CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Public Policy and Administration ResearchDisaster Management and ResiliencePublic Administration and Political Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interpretive structural modelling of inter-agency collaboration risk in public safety networks

Open access
Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, Katarzyna·2022·Quality & Quantity
DOI 10.1007/s11135-021-01172-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Inter-agency collaboration is a well-established, yet very difficult process in public governance. Despite the fact that it is often unsuccessful, collaboration risk research is still undeveloped and the impact of this risk on the effectiveness of joint activities is still underestimated. This issue is of particular significance in public safety networks, where inter-agency collaboration processes are conducted under the conditions of the complexity and uncertainty. For this reason, the article is intended to: (1) identify factors of collaboration risk in public safety networks, (2) determine the impact of individual risk factors on inter-agency collaboration outcomes, (3) identify the relationship between risk factors of inter-agency collaboration in public safety networks, and (4) analyse the growth of this risk in public safety networks. These purposes were achieved using the Systematic Literature Review based on PRISMA Group methodology and Interpretive Structural Modelling together with MICMAC analysis. The applied research approach also has some limitations resulting from the number of experts. However, the results obtained allow us to better understand issues of inter-agency collaboration risk in public safety networks. They identify key collaboration risk factors, such as inappropriate collaboration rules and inadequate allocation of tasks and resources. In consequence, they indicate risk symptoms that are worth keeping track of in order to prevent collaboration ineffectiveness.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11135-021-01172-0

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Effective coordination among government agencies is essential to prevent fragmented efforts and resource duplication.

    “Effective coordination among government agencies is essential to prevent fragmented efforts and resource duplication, a challenge that remains a significant barrier to achieving interoperability in smart city governance (Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, 2022).”

    From Smart city governance and interoperability: enhancing human security in Yogyakarta and Makassar, Indonesia (2025) · cites this paper as Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, 2022

    Section 2.1 says public safety management requires inter-agency collaboration and that working together requires harmonising activities through coordination. The Implications section discusses problems in combining agencies’ tasks, but the paper does not establish that coordination prevents fragmented efforts or resource duplication, or connect those problems to interoperability in smart city governance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. Andrew, S.A., Hawkins, C.V.: Regional cooperation and multilateral agreements in the provision of public safety. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 43(4), 460–475 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012447676 · DOI
  2. Berlin, J.M., Carlström, E.D.: Why is collaboration minimised at the accident scene?: A critical study of a hidden phenomenon. Disaster Prev. Manag. 20(2), 159–171 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/09653561111126094 · DOI
  3. Bharosa, N., Lee, J.K.: Janssen M (2010) Challenges and obstacles in sharing and coordinating information during multi-agency disaster response: propositions from field exercises. Inf Syst Front 12, 49–65 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9174-z · DOI
  4. Billitteri, C., Nigro, G.L., Perrone, G.: How risk influences the choice of governance mode in biopharmaceutical inter-firm relationships. Int. Bus. Rev. 22(6), 932–950 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.01.011 · DOI
  5. Blackstone, E.A., Buck, A.J., Hakim, S.: The economics of emergency response. Policy Sci. 40(4), 313–334 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9047-6 · DOI
  6. Bodnaruk, A., Manconi, A., Massa, M.: Cross-border alliances and risk management. J. Int. Econ 102, 22–49 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2016.05.002 · DOI
  7. Carr, J.B., Hawkins, C.V.: Westberg DE (2017) An exploration of collaboration risk in joint ventures: Perceptions of risk by local economic development officials. Econ. Dev. Q. 31(3), 210–227 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0891242417710325 · DOI
  8. Cheng, J.-H., Chen, M.-C.: Influence of institutional and moral orientations on relational risk management in supply chains. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22(2), 110–119 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2016.01.002 · DOI
  9. Cheng, J.-H., Chen, S.-W., Chen, F.-Y.: Exploring how inter-organizational relational benefits affect information sharing in supply chains. Inf. Technol. Manag. 14(4), 283–294 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-013-0165-x · DOI
  10. Clarke-Hill, C., Li, H., Davies, B.: The paradox of co-operation and competition in strategic alliances: towards a multi-paradigm approach. Manag. Res. New. 26(1), 1–20 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170310783376 · DOI
  11. Das, T.K., Teng, B.-S.: Risk types and inter-firm alliance structures. J. Manag. Stud. 33(6), 827–843 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00174.x · DOI
  12. Das, T.K., Teng, B.-S.: Managing risks in strategic alliances. Acad. Manage. Exec. 13(4), 50–62 (1999). https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1999.2570554 · DOI
  13. Das, T.K., Teng, B.-S.: Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organ. Stud. 22(2), 251–283 (2001b). https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601222004 · DOI
  14. Das, T.K., Teng, B.-S.: A risk perception model of alliance structuring. J. Int. Manag 7(1), 1–29 (2001a). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-4253(00)00037-5 · DOI
  15. Delerue, H.: Relational risks perception in European biotechnology alliances: The effects of contextual factors. Eur. Manag. J. 22(5), 546–556 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.09.012 · DOI
  16. Delerue, H.: Relational risk perception and alliance management in French biotechnology SMEs. Eur. Business Rev. 17(6), 532–546 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340510630563 · DOI
  17. Delerue, H., Perez, M.: Unilateral commitment in alliances: An optional behavior. J. Manag. Dev. 28(2), 134–149 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910932098 · DOI
  18. Drennan, L.T., McConnell, A., Stark, A.: Risk and crisis management in the public sector. Routledge, London and New York (2015)
  19. Feiock, R.C.: The institutional collective action framework. Policy Stud. J. 41(3), 397–425 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12023 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Feiock, R.C., Lee, I.W., Park, H.J.: Administrators’ and elected officials’ collaboration networks: Selecting partners to reduce risk in economic development. Public Admin. Rev. 72, 58–68 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02659.x · DOI
  21. Friday, D., Ryan, S., Sridharan, R., Collins, D.: Collaborative risk management: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Phys. Distr. Log. 48(3), 231–253 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2017-0035 · DOI
  22. Gazley, B.: Building Collaborative Capacity for Disaster Resiliency. In: Kapucu, N., Hawkins, C.V., Rivera, F.I. (eds.) Disaster Resiliency Interdisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 106–120. Routledge, New York and London (2013)
  23. Girubha, J., Vinodh, S., Kek, V.: Application of interpretative structural modelling integrated multi criteria decision making methods for sustainable supplier selection. J. Model. Manag. 11(2), 358–388 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-02-2014-0012 · DOI
  24. Grant, M.J., Booth, A.: A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr. J. 26(2), 91–108 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · DOI · Paper page
  25. Gray, B.: Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1989)
  26. Gray, B., Wood, D.J.: Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 23(3), 3–22 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391271001 · DOI
  27. Grudinschi, D., Sintonen, S., Hallikas, J.: Relationship risk perception and determinants of the collaboration fluency of buyer-supplier relationships in public service procurement. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 20(2), 82–91 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2014.03.004 · DOI
  28. Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., Zhelyazkov, P.: The Two Facets of Collaboration: Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Alliances. Acad. Manag. Ann. 6, 531–583 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.691646 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Huxham, C. (ed.): Creating collaborative advantage. Sage, London (1996)
  30. Huxham, C., Vangen, S.: Doing things collaboratively: realizing the advantage or succumbing to inertia? Organ. Dyn. 33(2), 190–201 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.01.006 · DOI
  31. Huxham, C., Vangen, S.: Managing to collaborate. The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge, London (2005)
  32. Jung, K., Song, M.: Linking emergency management networks to disaster resilience: Bonding and bridging strategy in hierarchical or horizontal collaboration networks. Qual. Quant. 49(4), 1465–1483 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0092-x · DOI
  33. Jung, K., Song, M., Feiock, R.: Isolated and broken bridges from interorganizational emergency management networks: An institutional collective action perspective. Urban Aff. Rev. 55(3), 950–975 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087417690257 · DOI
  34. Kapucu, N.: Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary spanners in multiagency coordination. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 36(2), 207–225 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005280605 · DOI
  35. Kapucu, N.: Interorganizational coordination in complex environments of disasters: The evolution of intergovernmental disaster response systems. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 6(1), 47 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1498 · DOI
  36. Kapucu, N., Qian, H.: Understanding multiplexity of collaborative emergency management networks. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 46(4), 399–417 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014555645 · DOI
  37. Keast, R., Mandell, M.: The collaborative push: Moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence. J. Manag. Govern. 18(1), 9–28 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-012-9234-5 · DOI
  38. Kożuch, B., Dobrowolski, Z.: Creating public trust: an organisational perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang (2014). https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02970-3 · DOI
  39. Kumar Sharma, S., Bhat, A.: Modelling supply chain agility enablers using ISM. J. Model. Manag. 9(2), 200–214 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-07-2012-0022 · DOI
  40. Kumar, K., Van Dissel, H.G.: Sustainable collaboration: Managing conflict and cooperation in interorganizational systems. MIS Quart. 20(3), 279–299 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2307/249657 · DOI
  41. Lehtiranta, L.: Collaborative risk management processes: a constructive case study. Eng. Proj. Organ. J. 3(4), 198–212 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2013.832671 · DOI
  42. Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V., Maon, F., Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J.: Developing supply chains in disaster relief operations through cross-sector socially oriented collaborations: a theoretical model. Supply Chain Manag. 14(2), 149–164 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540910942019 · DOI
  43. Lowndes, V., Skelcher, C.: The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: An analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Adm. 76(2), 313–333 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00103 · DOI
  44. Malone, D.W.: An introduction to the application of interpretative structural modeling. P. IEEE 62(3), 397–404 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1109/PROC.1975.9765 · DOI
  45. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J.: Developing supply chains in disaster relief operations through cross-sector socially oriented collaborations: a theoretical model. Supply Chain Manag. 14(2), 149–164 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540910942019 · DOI
  46. Meuleman, M., Lockett, A., Manigart, S., Wright, M.: Partner Selection Decisions in Interfirm Collaborations: The Paradox of Relational Embeddedness. J. Manag. Stud. 47(6), 995–1019 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00897.x · DOI
  47. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G.: The PRISMA Group: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 6(7), e1000097 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Moynihan, D.P.: Learning under uncertainty: Networks in crisis management. Public Adm. Rev. 68(2), 350–365 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00867.x · DOI
  49. Nooteboom, B.: Trust, opportunism and governance: A process and control model. Organ. Stud. 17(6), 985–1010 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069601700605 · DOI
  50. Nooteboom, B.: Innovation and inter-firm linkages: New implications for policy. Res. Policy 28(8), 793–805 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00022-0 · DOI
  51. Nooteboom, B., Berger, H., Noorderhaven, N.G.: Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Acad. Manage. J. 40(2), 308–338 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2307/256885 · DOI
  52. O’Leary, R., Vij, N.: Collaborative Public Management: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? Am. Rev. Public Adm. 42(5), 507–522 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012445780 · DOI
  53. Osipova, E., Eriksson, P.E.: Balancing control and flexibility in joint risk management: lessons learned from two construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31(3), 391–399 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.007 · DOI
  54. Ospina, S.M., Saz-Carranza, A.: Paradox and Collaboration in Network Management. Adm Soc. 42(4), 404–440 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710362723 · DOI
  55. Poduval, P.S., Pramod, V.R., Jagathy Raj, V.P.: Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and its application in analyzing factors inhibiting implementation of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 32(3), 308–331 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-06-2013-0090 · DOI
  56. Ranade, W., Hudson, B.: Conceptual issues in inter-agency collaboration. Local Gov. Stud. 29(3), 32–50 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930308559378 · DOI
  57. Rodríguez, C., Langley, A., Béland, F., Denis, J.-L.: Governance, power, and mandated collaboration in an interorganizational network. Adm. Soc. 39(2), 150–193 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399706297212 · DOI
  58. Sage, A.: Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for Large-scale Systems. McGraw-Hill, New York (1977)
  59. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K.: Antecedents of collaboration and drivers of relational risk in public safety networks. Int. J. Emerg. Serv. 9(1), 56–68 (2019a). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJES-12-2018-0061 · DOI
  60. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K.: Relational behaviours and organisational capabilities in public safety networks. Manag. Decis. 58(6), 1067–1083 (2019b). https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2018-0486 · DOI
  61. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K., Kożuch, B., Szczygłowski, J.: Inter-organisational learning in public safety management system. Disaster Prev. Manag. 28(2), 286–298 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-09-2017-0217 · DOI
  62. Smith, B.D., Mogro-Wilson, C.: Inter-agency collaboration: Policy and practice in child welfare and substance abuse treatment. Admin. Soc. Work 32(2), 5–24 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v32n02_02 · DOI
  63. Song, M.: Does having a strong commitment matter in building sustainable networks? Qual. Quant. 52(2), 551–564 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0583-7 · DOI
  64. Sushil, : Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 13(2), 87–106 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-012-0008-3 · DOI
  65. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P.: Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14, 207–222 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Vangen, S., Huxham, C.: enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers. Br. J. Manag. 14, 61–76 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2003.00393.x · DOI
  67. Verma, A., Seth, N., Singhal, N.: Application of Interpretive Structural Modelling to establish Interrelationships among the Enablers of Supply Chain Competitiveness. Mater. Today Proc. 5(2), 4818–4823 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.12.056 · DOI
  68. Wang, J.J.: Integrated model combined land-use planning and disaster management: The structure, context and contents. Disaster Prev. Manag. 21(1), 110–123 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1108/09653561211202746 · DOI
  69. Warfield, J.N.: Intent structures. IEEE t. Syst. Man Cyb. 3(2), 133–140 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1973.5408494 · DOI
  70. Warfield, J.N.: Developing Subsystem Matrices in Structural Modeling. IEEE t. Syst. Man Cyb. 4(1), 74–80 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1974.5408523 · DOI
  71. Waugh, W.L., Jr.: Terrorism, Homeland Security and the National Emergency Management Network. Public Organ. Rev. 3(4), 373–385 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PORJ.0000004815.29497.e5 · DOI
  72. Waugh, W.L., Streib, G.: Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emergency Management. Public Adm. Rev. 66(1), 131–140 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00673.x · DOI
  73. Willems, T., Van Dooren, W.: Lost in diffusion? How collaborative arrangements lead to an accountability paradox. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 77(3), 505–530 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311408648 · DOI
  74. Yadav, S.K., Tripathi, V., Goel, G.: Modelling strategic orientation dimensions and performance of small and medium enterprises: An application of interpretative structural modelling. J. Model. Manag. 14(3), 754–772 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-08-2018-0116 · DOI
  75. Zyzak, B.: Breakdown of inter-organizational cooperation: The case of regional councils in Norway. In: Trondal, J. (ed.) The Rise of Common Political Order: Institutions, Public Administration and Transnational Space, pp. 251–269. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham (2017). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786435002.00022 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K.
Affiliations
Silesian University of Technology (PL)
Corresponding author
Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, Katarzyna
ORCID
Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, Katarzyna
Venue
Quality & Quantity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-05-28
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
1193-1221
ISSN
  • 0033-5177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7845
DOI
10.1007/s11135-021-01172-0
OpenAlex
W3167965195
Cited by
26
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Quality & Quantity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
Keywords
inter-agency cooperation, public safety networks, risk factors, public governance, MICMAC analysis, interpretive structural modeling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review