Considering the spatio -temporal dynamics in crisis management infrastructures

1. Considering the spatio-temporal dynamics incrisis management infrastructures Laurence Créton-Cazanave & Valérie November Information Infrastructure for Disaster Risk Management Brussels – 26th of January 2017

2. The research program Euridice Applied research on crisis management, in collaboration with the SecrétariatGénéral de la Zone de Défense et de Sécurité de Paris (SGZDS – Prefecture de Police)(2015-2017) Interdisciplinary team, 10 projects, dir. Valérie November Cases study : Paris Attacks Nov. 2015, COP 21, EU Sequana (flood simulation), Paris flood spring 2016,Euro Foot 2016, and many « little events » Just released : « La gestion de criseàl’épreuve de l’exercice EU Sequana », Documentation Française(Dir. V. November and L. Créton-Cazanave)

3. Research project CRISORSEC • Study of Crisorsec, the digital application designed by the SGZDS to share information and improve coordination during crisis management in Paris Region • Practice-based approach • Study of the device and its uses, in 3 axes : • In principle : as it was imagined • In practice : as it takes shape in real actors' contexts • In situation : as it is mobilized and used during events • Through Crisorsec arise concrete issues, for situated and coordinated action during crisis in a metropolitan area

4. Crisorsec, a virtualcrisis room • Context of crisis management in metropolitan areas • Need for more horizontal coordination • between ++ public and private stakeholders • from different background and institutions • at larger scales + real-time • SGZDS’ problem • Crisis Room overcrowded • Need for field/back office connexion • Temporal cost for actors to come in = Crisorsec : a “virtual crisis room” to diminish the cost of new actors’ integration and foster information sharing and real-time coordination

5. Crisorsec Web application dev. by the SGZDS What : information, decisions, commands When : « real-time », only during “events” Who : private and public stakeholders Scale : up to Paris’ metropolitan area How : functional logins by SGZDS

6. Crisorsec, a counterproductive solution to the broadening of crisis management ? • Huge rise of the number of actors granted with access • > 500 logins ! • Vocabulary issues • Events log unreadable • Phenomenon are dynamic in space and time • Too many scales of information =>“Overcrowding” of Crisorsec • Solves a problem it contributes to reinforce • No turning back …

7. Crisorsec, a counterproductive solution to the broadening of crisis management ? • Operational trick : splitting “events” • Ex. Euro Foot 2016 : • 6 “events”, defined by their location, scale, and authority (stadiums, fan-zones, town,…) • Gather only relevant stakeholders • Active at different hours/days • Connected only by bridges and “push” = several space-times of action • “noise protection” and filtering : whose choices ?! • Toward a variable geometry crisis management

8. Crisorsec, a counterproductive solution to the broadening of crisis management ? • Practices/interviews : Crisorsec embodies (?) the tension between 2 logics of action • Vertical, hierarchical and command chain • Horizontal, collaborative, and “good will” chain • Ex. Simulation EU Sequana • More than 60 new logins, non-state organisations : nobody knows whose there… • Regalian actors partly step back and play “outside” • Concurrency between private sector actors : information retention….

10. Crisorsecwasdesigned on : • The assumption of unity/stability of : • The space-time characteristics of events • The group of stakeholders involved • But variable geometry of crisis and its management • Who defines the “geometry” of action ?? • Objective to foster collaborative practices • A good tool but poor politics and governance • Forgot (?) to address the real challenge : politics of action => how to articulate benefits of vertical and horizontal logics of action ?? => Real need for infrastructures but cannot neglect variable geometry of crisis, and governance issues