- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
Responding to crises requires the ability to meet the unforeseen and adapt to new conditions. The transboundary nature of crises with e.g. increased interconnectedness among critical infrastructures, involving more actors in response, will call for collective coordination. Collective improvisation can be a tool for handling challenges under these circumstances, however the research is limited and dispersed over disciplines. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore the capability to improvise collectively in crisis management, and how it affects performance. To achieve this, we conducted a structured scoping study of improvisation in scientific literature and found that existing research is not sufficiently explained or detailed to fulfill our purpose. Our findings show that individual improvisation seems to be aggregated to a collective level without modifications, and existing methods lack in precision and transparency. Further, there is a need for a more nuanced discussion on improvisation and performance. Implications are that studies on collective improvisation risk measuring individual rather than collective improvisation, if based on existing literature. Moreover, the concept of improvisation is connected to mostly positive outcomes and assumed to have the same meaning for everyone. As a result, one should be careful when using the concept in practice, e.g. when using it as a causal explanation for successful performance, or when suggesting measures aimed at improving the capability to improvise collectively. To move forward, we suggest adopting collective problem solving as a broader analytical frame. Finally, we highlight some theories serving as a starting point for this investigation.
Our scoping study found that existing literature has several limitations regarding the investigation of collective improvisation in the context of crisis management. Our findings demonstrate that research on collective improvisation lacks detail, and appears to merely aggregate individual improvisation to a collective level. Furthermore, empirical methods do not provide the tools that are required to observe and measure it. In addition, the connection between improvisation and performance needs to be further explored, in order to understand how the capability to improvise affects collective performance in crisis management. Finally, we found that research focuses on positive outcomes, while negative outcomes are neglected, suggesting that we need a more balanced discussion.
There are several implications of our findings. We argue that research on collective improvisation that is based on existing definitions and methods risks solving the ‘wrong’ problem. Specifically, general or individual improvisation, rather than collective improvisation is measured. Moreover, there is a risk that (collective) improvisation may become a folk model. In this case, it is intuitively associated with positive outcomes and assumed to have the same meaning for everyone, despite the lack of precise definitions. In a similar vein, given the lack of evidence regarding the connection between improvisation and performance, using ‘successful improvisation’ as a causal explanation for positive performance may be misleading. Finally, we should not overlook the risk that commercial companies may become associated with a greater ability to improvise in crises, as several recent examples suggest, as this may downplay criticism of the privatization and liberalization of critical infrastructures.