Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 9, No. 3, September 2008

Earthquake Risk And Knowledge Management

Ravindra Deshmukh¹, Lewlyn L. R. Rodrigues¹, G. R. Krishnamurthy²
¹ Manipal Institute of Technology, India, ² Transformational Institute of Managerial Excellence, Mangalore, India

ABSTRACT:

Out of 644 recorded earthquake and tsunami related disasters in the world during the period (1973-2003) of thirty years, the Asian region experienced 356 events contributing to over 55% of the world disaster happenings. India, being a peninsular landmass and continuously drifting north easterly direction that is countered by Himalayan basalt formations, is under constant threat of an imminent major earthquake. This necessitates all round preparation in knowledge management that would result in preparedness to challenge any disaster and readiness to tackle the after effects of it.  India is one among the best in knowledge delivery system. Lately, some concrete steps have been taken to strengthen efforts in disaster management by establishing the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) – an apex body of the Government of India chaired by the Prime Minister.  It mandates to take measures for prevention of disaster, or the mitigation, or preparedness and capacity building. One of the capacity building measures, according to the recently formulated Disaster Management Act is to identify existing resources and resources to be acquired or created.  Appropriate knowledge and information repository is an important resource to be accessed, when required. This paper captures the overview of disaster and its management, elaborating earthquake risk as a critical area, getting into the basics of knowledge management and how this can be effectively applied to lessening the adverse effects of the earthquake on people.  It ends with suggestions and recommendations that will help at various levels of governance and field operations in reducing the impact of a major disaster like earthquake on people and properly.

.Key words: Earthquake risk, Disaster, Knowledge management, Global networks.

Introduction

“The most precious knowledge can neither be taught nor passed on” - (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; pp.9)

Systematic recording of knowledge concerning human safety is found way back in 2000 B.C. during the rule of King Hamurabi in Babylon (Remmer, 1980, pp.3). Considering failure of human made buildings being the fundamental cause for tragedy, he explicitly proclaimed that whatever injury, disability, invalidity or death was inflicted upon the building occupant, the punishment in the same order would be awarded to the concerned builder.  The rule thus automatically alerted professionals who just could not ignore quality of construction that would make the occupants safe from unfortunate events of building failure.  Today, we have building codes, regulations and byelaws, however “the enforcement mechanism leaves a lot to be desired” (MHA, 2004, pp.3). Such lapses intervene futuristic ideas of establishing Knowledge Management (KM) networks for dealing with disasters.

Profiling Disaster

Disaster, in a quantified definition, is that unfortunate event in which reports of at least 10 persons have died or 100 people affected; a declaration of a state of emergency by the relevant government or the request by the national government for international assistance (ISDR, 2006).  It is an event “which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to, and destruction of property and environment” (The Gazette of India 2005, pp.2). Advancement, transfer and sharing of knowledge are basic tenets for disaster risk management. “Knowledge management and education can help communities in hazard-prone areas to gain a better grasp of the ways to cope with risks” (Rouhban, 2007, pp.142).

There are around 30 identified natural disasters world wide.  The most important disasters in India are floods, cyclones, earthquakes, landslides and, drought & famine. Disaster management is an integrated process of planning, organizing, coordinating and implementing measures that are needed for effectively dealing with its impact on people. This includes prevention, mitigation, capacity building, preparedness, response, assessment, rescue and rehabilitation. According to Gillespie & Perry (1984, pp.42) “Disaster Management (DM) deals with reducing negative consequences from a particular disaster event”. The DM is a twin fork approach consisting of pre-disaster (mitigation) and post-disaster (response) focus with their substantive components (Fig. 1) that are important in knowledge management. Each of these is a vast domain to be soundly structured through a well placed KM system. However, having a good KM system is not enough. It needs to be backed by efficient upkeep and care. Maintaining knowledge is more difficult than creating knowledge (Hamza, 2008). Earthquake is a geological phenomenon resulting in a sudden onset putting at risk life and property mainly due to human intervening activities.  It cannot be predicted in advance, although a number of attempts have been made, some with near success, but none with absolute method of accurate prediction.  Hence a method of collecting, sieving, storing and using appropriate knowledge and updating it from time to time is mandatory for the benefit of society at large and for researchers as a stepping stone to foray into newer areas of inquiry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Identifying Earthquake Risk

Earthquake risk is a potential seismic threat to people and their belongings and is inversely proportional to their capacity to resist it. Referring to societal learning about risk May (1994) opines that the more that is known, the less reason there is to fear the worrisome object and the weaker the rationale for preventive measures. Knowledge and its appropriate dissemination resulting in increased safety to life is the present day need. Earthquake Risk Management (EQRM) is a process of DM measures that are expedient for prevention of danger or threat of an earthquake; mitigation or reduction of risk of an earthquake or its severity or consequences. It also includes capacity building, preparedness in dealing with disaster, prompt response to a threatening situation arising out of it and assessing the severity or magnitude of the effects of such a disaster. Further, it comprises evacuation, rescue, relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction. India’s population of over one billion at the turn of the century in the year 2001 is expected to double by the year 2050 with an effective population growth rate of 1.61% per year. This increases the earthquake risk manifold.  Moreover, crowding the urban areas with increase in population density to one of the highest in the world at 237 people per sq. km makes the situation worse.  People in densely populated areas simply do not have any alternative, but to live on risky low lying pockets of land and in the floodplains of river.  It is therefore necessary to keep the state of preparedness active and alert all the time.  Gillespie and Banerjee (1993, pp.242) suggest “the 5-stage spirals upward with increasingly more refined levels of avenues, assessment, knowledge, preparedness and practice”. The knowledge being keystone, assumes central position in the increasing spiral. In fact according to Srivastava et al (2007) disaster-risk reduction begins with information and its appropriate dissemination.

The Pre-disaster Earthquake Risk Management (EQRM) measures are given in Fig. 2. These include:

¨      Preparedness: A state of readiness that requires consistent work in drawing long- and short-term strategy.

¨      Human Measures: Include empowering individuals and community through training and capacity building.

¨      Non-structural measures: is a matter of preventive strategy related to arrangement of furniture, its design and building add-ons as potential threat to occupants in case of a disaster.

¨      Risk Analysis: is related to the hazard, vulnerability and risk assessment.

¨      Structural Measures: are about the way buildings and spaces around them are designed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The post-disaster EQRM measures (Fig. 3) include:

¨      Efficacy: is effectiveness in all aspects of response to disaster.

¨      Human Resource Response: relates to reaction of people – instantaneous and planned related to search & rescue and humanitarian assistance.

¨      Planning: refers to a pre-determined arrangement activated or put to test immediately following a disaster and, how the response-tasks are allotted and scheduled.

¨      Risk Factor: Is embedded in every aspect of post-EQRM action.

¨      Built Environment: Is about buildings, their placement, the quality of community living, environment, and socio-cultural aspects. Prudence and quality design acumen are required to handle this aspect, taking care of its substantive dimensions and effectively rehabilitating those affected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Knowledge Management (KM) Concept

Knowledge is “the fact or condition of knowing something with a considerable degree of familiarity through experience, association or contact” (MHA, 2006, pp.1).  Knowledge Management (KM) is a process by which knowledge is created, shared and utilized.

There are three categories of knowledge – explicit, tacit and implicit.  Explicit knowledge is formal knowledge that can be accessed by anyone, for example, books, pictures, recording clips, etc.  This also is termed as codified knowledge.  Tacit knowledge is passed on from an expert or guru to a knowledge seeker through personal explanation, gestures and giving imaginative examples.  At different times to the same or different students, the ingredients of knowledge transfer process vary with the same knowledge being transferred.  The tacit knowledge is lost with the person who possesses it. There is a continuous effort of converting tacit into explicit knowledge. This is through video-graphic output, audio recording of voice, and style and quality of speech delivery or documentation. Implicit knowledge is that body of knowledge which exists without being stated. It is informal and experiential, thus cannot be shared.  It is to be individually experienced.  It cannot be expressed.  It remains within mind or in social relationships.  A person may intuitively reach out to another person in distress for help.  But he may not be able to step-by-step explain, how he did it and what prompted him to act that way. In the same situation, it could as well be another person to come forward for help, but the explanation and intention may be different.  KM is not just capturing knowledge and storing it in a database with a hope to use it at an appropriate future occasion. KM is all about getting the right knowledge, in the right place, at the right time (MHA, 2006).

KM Frameworks

As per the library, internet and research document searches, “there are more than ten frame works for the KM” (Rodrigues, 2005, pp.85). They depict various KM phenomena. Typically most of these models are related to processes or systems, aspects related to people or human resource development and management, or information technology, digital media and technological advances. Following are some of the KM models:

¨      Vander spek and spijkervet Mode (1997): It is a four stage model of KM.  It considers KM as a problem-solving tool and is divided into four steps, viz., conceptualize, reflect, act and retrospect.  This model fits well with various issues in disaster management.

¨      Dr. Kai-Hin Chai Model (1998): This model consists of five stages in a knowledge cycle emphasizing on creation, capturing, stirring, dissemination and obsolescence.  It is an on-going cycle, having continuous creation of and continuous outmoding of knowledge.  DM and EQRM can be enriched with new and innovating ideas and can delete outmoded concepts that are no longer valid and useful.

¨      Arthur and Anderson Model (2001):  It stresses KM as a process divided into seven steps.  It consists of identification, collection, adaptation, organization, application, sharing and creation.   This is achieved through effective leadership, unique culture, appropriate technology and a system of measurement.

¨      Wiig’s mode (1993): It is called the ‘three management pillars’, consisting of creation, manifestation and, use & transfer.  Knowledge creation process starts with survey and categorization, knowledge analysis, codification and finally knowledge organization.  There needs to be a system that integrates formulation, codification, and implementation, and follow up of regulatory mechanism on the one hand and creation, verification, distribution, stacking and updating of knowledge in the Earthquake Risk Management (EQRM) on the other for its beneficial effect on people and property.
 
Finally, Bryant’s model (Fig. 4) refers to people, process and technology being central to the knowledge management concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure - 4   : Knowledge Framework Conceptual Model (Bryant, 2007)

KM Application in Earthquake Risk Management

India has lately been ready with amazing information collection and storage. The websites of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM) provide plentiful of information, in addition to many other NGO sites, e.g., the All India Disaster Mitigation Institute at Ahmedabad and the Oxfam International.  It is imperative to strengthen this effort further and place in a system that will access, use, reuse and disseminate/transfer the information to appropriate people and places. However, it must be taken seriously at all levels of decision making and operations. “…irrespective of warnings of imminent threats, countries have not been prepared and ready to exhibit effective and efficient crisis management” (Wickramasinghe et al, 2006, pp. 5149). Here the role of leaders and elected government representatives becomes crucial and responsive. To build human capital in organizations, leaders must continually develop superior knowledge, skills and experience within the workforce by identifying, recruiting, and selecting the best and brightest talent for work (McFarlane, 2008).  After the Bhuj earthquake of 2001, the Government of India effected policy change and taken measures to strengthen the disaster management nation-wide drive. The Indian approach to knowledge in suggesting effective communication networks has been worked out (Fig. 5). This is to reinforce better response, empowerment of various government sections dealing with the DM, integration of the network advantage into mainstream development, effective monitoring of various initiatives related to disaster and/or development and promoting rational practices among disaster management community. Public awareness and capacity building are two founding aspects of lessening the effects of a disaster. With this in mind, it is required for the KM managers to act as knowledge brokers, contributing to the diffusion of knowledge across and between communities (Irick, 2007).
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 5: Knowledge Communication Networks in Disaster Management

The role of KM is important in making an organization effective by superior thinking process. To achieve this adopting certain tactics becomes imperative. It starts with spontaneous assessment of the information handling mechanism in place what Gillingham and Roberts (2006) call a ‘snap shot’ of the environment, processes and technology in a position to deal with the future risks. In some organizations there could be apprehension of knowledge. Hence, it is important to integrate this apprehension with knowledge utilization for making organizations more effective in their working. KM is also viewed as a knowledge sharing effort. Instead of a dictatorial set up, where orders are given to be followed, should ideally change to a situation where knowledge is welcomed, cherished, respected and used irrespective of where from it flows. “…although knowledge sharing makes more knowledge available to more people, the mere availability of information is not sufficient” (Basadur and Gelade, 2006, pp.46).The available knowledge needs to be used innovatively for societal benefit. KM is effective in increasing organizational learning. Hence effectiveness, maintenance, sharing, using, reusing and updating to return back to the effectiveness is a continuous cycle. With successive iterations the KM application improves. It is of importance to make a habit of using knowledge creatively. “In a crisis, having the necessary knowledge is important; not knowing how to use it innovatively can render it useless” (Basadur and Gelade, 2006, pp.47).

Conclusion

The application of KM in disaster management in general and in managing earthquake risk in particular cannot be underestimated. To make it effective the following suggestions can be considered:

¨      Various organizational systems should be integrated and effectively manned to achieve instant reach of information. For this, a specific policy should be ready for effective defense against an imminent disaster risk. Haggie (2003) had proposed a framework of scanning, problem-solving, abstraction, diffusion, absorption and impacting as a KM potential policy.

¨      Technological requirement in replacing inadequate and outdated equipment and system with the latest ones should have priority.

¨      For use of latest technology, personnel should be trained, retrained and if necessary new, effective and efficient ones recruited and retained. It is also critical to internalize effective habits that encompass knowledge, skills and desire (Covey, 1994) and are valuable to inculcate appropriate patterns of behavior.

¨      Collaboration and coordination within and with related organizations should be made effective and useful. The performance system based on Focus, Capability and Will proposed by Smith and Sharma (2002) for achieving high performance, is worth emulating.

¨      Finally, as Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have recommended there needs to be a switch to a hyper text organization and construction of a knowledge network with the outside world. The Indian Disaster Resource network (IDRN, 2007) refers its web-resource as a powerful tool for effective emergency response; however, the present site structure is far from what is needed.

To sum-up, it is necessary to have in place an agile and transparent system that is reliable, having improved security and aiming at focused and cost effective responses. Referring to climate change and multiple crisis situation on the Earth that would lead to catastrophes, Mr. Al Gore, Vice President of the United States of America alerts not to be in a dream world thinking that “the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; that Providence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves” (Gore, 2007).. We need to gear up ourselves to counter the negative consequences of major earthquake events with effective and robust KM system.

References:

Arthur Anderson, New York: Free Press. In Rao, T.V., Rao, R., and Yadav, T. (2001). A study of HRD Concepts, Structure and HRD Departments and HRD Practices in India, Vikalpa The Journal for Decision Makers, Vol. 26, No. 1, IIM-Ahmedabad.

Arya, A. (2005), ‘Risk and Vulnerability Profile for Earthquakes and Landslide Hazards’ in   NIDM-IHC (2005), Meeting Nature’s Upheavals: A Holistic look at Disaster Mitigation, India Habitat Center, New Delhi, pp. 33-49.

Basadur, M. and Gelade, G. (2006), “The Role of Knowledge Management in the Innovation Process”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol.15, No.1, pp. 45-61.

Bryant, J. (2007), “Knowledge Management: Where the State is going…” at: http://askus.intelliresponse.com/edu/community/KM-Briefing.pdf

Chai, K., H. (1998). Managing knowledge in organizations: A literature review and a preliminary conceptual model - Working paper series, Manufacturing and Management Center, Engineering Department, Cambridge University.

Covey, S. (1994), The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Simon & Schuster, London.

Gillespie, D. and Banerjee, M. (1993), “Prevention Planning and Disaster Preparedness”, The Journal of Applied Social Sciences, Vol.17, No.2, Spring/Summer, pp.237-53.

Gillespie, D. and Perry, R. (1984), “Administrative Principles in Emergency Planning”, The Environmental Professional, Vol. 6, pp. 41-45.

Gillingham, H. and Roberts, B. (2006), “Implementing Knowledge Management: A Practical Approach”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 7, No. 1, March.

Gore, Al (2007), Nobel Lecture at: http://nobelprize.org/nobel/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html

Haggie, K. and Kingston, J. (2003), Choosing Your Knowledge Managing Strategy, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, June.

Hamza, S. (2008), “Competitive Advantage Via A Culture Of Knowledge Management: Transferring Tacit Knowledge Into Explicit”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 9, No. 2, June.

IDRN (2007), India Disaster Resource Network at: http://www.idrn.gov.in

Irick, M. (2007), “Managing Tacit Knowledge In Organizations”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 8, No. 3, Sept.

ISDR (2006), International Strategy for Disaster Reduction at: http://www.unisdr.org/disaster-statistics/introduction.htm

May, P. (1994), “Review Essay: A Dialogue about Risk”, Journal Of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol.2, No.3, pp.174-178.

McFarlane, D. (2008), “Effectively Managing The 21st Century Knowledge Worker”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 9, No. 2, June.

MHA (2004), National Program for Capacity Building of Engineers in Earthquake Risk Management, National Disaster Management Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

MHA (2006), Knowledge Management in Disaster Risk Reduction, National Disaster Management Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, pp.1-8.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, London.

Remmer, N. (1980), ‘The Regulatory Environment’, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol.33, No.4 Disaster: summer, pp.3-5.

Rodgrigues, R. (2005), “Dynamics of Knowledge & Human Resource Management in Engineering Education: An Empirical Study” – Doctoral Thesis, Manipal University, Manipal.

Rouhban, B.  (2007), “Knowledge Management and Education for Disaster Reduction” at: http://www.environmenttimes.net/article.cfm?pageID=142

Smith, P and Sharma, M. (2002), “A Performance-Based Approach to Knowledge Management, Part 1: The New Science Platform” Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 9, No. 2, March.

Srivastava, S., Hegde, V. and Jayaraman, V. (2007), “Integrating Technological Interventions and a Community-Centric Approach for Disaster-Risk Reduction”, Disaster & Development, Vol1, No.2, May, pp.111-118.

The Gazette of India (2005), The Disaster Management Act, 2005, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi.

Van Der Spek, R, & Spijkervet, A., (1997). Knowledge Management: Dealing Intelligently with Knowledge: Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Elements, Liebowitz, J. & Wilcox, CRC Press, New York, pp. 31-59.

Wickramasinghe, Ni, Bali, R. and Naguib, R. (2006), “Application of Knowledge Management and the Intelligence Continuum for Medical Emergencies and Disaster Scenarios”, Proceedings of the 28th IEEE EMBS Annual International Conference, New York City, Aug.30-Sept.3, pp.5149-5152.

Wiig, K. M., (1993). Roles of Knowledge-Based Systems in Support of Knowledge Management, Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Elements, Liebowitz, J. & WIICOX, L. C., CRC Press, New York, pp. 69-87.

Meet the Authors

Ravindra Deshmukh is professor of architecture and coordinator of the National Program for Capacity Building of Architects in Earthquake Risk Management (Government of India). He has published 35 papers and taught in Nigeria, Chile and USA; Tel:. +91 820 2571330; Cell:. +91 9480231110; Email: deshmukhr@hotmail.com

Dr. Lewlyn L. R. Rodrigues is a Professor of Mechanical  and Manufacturing Engineering in the  Department of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering at Manipal Institute of Technology. He has accrued 24 years of teaching experience and has over 70 publications in Conferences and Journals and is guiding seven Ph. Ds. in the areas of KM, System Dynamics, Risk Management, Manufacturing and Educational Research.  He may be contacted at:  Tel: +91-0820-2571061-70 Ext. 24042; Cell: +919900710677; Email: rodrigusr@gmail.com

Dr. G. R. Krishnamurthy is distinguished professor of business management and director of Transformational Institute of Managerial Excellence; He has 150 research publications to his credit; Tel: +91 824 2455340; 2455710; Email: timemba@rediffmail.com