The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
THE INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM: HIGH-RELIABILITY ORGANIZING FOR COMPLEX AND VOLATILE TASK ENVIRONMENTS.
Abstract
The term incident command system (ICS) denotes a particular approach to assembly and control of the highly reliable, temporary organizations employed by many firefighters, police, and other public safety professionals to manage diverse resources at a wide variety of emergency scenes. Our inductive study of a fire department’s use of the ICS identified three main factors enabling this distinctively bureaucratic system to produce remarkably flexible and reliable organizations for complex and volatile task environments. In general, this research suggests the possibility of new organizational forms able to capitalize on the control and efficiency benefits of bureaucracy, while at the same time avoiding or overcoming the considerable tendencies toward inertia that are thought to accompany bureaucratic systems. Recent organization science research indicates that an expanding number of organizations are facing increasingly unforgiving socio-political-economic contexts (cf. D’Aveni, 1994). Operational failures resulting in inappropriate, incomplete, laggardly or otherwise mindless organizational responses to unexpected and demanding environmental contingencies (such as major and unforeseen competitive threats, product malfunctions and recalls, supplier collapses, technology breakdowns, etc.) are ever more likely to be immediately
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Hutchins, E. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 · Cited by 10,801
Swift Trust and Temporary Groups
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996) · Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research · doi:10.4135/9781452243610.n9 · Cited by 1,982
Cited by
Organizational Response to Adversity: Fusing Crisis Management and Resilience Research Streams
Williams, T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2015.0134 · Cited by 1,945
Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
Coordination in Fast-Response Organizations
Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0526 · Cited by 935
Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules
Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.3.413 · Cited by 804
“…loose coupling, ambidexterity, and improvisation are key, including creativity (Amabile, 1996), innovation (Davis, 2009), group problem solving (Bigley and Roberts, 2001; Okhuysen and Eisenhardt, 2002), organizational change (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996; Gilbert, 2005), and organizational…”
BackgroundOwens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0441 · Cited by 778
Metadata
- Authors
- Bigley, G. A., & Roberts, K. H.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2001-12-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1281-1299
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2023664726
- Cited by
- 1,024
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 16.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.