A district magistrate’s call on a disaster warning: paranoid or pragmatic?

Q4 Business, Management and Accounting
H. R. Varma, Ram Kumar Kakani
{"title":"A district magistrate’s call on a disaster warning: paranoid or pragmatic?","authors":"H. R. Varma, Ram Kumar Kakani","doi":"10.1108/tcj-11-2021-0201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nTheoretical basis\nThis case uses two key theoretical notions for discussion and analysis: Policy-trade off model by Deborah Stone is adapted to the context of decision-making during the cyclone warning [Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making. Third, New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2012.]. The critical success factors in disaster response- John R. Harrald’s five-stage framework is applied to analyse Case B. [Harrald, John R. “Agility and Discipline: Critical Success Factors for Disaster Response:” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 8 September 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205285404.].\n\n\nResearch methodology\nThis case is written with the information collected through interviews, over three months from March 2020, with Ms Ranjana Chopra (Indian Administrative Services), a senior civil servant working for the Government of Odisha, who was associated with the event in the case. Secondary sources, including newspaper reports and meteorological bulletins from the Indian Meteorological Department, is also made use of.\n\n\nCase overview/synopsis\nAnupama Gowda was the District Magistrate of Kalinga in the state of Odisha, in the Eastern coast of the Indian peninsula. In April 2019, when the meteorological department issued a cyclone warning, she had to take a call on how to go ahead. Her team did not seem too enthused as Kalinga was away from the coast and meteorological warnings were taken as routine. The case discusses Gowda’s dilemma on whether to push for full-fledged preparations or a limited preparation at least or leave it laissez-faire. She made the decision by 24th April and “what happened” serve as Case B.\n\n\nComplexity academic level\nThis case is intended to cover two key competencies: decision-making in ambiguity for public service professionals or bureaucrats and disaster response within a limited time period and resources. This case is useful for undergraduate-level foundational courses with decision-making under ambiguity as a component; in management, public policy and public administration disciplines. Executive training or short-term courses for early-career public service professionals (with no solid background in management/policy theory) on decision-making at the local administration level.\n","PeriodicalId":52298,"journal":{"name":"CASE Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CASE Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/tcj-11-2021-0201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Theoretical basis This case uses two key theoretical notions for discussion and analysis: Policy-trade off model by Deborah Stone is adapted to the context of decision-making during the cyclone warning [Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making. Third, New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2012.]. The critical success factors in disaster response- John R. Harrald’s five-stage framework is applied to analyse Case B. [Harrald, John R. “Agility and Discipline: Critical Success Factors for Disaster Response:” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 8 September 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205285404.]. Research methodology This case is written with the information collected through interviews, over three months from March 2020, with Ms Ranjana Chopra (Indian Administrative Services), a senior civil servant working for the Government of Odisha, who was associated with the event in the case. Secondary sources, including newspaper reports and meteorological bulletins from the Indian Meteorological Department, is also made use of. Case overview/synopsis Anupama Gowda was the District Magistrate of Kalinga in the state of Odisha, in the Eastern coast of the Indian peninsula. In April 2019, when the meteorological department issued a cyclone warning, she had to take a call on how to go ahead. Her team did not seem too enthused as Kalinga was away from the coast and meteorological warnings were taken as routine. The case discusses Gowda’s dilemma on whether to push for full-fledged preparations or a limited preparation at least or leave it laissez-faire. She made the decision by 24th April and “what happened” serve as Case B. Complexity academic level This case is intended to cover two key competencies: decision-making in ambiguity for public service professionals or bureaucrats and disaster response within a limited time period and resources. This case is useful for undergraduate-level foundational courses with decision-making under ambiguity as a component; in management, public policy and public administration disciplines. Executive training or short-term courses for early-career public service professionals (with no solid background in management/policy theory) on decision-making at the local administration level.
地方法官对灾难预警的呼吁:偏执还是务实?
本案例使用了两个关键的理论概念进行讨论和分析:Deborah Stone的政策权衡模型适用于飓风预警期间的决策背景[Stone, Deborah;政策悖论:政治决策的艺术。第三,纽约:W.W.诺顿出版社,2012。灾难应对的关键成功因素——John R. Harrald的五阶段框架应用于分析案例b [Harrald, John R.“敏捷性和纪律性:灾难应对的关键成功因素”,《美国政治与社会科学院年鉴》,2016年9月8日。[https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205285404].研究方法本案例是根据自2020年3月起三个多月对奥里萨邦政府工作的高级公务员Ranjana Chopra女士(印度行政服务处)的访谈收集的信息编写的,她与本案中的事件有关。二手资料,包括报纸报道和印度气象部门的气象公报,也被利用。anupama Gowda是印度半岛东海岸奥里萨邦卡林加的地方法官。2019年4月,当气象部门发布飓风警报时,她不得不接听如何继续前进的电话。她的团队似乎并不太热情,因为卡林加远离海岸,气象警报也被当作例行公事。该案件讨论了Gowda的两难选择,是推动全面准备,还是至少进行有限的准备,还是放任自流。她在4月24日之前做出了决定,“发生了什么”作为案例b。复杂性学术水平本案例旨在涵盖两个关键能力:公共服务专业人员或官僚在模棱两可的情况下做出决策,以及在有限的时间和资源内应对灾难。本案例适用于以模糊决策为组成部分的本科基础课程;在管理,公共政策和公共行政学科。为初入职的公共服务专业人员(没有扎实的管理/政策理论背景)提供有关地方行政一级决策的行政培训或短期课程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CASE Journal
CASE Journal Business, Management and Accounting-Business, Management and Accounting (all)
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信