because it is the same system that I am discussing in the Applied Final Project. In

Figure 1, the Preparedness Program as a system is illustrated in a concept map.

Figure 1

The boundaries of this system were determined by the inputs and outputs of the system, as

suggested by D.C. Walton. The program organization within KDHE is a definition input that Walton

describes as “policies and rules under which the system operated” (2004). Another input is the data and

information the program requires to operate. The definition outputs are communications, trainings and

exercises, and data. Additionally, data and information could be considered a type of resource output,

described by Walton as “requests and requirements for resources that the system needs in order to produce

the expected output” (2004).

According to Meadows, a system must consist of elements, interconnections, and a function or

purpose (2008, p. 11). In Figure 1, the key elements are displayed in three dark blue boxes:
Concept Map: Preparedness Program 3

communications, trainings and exercises, and data and informatics. The twelve full-time positions in the

program are all related to at least one of these three elements, and in turn, these three elements connect to

provide a common purpose: emergency preparedness. The program’s mission statement says:

“Preparedness provides leadership to protect the health of Kansans through efforts to mitigate, prepare for,

respond to and recover from disasters, infectious disease, terrorism and mass casualty emergencies.”

(KDHE).

Communications

The purpose of communications is to provide education and timely information to internal and

external publics. Internal publics include program employees and other program areas and bureaus within

KDHE, such as the environmental laboratory and the radiation program. External publics include local

health departments, hospitals and other healthcare organizations, schools, nonprofits and nongovernmental

organizations, and members of the general public. There is a specific position within the Preparedness

Program assigned to communications, and they interact with these publics via various tools and methods.

Communications may occur via social media, phones, emails, television, radio, newsletters, and more. The

appropriate communication method may vary depending on which member of the public is being addressed.

The red, double arrows indicate the interconnectivity between communications and the second key

element, which is trainings and exercises. These two elements cooperatively improve each other, meaning

that when one improves, the other also will see improved efficiency. Communications are only as strong as

the training and practice behind them; similarly, trainings and exercises cannot occur without solid

communications. Communications also provides education on emergency preparedness, as shown via the

green line. This education is provided to all publics.

Trainings and Exercises

The second element in the Preparedness Program is trainings and exercises, which helps provide

insight and knowledge on emergency preparedness. Importantly, trainings and exercises produce lessons

learned, also called opportunities for improvement. Again, the red double arrows indicate interconnectivity

at the highest level between trainings and exercises as well as communications and data and informatics.
Concept Map: Preparedness Program 4

Specifically, the relationship between trainings and exercises and data and informatics is well-established

and documented. Trainings cannot be effective without accurate data, and trainings and exercises produce

necessary data to continue evaluating and improving the system.

Data and Informatics

The final element of the program is data and informatics. This element receives data and

information through a variety of sources (internal and external), and also oversees the dissemination of data

and information to the program’s publics. Receipt of data helps the program understand the needs of

partners, as exemplified through surveys and conference calls. Data is exported by the program in two main

ways: translation to the public and facilitation between partners. Many times data that is gathered is raw

and must be cleaned up before dissemination in order to be easily understood. Depending on which public

is being addressed, the data and information may be released in various formats according to what is most

appropriate. Data is also exported when communications are facilitated between local and federal partners,

as frequently occurs through grant oversight, project updates, federal communications, etc. As noted by the

red interconnectivity arrow between receipt and export, export of data can only occur when data is first

received.

Analysis

The dotted lines on the concept map indicate potential connections between elements and functions.

At the top, communications is tentatively connected to data and informatics, as I believe communications

within the system could be better led by data. Sometimes, especially during emergency situations,

information moves quickly and press releases are nearly outdated before they are published. Moving down

to the program’s key purpose of emergency preparedness, I have identified several additional opportunities

for improvement.

First, communication is a problem area for both internal and external publics. Some communication

systems are outdated and clumsy, while other processes seem to work well for a while but end up with gaps

and dead ends. Improving communication between both internal and external partners (such as other

program areas or local health departments) could be used to inform future education on emergency
Concept Map: Preparedness Program 5

preparedness. Improving situational awareness of what publics already understand, what they are hearing

from other sources, and what they want to learn about, are just a few ways to tailor the program’s education

on emergency preparedness. The green dotted line between needs of partners (medium blue box) and

emergency preparedness also indicates this idea.

Next, there are three dotted lines stemming out from lessons learned, each indicating an issue and

potential area for improvement. Currently, lessons learning is not connected to anything else through a solid

line, because I see this as a huge gap in the system. Often times past experiences are glossed over and

forgotten, meaning that valuable knowledge is not transferred. Haslett notes that “the response of the

organization is limited by its past experience and its capability is limited by its current rules and procedures”

(2011). If lessons learned were taken into account, this could lead to receipt of valuable data, improved

communication tools and methods, and improved emergency preparedness on all fronts.

Finally, another problem area that I see with the system is a sense of “silo.” The system is not set

up well to receive communication, education, training, etc. from other organizations and individuals who

could provide priceless knowledge and insight on system improvement. In many ways, this is the

quintessential example of a “systemic government issue,” as many people think of government agencies as

being inefficient and disconnected from reality. I believe that addressing the previously mentioned

communication issues could improve the silo issue and help connect the system with important resources.

I am also hopeful that some of the changes forced on the program because of the COVID-19 pandemic will

make it more flexible and resilient in the future.

Concept Map: Preparedness Program 6

References

Haslett, T. (2011). How to watch the right butterfly: Some guidelines for the design of

emergency response organizations. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 10(1-4),

175–188. https://doi.org/10.3233/iks-2012-0192

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer (D. Wright, Ed.). White River Junction, VT:

Chelsea Green Publishing. ISBN: 978-1-60358-055-7.

Walton, D. C. (2004). Modeling Organizational Systems: Banathy's Three Lenses Revisited.

Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17(4), 265–284.

https://doi.org/10.1023/b:spaa.0000040647.65393.79