Organisational semiotics methods to assess organisational readiness for internal use of social media

The paper presents organisational semiotics (OS) as an approach for identifying organisational readiness factors for internal use of social media within information intensive organisations (IIO). The paper examines OS methods, such as organisational morphology, containment analysis and collateral analysis to reveal factors of readiness within an organisation. These models also help to identify the essential patterns of activities needed for social media use within an organisation, which can provide a basis for future analysis. The findings confirmed many of the factors, previously identified in literature, while also revealing new factors using OS methods. The factors for organisational readiness for internal use of social media include resources, organisational climate, processes, motivational readiness, benefit and organisational control factors. Organisational control factors revealed are security/privacy, policies, communication procedures, accountability and fallback.

The European Flood Alert System and the communication, perception, and use of ensemble predictions for operational flood risk management

Although ensemble prediction systems (EPS) are increasingly promoted as the scientific state-of-the-art for operational flood forecasting, the communication, perception, and use of the resulting alerts have received much less attention. Using a variety of qualitative research methods, including direct user feedback at training workshops, participant observation during site visits to 25 forecasting centres across Europe, and in-depth interviews with 69 forecasters, civil protection officials, and policy makers involved in operational flood risk management in 17 European countries, this article discusses the perception, communication, and use of European Flood Alert System (EFAS) alerts in operational flood management. In particular, this article describes how the design of EFAS alerts has evolved in response to user feedback and desires for a hydrographic-like way of visualizing EFAS outputs. It also documents a variety of forecaster perceptions about the value and skill of EFAS forecasts and the best way of using them to inform operational decision making. EFAS flood alerts were generally welcomed by flood forecasters as a sort of ‘pre-alert’ to spur greater internal vigilance. In most cases, however, they did not lead, by themselves, to further preparatory action or to earlier warnings to the public or emergency services. Their hesitancy to act in response to medium-term, probabilistic alerts highlights some wider institutional obstacles to the hopes in the research community that EPS will be readily embraced by operational forecasters and lead to immediate improvements in flood incident management. The EFAS experience offers lessons for other hydrological services seeking to implement EPS operationally for flood forecasting and warning. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Equipped to deal with uncertainty in climate and impacts predictions: lessons from internal peer review

The quantification of uncertainty is an increasingly popular topic, with clear importance for climate change policy. However, uncertainty assessments are open to a range of interpretations, each of which may lead to a different policy recommendation. In the EQUIP project researchers from the UK climate modelling, statistical modelling, and impacts communities worked together on ‘end-to-end’ uncertainty assessments of climate change and its impacts. Here, we use an experiment in peer review amongst project members to assess variation in the assessment of uncertainties between EQUIP researchers. We find overall agreement on key sources of uncertainty but a large variation in the assessment of the methods used for uncertainty assessment. Results show that communication aimed at specialists makes the methods used harder to assess. There is also evidence of individual bias, which is partially attributable to disciplinary backgrounds. However, varying views on the methods used to quantify uncertainty did not preclude consensus on the consequential results produced using those methods. Based on our analysis, we make recommendations for developing and presenting statements on climate and its impacts. These include the use of a common uncertainty reporting format in order to make assumptions clear; presentation of results in terms of processes and trade-offs rather than only numerical ranges; and reporting multiple assessments of uncertainty in order to elucidate a more complete picture of impacts and their uncertainties. This in turn implies research should be done by teams of people with a range of backgrounds and time for interaction and discussion, with fewer but more comprehensive outputs in which the range of opinions is recorded.